There are all sorts of codes and mechanisms for getting around talking about judicial decisions as anything other than neutral application of law to facts. Sometimes the lower court’s application of law is wrong and therefore a decision must be overturned. But very rarely will the system, i.e. reviewing courts, say the judge is personally to blame, i.e. cherry picking facts or cherry picking law in order to advance a particular judicial or social philosophy or personal point of view about, say, the frequency of employment discrimination or rape.

Those discussions about judicial bias b/c of race, gender, etc., are mostly popular culture discussions. Those types of discussions do happen in the context of complaints to judicial tenure commissions and the like. But they are pretty rare and it takes a LOT for the judicial system to go after one of their own. Think of it like the AMA and doctors.

Except, of course, for female, homosexual, or PoC Activist Judges (TM) who let their personal biases sway their rulings in ways that straight, white, male judges never would!!

Interesting. There’s been some work about objectivity in legal theory, it seems most people are agreed that objectivity is not possible and everybody judges everything from their own standpoint. Of course, this only applies to jurors (and there’s some interesting case law on jury picking) and not Judges who, of course, deliver objective edicts from the heights of Mt. Olympus, free of the petty concerns of mere mortals.

Re: cynicism, “No matter how cynical you become, you just can’t keep up.”
– Lily Tomlin

Haha, of course, the most politically and ideologically compromised position to take is that of asserting that one is not politically or ideologically motivated.

There’s a new book out called “Objectivity” that I’m anxious to read (there’s a great review of it in the current issue of October). It examines the changes in and the development of the concept of “objectivity” through looking at the changes in approaches to scientific illustration over the years. It seems that the work examines and dismisses the idea that absolute and pure objectivity is possible, even in the sciences. I’m looking forward to reading it.

The advantage of the internet for Mr. Black is that he doesn’t have to struggle to maintain that Gomer Pyle look on his face while he types. On the internet, nobody can hear you snigger.