Monday, May 01, 2006

Is he Biased?

I was under the impression that judges were expected to interpret the law objectively, without concern for their own biases. This type of thing is argued against Catholic politicians all the time with reguard to public policy. Well it thats true, then how did this happen:

One year after the death of Terri Schiavo, the judge who ordered her feeding tube removed spoke at a right-to-die symposium; something Schiavo’s family calls a disturbing conflict of interests...


What do you think of this? What do you think most americans think about this? What would america think if a judge ruled to keep slavery legal, and then spoke at a pro-slavery conference? Or a judge ruled against abortion, then spoke at a Pro-Life event? Or against immigrants, then spoke at an anti-immigration symposium?

Just some questions. Of course since I wrote a paper on Terri and a letter to the editor on Euthanasia, it should be obvious what I think, but I'm interested in what anyone else thinks. Is this judge inconsistent?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You say he spoke after he heard the case. Might it be that the case had such an effect on him that these feeling are new and so strong that he must speak out about them.

I might be uncomfortable if he were to have heard the case after having made such public statements.. or if he were to hear a similar case in the future. But then again, I might not. Even if he did have these feelings while hearing the Schiavo case that doesn't mean he wasn't able to set them aside and interpret the law objectively. I don't think having a personal opinion means that you can't see both sides of an issue and make a fair ruling. It would take a strong person to do so but I like to think a weak person wouldn't be in his position.

I just surfed by (love the next blog button) and your comments on this make me more curious about you than the judge. It almost sounds like you have already judged the man and his actions and found him guilty. Maybe I'm reading too much into your words.

I guess it is just something more to think about.

Seminarian said...

anonymous...

Thanks for commenting. I also like the next blog button.

I agree with you that he may have been, "moved" by the case to "speak out," and so judging his original decision based on this is probably not correct.

In this case, though, for the sake of Terri's family, I feel it would have been more prudent for the judge to just remain silent afterward.

I have not judged the man, but you are right to say that I have judged his actions. I think he's wrong.

Thats fine that you are "curious" about me. There isn't a whole lot you can learn about somebody from their blog. Feel free to come back, and in the meantime, enjoy the "next blog button."

Anonymous said...

"for the sake of Terri's family, I feel it would have been more prudent for the judge to just remain silent afterward."

On this point I agree completely. I'm old enough to remember a time when most people considered the feelings of others before opening their mouths to speak. That alone gives true meaning to the phrase "the good old days".

Back to my button... :)

Seminarian said...

Yes, it seems charity is often on the decline these days. I'm not that old, but remember growing up in a much different world. Its amazing how different the little things are.

Enjoy the button. Let me know if you find anything good.

Anonymous said...

Looks nice! Awesome content. Good job guys.
»