I believe Josh brought up a very vital point today within our discussion. He mentioned the difference, or lack thereof, from acknowledging a point and denying it. We compared it to the debates between Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and Senator Jeff Sessions. How Sotomayor acknowledge and denied her Latino background as a bias towards her judgments. We posed the declaration that acknowledging and denying are kind of the same thing in regards to agreement. Do no not quote me on this, but by acknowledging bias of any kind in turn represents that you condone the act. Even acknowledging the denial as well constitutes you as condoning this act of partiality. We as a class could not come up with a steady answer to this question of whether or not this true, but I do have a question to pose to the readers.
With the recent light of harmonization between Sotomayor and the Republican Senate after Thursday morning’s questioning, do you believe that our government overlooked the potential preconceptions Sotomayor’s Latino background could provide? Jeff Sessions has made it clear that it may be present whether a denial is there or not. What does this say about law and the way our judgments will be carried out? I personally do not have a specific side on this issue, but I do concur with the idea of acknowledging a point does infer you are condoning the point. If this doesn’t make sense I apologize. I just want to know everyone’s view on this current event at hand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that if you acknowledge certain biases that you are necessarily condoning them, you are just aware that they are a possibility. I think that someone who acknowledges that there are biases is the type of person who takes steps to avoid them in their decision making process. However if someone denies that biases even exist then they are deceiving themselves. I think our best way of judging the law is being aware of the issues without succumbing to them.
ReplyDelete