theRepublic said:
I editted on you. Sorry. |
The edit actually doesn't change my point really. I don't argue against the idea that your experiences shape your biases...that is a given. My contention is that selecting people for those biases as a way to "counteract" (or "balance" if you want to flower it up) other biases is insane because the members will inevitably change leaving the court biased.
By selecting the least biased people the majority will anchor the bias and prevent it from corrupting. And like I said nullifying existing bias by adding bias is nullifying the nine justice dynamic and basically making it a 7 justice dynamic...and then a 5 and then 3...and eventually nullified to just 1...and whichever bias occupies the 1 odd seat basically runs the court. It's an absolutely shortsighted way to handle things.
Least bias, most impartial means that you have a stable court where one or two justices allowing bias to get the better of them has no impact.
In short the "counteractive" or "balance" bias approach produces a highly unstable court...the most impartial approach produces a stable court. The only question once you realize that is whether you want stability in the rule of law...kind of an easy question for me.








