Posted by:
Anne-Marie Hislop on
June 1, 2009 at
7:13AM CST
Much is being made about President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. In nominating her, the President referred to her life experience and to her capacity for empathy.
The outcry is from those who claim that good judges are "objective." These same folks also often support the idea that the Supreme Court should interpret the constitution according the the intentions and meanings of the writers.
All human beings, including judges and justices, read and hear everything through their life experience, learnings, and various frames of reference that are part of who they are. Frames of reference include everything from gender, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status in upbringing, religious faith etc. We all have a world view. To imply that anyone can set all of that aside and simply be objective, whether we are speaking of interpreting the Constitution or the Bible or something else, is simply myth.
In their wisdom, the authors of the Constitution wrote that fine document in broad sweeping phrases. The right to bear arms can and does mean many things. To some it narrowly is linked, as it is in the constitution, to a organized "militia." To others it means the individual may own as many guns as he/she wishs any time. Every justice, whether he/she admits it or not, brings life experience, beliefs etc, to how the document is read.
A second question about the Supreme Court and the Constitution is whether it makes sense to even try to interpret it according to what the authors meant (original meaning). The authors were 18th century (1700s) men, who were pre-industral humans. They could not even conceive of the world in which we live. When they put in a right to bear arms, 'arms' meant a rifle that had to be loaded by putting in gun powder and a little led ball - automatic weapons, assault rifles etc, were inconceivable. How could they have meant that the individual should have the right to own a weapon that can fire dozens of rounds rapidly? They could not understand a world with radio, much less TV, computers, autos, air planes, much less rockets. Women's rights were to cook over a fire, have babies, and not bother their pretty little heads about anything except home and hearth (the only things they deemed capable of understanding).
In the Declaration if Independence, some of those same men, when they wrote "all men are created equal," mean all white, land-owning males - period.
In short, every justice uses subjective measures to reach conclusions on cases aruged before the Supreme Court. The scary ones are the ones who are blind to this very human fact in their own rulings.
Excellent observations. We can get an idea of where she stands on issues by looking at her past rulings. We know where Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts stand on many issues. Their voting in favor of the individual rights' interpretation of the Second Amendment was no surprise.
Look for a new book soon to come out on gun control. "Lethal Logic." Title fits the situation. Logic in the service of frame of reference. I'll never figure it out. But I have other "passions" so can understand the thinking. We are a nation of boy-men.
I see where you are coming from on the Second Amendment. I rarely watch Lou Dobbs, but tonight I had him on, and he discussed the controversy going on over Sotomayor's appointment. Dershowitz pointed out that she's a centrist, picked by Obama because he's a centrist, but the guest taking the opposite side claimed Obama's on the far left Can you believe it? Amazing. The President's AG mentions the need to do something about an assault weapons' ban, and Obama's spokesperson says the President is looking at alternatives that work with "laws already on the books." Right out of their lexicon, "play book," whatever, and they call him far left.
The founding fathers did not need to have the ability to prophesize modern armaments to understand that in order to protect the home and the nation a good militia begins when homeowners have the same ability to arms themselves as the bad guys and the government. Modern armaments are no more a boogeyman than when gun powder muskets and dynamite replaced crossbows, swords and knives or when repeating rifles and revolvers made one shot muskets arms antiques and left civilians prey to those that could procure the better arms. They understood that civilians needed the same protection offered anyone that would take their freedoms away - including governments like they the one they fought for independence from.
What makes a woman who graduated from Princeton and Yale Law a "ditz" in your mind, RCR? I understand a 'ditz' to be someone who is clueless, silly, mindless. Is that your understanding of the word or are you meaning something eles?
If you disagree with her thinking, fine, but why name call?
So do you feel the constitution should be rewritten to mirror how the world is now?
If we don't want our Supreme Court to try and interpret the constitution according the intentions and meanings of the writers then why have it?
The big uproar on the Gitmo and torture debate is due to Bush/Cheney not upholding our constitution and other things. If we don't expect our judges to be objective then why have any of our leaders also be?
The logic these frames of reference produce goes something like: Abstinence works. You have one child and you learn your lesson. And on the insanity with guns, you have an occasional loss of civilian life but collateral loss is part of every engagement. Protection of the Second Amendment DOES require "warfare" according to LaPierre. Remember the blowing up of bridges mailing that preceded - did not cause, I'm not saying caused - the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City? Maintaining one's frame of reference requires dealing with cognitive dissonance. Sometimes you are faced with the Truth, and you have to be easily convinced of reason in specious thinking. I apologize for the sarcasm. Its' not Anne Marie's way.
Abortion is not a "good thing." We've been through an experience where some people would have considered one. But to say that it is an evil that is bringing the wrath of God down on the US ignores so many national sins. When I mentioned to my Christian friend that we had helped precipitate revolutions with loss of innocent life in Iran, Guatemala, and Mexico, he pooh-poohed those incidents as "self preservation." God has lots of reasons to withhold His blessings from the US. Why do people focus on the one reason as the be-all and end-all. My theory is that it enables them to justify being judmental and feeling morally superior to fellow citizens, and it's simple. Life, politics, the world, these are complex, and who wants to bump his head up against mysteries?
"Self-preservation" is the principle behind a lot of our decisions: the decision to arm yourself against intrusion or loss of liberty, even though the costs to society at-large are tremendous and money spent for gun injury, millions, is money not available for medical research, for example. The decision to abort a pregnancy too is based on self-preservation. Frames of reference are all about self-preservation. We like to think of ourselves in the best possible light, and sometimes we are required to deceive ourselves with a distorted worldview. By putting others down we elevate ourselves.
And when I say "some people" in connection with abortion, I don't mean that to put down those who have been confronted with a situation that made abortion their choice.
Ann Marie - Am I confusing concepts with frame of reference? Frame of reference surely is tied in with self-concept, and both will influence perception, but frame of reference is primarily a concept used to explain differences in perception.
I think this joke explains the idea: I'll omit the specifics to keep the post "clean." A man is in for pyschological evaluation subsequent to arrest for indecency. After the MMPI the psychiatrist gets out the ink blots and every card reminds the detainee of something to do with female anatomy. The doctor tells the fellow that he is a sexual deviant to which diagnosis the fellow replies: "I don't know, doc. You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"
The only difference btw Sotomayor and my mother is that she is Latina and went to Yale. My mom is white and went to a state school, and then law school that offered night classes so that she could raise me.
We may not like Affirmative Action, but sometimes it's necessary to break through the old boys club. My mom was appointed to her judicial bench at a time when women were just breaking that glass ceiling. She is more empathetic to women, minorities, and to the poor because she has lived the same life.
On the other hand, my husband would make a terrible judge. He sees things only in black and white (which makes him an excellent accountant), but he has no ability to put himself in another person's shoes, or see the world through their eyes. I wouldn't want him interpreting the Constitution. Now the Tax Code is a different story.
When people would come before my mom with DUI's and showed that they had taken the class, did their community service, but didn't have the money to pay the fine...she didn't put them in jail. She could have, but they did what they could do within their means....and putting them in jail meant they couldn't work to pay their fine. Those who didn't show any remorse, or attempt to complete their class or service she threw the book at.
Ruether - I do not equate 'frame of reference' with self-preservation. By frame-of-reference I mean an overall world view that we have drawing upon the sum total of who we are - including nationality, ethnicity, religion or lack there of, education, perspectives of those who influenced us (which we may have accepted, rejected, or modified for ourselves, but they still contribute to our world view.
Ann-Marie - No, no, you misunderstand. I'm not equating frame of reference with self preservation, just saying that self-preservation is a guiding prinicple that might be behind decisions based on perceptions that are influenced by frame of reference. Let me think a bit for an example from life.
So self preservation doesn't mean just defending oneself from threats to life but defending one's self-concept, one's Self, from threats. Thus our perceptions tend to support our frame of reference, and if they don't, if information contradicts the frame of reference, cognitive dissonance motivates us to fit the information into our frame of reference by mechanisms of defense like rationalization. The guy who interpreted all the ink blots as sexual events blames the doc for showing him dirty pictures. Best I can do by way of explanation.
"Self preservation" isn't used in the way I've used it. It refers to defense of the person from physical harm. So I've misused the term but you understand what I mean I hope, though perhaps I'm nitpicking? Perhaps rather than saying "frames of reference are all about self-preservation" I should have said "frames of reference defend the self concept." I don't know, but I do understand what YOU are saying and agree whole-heartedly with your blog.
I suspect that the concepts could be diagrammed in much the same way Freud's ego, id, and superego are diagrammed using overlapping circles or the Self is diagrammed by Berne to show interplay between parent and child. Do you have a psychiatrist in the congregation? Can you decipher my problems understanding to explain your understanding? Perhaps you don't have the time. However I would appreciate clarification.
MarisMom - On affirmative action I'm thinking of the minority firefighters who were given jobs even though white firefighters scored higher on a written test. When I was in the Navy I went to a one-week firefighting school in Newport, Rhode Island. Somehow a hose got loose under high pressure and was whipping around like an angry monster. The brass nozzle was heavy enough to kill someone, also heavy enough to limit the action caused by the pressure. But the man who responded while others stood back was African-American. He leapt on the hose and secured the nozzle. I was in awe of him. A written test doesn't always indicate qualification.
I don't know much about the firefighter case, only what I've caught in the paper...
I think in that case they didn't have enough minorities pass it so they threw out all the test scores..of even the white guys who did pass it?
There is so much inequality that goes on in the world and I do know they can use a standardized test to level the playing field. Not everyone is raised in the same environments or has the same gene pool to draw from. If they want more of one type of ethnicity to qualify they change the criteria.
I do know that written exams are not an equal playing field...just as physical tests aren't.
It's hard to say what is fair....my husband starved himself and worked out twice a day to get down to the 17% body fat to qualify for the FBI fitness standards. Is that fair? He's a bright guy...can't help that he has fat genetics. He had no problem with the written exams...but the physical was tough. Would they have passed him if he had been a minority being 19%...maybe? If they felt they needed more agents of color.
I think the Hartford case is a tough one. The white men studied hard for the test, passed, and feel, not unreasonably that they earned the promotions. I think they did - but the question with things like written tests is whether they have cultural bias - that is harder to determine... My guess is that the Supremes will reverse the decision and say the test results must be respected.
I guess, Ruther, that in some way one could equate frame of reference with self because it is one's outlook on life/world/self - but I am not sure that I think that self-preservation is part of what I mean...
The crux of the Ricci case is that the city refused to certify the test results because they feared that if they allowed the test results so stand they would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Being in violation of that as an entity that receives government money could result in that money being stopped.
The one thing people need to get past is looking at this as a white v. minority thing. If the testers that scored high enough for promotion had all been black or Hispanic with no whites scoring high enough, the city would've done the same thing. The same possible outcome, violation of Title VII, would've been possible.
Anne-Marie - You really got me trying to sort the concepts out. Perhaps frame of reference is more fluid than Self or personality so that one can add in state of mind at any particular situation that calls on perception.
I didn't know the test was for promotion. That may be another issue where the test would accurately reflect the ability to do the job.
Anne-Marie - Perhaps the meaning of the concept depends on who's discussing it, say a clinician as opposed to a researcher studying perception in a specific situation. You are looking at a general tendency to perceive in accordance with bias, and I agree totally with your notion on that level having been convinced by the responses of SRM and OldNick or Teutschenthal (auf Deutsch) on your Perceptive blog on the President's speech.
Anne-Marie - Interesting article NYTIMES today on Alzheimer's which they refer to as "loss of self" when it becomes so advanced the patient no longer recognizes himself in the mirror. It occurs to me that even with this loss of self or personality, you can still "see" frame of reference in the influence of motivation on perception. Even the person who is no longer himself will perceive in accordance with hunger for example. Still thinking about your intriguing post. You must be a blessing to your congregation with all that you offer here at Quadsville.
With reference to your remarks on the gun issue, Pastor Michelson from St. Paul Lutheran likely didn't anticipate the challenge to his faith provided by the shooting in Wichita when he took the assignment. Do you know the Pastor? He served two years in Davenport. They expected the slain doctor's funeral to be picketed by protestors. But then Pastor Lowell is probably accustomed to "their" presence as they regularly picketed the church for its acceptance of the doctor into the congregation.
Dear Anne-Marie - Sorry I went on and on about "frame of reference." I majored in psych, and frame of reference was an important concept even in the early 70s especially in abnormal psychology in Coleman's textbook on Ab Psych and Modern Life. We also read White's text on Abnormal Psychology. I just found myself trying to sort out ideas on your forum.
Leave a Message
Leave a Comment
Request a Friend
