The complaint is that it suggests bias.
That's not what I've heard from the objectors, nor is that what I understood the court case to be about. The legal action was not taken on the basis of apparent or preceived bias, but purely on the establishment clause, that it was religious.
And I'm not sure who it is supposed to suggest bias against. I have never in my career seen a Supreme Court brief which mentioned the religious faith of any of the parties or attorneys. The justices have no idea what the religious beliefs of the parties or attorneys before them are. So how could they be biased for or against any particular party? That doesn't wash.
If the complaint is that it shows a bias on the part of the justices, well, that bias, if it exists, is there whether or not the monument is there. Better it be out in the open than hidden. If for example a judge in his heart really feels, as I think some do, that every man accused of domestic violence is guilty, it's better to know that up front than to have it hidden away. So from a practical viewpoint, one could argue that the presence of the monument promotes the interests of the parties by giving them clear notice of the judicial environment they are about to enter. (And if you think that lawyers don't take the personal proclivities of judges into account when they make their arguments, well, you're plain wrong. I was involved in a supreme court appeal where we hired two retire supreme court judges to advise us. We went down each of the sitting judges and discussed which arguments would most appeal to that judge and what would turn them off -- for example, a judge who was a strong animal rights advocate would be turned negative if we used a hunting example. At the appellate level you've got to know our judges, and the more you know about them, the better your chance of succeeding. So the monument, in that respect, may promote, not impede, the interests of the parties.) |
