Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (73060)	8/22/2003 12:17:54 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Like wise in a court, we want the perception of fairness walking in for the sake of judicial confidence. That may be a nice principle, but is unachievable, and there are dangers in trying to achieve it. For example, some minority defendants will never believe that they can get a fair hearing from a white judge, period. That's their perception. Should we insist that they get a minority judge? And what about white defendants who think they can't get a fair shake from a minority judge? In many divorce cases, the parties look at the gender of the judge and the one of the same gender as the judge will feel more likely to be listened to than the one of opposite gender. I see it a lot, frankly. The only way to get perceptions of fairness on both sides would be to have two judges, one male, one female. And on and on. Now, granted, some perceptions are more, well, let's say, legitimately based than others. So if, for example, a courthouse had over its front door the slogan "Abandon hope, all Christians who enter here," that would clearly entitled Christians to feel of less value. But not every perception is legitimate. Or, let's say, while it may be legitimate to the individual, not every perception is recognized by an objective obeerver as creating a legitimate fear of being discriminated against. Now, we have to ask in this case, does the chunk of granite that Moore put up legitimately create the perception in some people, not previously in their minds, that they will not receive a fair hearing in that court? Keep in mind that this is an appellate court, not a trial court, that no litigatant will be testifying before it, that it will hear only arguments about the law, and keep that reality securely in mind. So what people can have a legitimate concern that their legal arguments will not be fairly heard by this court because of the chunk of granite, keeping in mind that the Alabama Constitution itself apparently states that the authority of the state comes from God?