tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post3326562804251014099..comments2023-09-09T06:35:36.065-04:00Comments on My Fenhop: What Would Puerto Rican on the Bench Do for Us?fenhopperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10776069385112951122noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post-52213377108635062242009-06-03T13:10:04.312-04:002009-06-03T13:10:04.312-04:00I don't understand the last part of that last ...I don't understand the last part of that last response... <br /><br />"...specifics are important enough to keep from the public?" My alias?<br /><br />You're too cryptic. Maybe it's because I'm currently listening to Rush Limbaugh that I can't understand.<br /><br />I was thinking somewhere: what the hell would white-male culture <i>be</i> anyway? Bank of America and MacDonald's? I loathe that culture. So what does one do when he finds his own cultural identity shameful and ugly? Freeload off of other cultures? That's distasteful and too second-hand for me. Scavenge on the past? That's not "alive" enough for me. I just want to fit in!!!Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820693522030084335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post-59234509036315305812009-06-02T19:52:25.790-04:002009-06-02T19:52:25.790-04:00it sounds like you're reading into that first quot...it sounds like you're reading into that first quote a more specific limitation than i intended. deciding based on who we are doesn't mean choosing to prefer only those similar to us. nor does it mean making decisions that stereotypes say we will make. it means that i don't believe my decisions will get past being shaped by a logic that only i have created. it will be similar to many other systems, but no matter what analysis is imposed on it and what system the academics tell me it fits into, it's a decision made by this individual because i am only this individual.<br /><br />i think you're right that at this point specifics are important enough to keep from the public.<br /><br />c'mon. where's your alias?fenhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10776069385112951122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post-49256380746687508142009-06-02T19:39:57.603-04:002009-06-02T19:39:57.603-04:00"...we are people. and so we make every decision a..."...we are people. and so we make every decision as the person we are. we can't help it. we're not in control of that."<br /><br />Well... then I guess I ought to be pulling for more white male judges. (?)<br /><br />As for this part -- "sounds more to me like the insistent accusation of someone feeling increasingly ignored. and that's why i insist on talking with you. because i wonder if i am ignoring you." -- I think that's a fair assessment. I'd prefer to talk about it in a facebook message or something... I'll send you one.Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820693522030084335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post-42768111835739456732009-06-02T19:26:05.478-04:002009-06-02T19:26:05.478-04:00one major point first. it's not that white-male-ne...one major point first. it's not that white-male-ness has stopped judges from being as good as possible. it's that historically, those judges have not been as good as possible. and study has shown that identity has always corresponded to types of rulings. we are people. and so we make every decision as the person we are. we can't help it. we're not in control of that.<br /><br />a major part of sotomayor's lecture addresses the issue of what happens when the court changes faces. and her point is -- we should see that we have enough data to see what happens. how can we talk about the effect of women and minorities if they are still such a small part of it?<br /><br />so i think you're the one arguing towards an idealistic(pathetic) rather than practical(logical) system. you dismiss the value of consensus as a means towards justice, but then would you trust a single individual to serve as the lone supreme court justice? i think you value consensus more than your comment indicates.<br /><br />and why are you not logically seeking to populate a court with individuals who in deliberation are going to most likely question and challenge and influence the arguments that have not been settled, and interpretations that have not been chosen but which will be picked and limited based on competing assumptions and premises?<br /><br />we don't need a supreme court to be populated by any type of demographic. that's not the goal. there is no necessary pursuit of a symbol or the settling of a gut level need for balance. and stories about people who give up everything to pursue justice are good examples of the lengths of dedication -- but they have nothing to do with the actual achievement of justice.<br /><br />i don't need anyone on the court to believe they have transcended identity. i want them to constantly consider it. and no one has said anything about people not being able to transcend their interests. what culture does is affect our assumptions. and if we don't recognize that our assumptions have been shaped then we're not even trying to transcend. we're settling into our first way of choosing.<br /><br />you mention chomsky and zinn VS thomas scalia et al:<br /><br />you're wrong. i don't think they would make better judges. i think scalia is a good judge. i think his philosophy of the role of the court is sound. and i agree with his view that the role of the court is not change but interpretation. even when the interpretation is constitutional but unjust. i think roberts is an impressive thinker and a formidable scholar. i believe they belong on the court.<br /><br />and i suspect that chomsky would be more driven by an agenda than by the pursuit of understanding that he doesn't already have. i believe his empathy would be overly meted and craftily withheld based on his values.<br /><br />but finally let me say this. you have accused me of seeing you as white and limiting you into that. perhaps. but only to the extent that i consider myself a white person too. and i think we are both speaking as representations of the white voice. and souter is a white voice. and as sotomayor reminds us in her lecture -- clarence thomas is a black voice who has made black arguments.<br /><br />when i say that do you know what i think of him?<br /><br />i only doubt your objectivity as much as i trust my own. and so your 'understanding' of my rhetorical situation and my view of you as a limited white person sounds more to me like the insistent accusation of someone feeling increasingly ignored. and that's why i insist on talking with you. because i wonder if i am ignoring you. i'm not sure i've heard what you're really trying to say when you claim that i will see your argument as fitting into a category that already exists and therefore 'discount' what you say.<br /><br />if you think i see you as a part of the historical strand of white dominance, then i think you overestimate how powerful and nefarious you appear to me.fenhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10776069385112951122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778737598308353810.post-42246335263530217852009-06-02T13:47:48.604-04:002009-06-02T13:47:48.604-04:00I came across a word in my dissertation research t...I came across a word in my dissertation research that I find helpful: <I>raciological</I>. It appeared in Paul Gilroy's 2000 book, <I>Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line</I>. Gilroy's work is effectively an academicization of Bob Marley's famous lines "Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandonded -- everywhere is war."<br /><br />So "raciological" thinking is just thinking that accepts racial categories. Of course, most academics try to carve out a nuanced position nowadays -- something like this: "I accept that 'race' is entirely a construct; nevertheless, it is a construct which has impacted real life in real ways. We must acknowledge that fact while striving to level the playing field."<br /><br />Of course, I understand the deeply interested rhetorical situation here: you--who with Sotomayor continue to insist on seeing raciologically--see me as a "white" person, and as a result, you hear my argument as a white argument. Consequently, you have a reason to doubt my objectivity, and to discount what I say as another in a long historical string of sophisticated power-plays by white Americans.<br /><br />I can't say I blame you. Still, even without hope of converting you to my way of thinking, and even at the risk of being labeled a racist myself (not by you, perhaps, but if we were to have this conversation slightly more publically--), I will continue to insist that Justice <I>must</I> (and can) transcend notions of identity -- if it does not, it is no Justice at all but only a kind of consensus view.<br /><br />The run-of-the-mill "postmodern" view has been that "Justice" (and "Wisdom") have never been anything but words applied -- usually <I>post hoc</I> -- to consensus views in the hopes of sanctifying the consensus. Famous examples from myth (Buddha) and history (Asoka) where princes and kings gave up everything that was theirs for the sake of pursuing Justice serve as effective evidence that great and noble people <I>can</I> transcend their personal interests for the sake of an abstract ideal. I think these should be the people we seek to put on our high court. And I do not think that race or gender can contribute to (or detract from) the likelihood that a person achieves this perspective.<br /><br />Still -- a couple of concessions: I haven't read her whole article. I will. Second: although I do not find racial representation on a court of nine judges to be an important goal, I can understand the symbolism of it, and ultimately I won't object (though I will "poke fun," with John Stewart, who was asking for a one-tenth homosexual representation on the court... achieved by finding a judge who is homosexual 90% of the time). I have little doubt, even through this discussion, that Sotomayor is a profound thinker and a fair judge.<br /><br />And finally I return to my question of epistemology with very simple evidence: I'm sure you'd agree that Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn would make much more compassionate/sympathetic/"better" judges than Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, and Condi Rice. Philosophically, that data alone wins the argument. Nevertheless, we collectively stopped arguing by way of logos about a decade ago... and having recognized that, and decided to participate in this period in history, I'm happy to keep riding the pathos wave.<br /><br /><I>¡Viva Igualdad!</I>Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820693522030084335noreply@blogger.com