Turns out, judges are not robots

cat

The New York Times, in writing about the U.S. Supreme Court rendering a tight, partisan decision that found prayer before town meetings was not a violation of the Constitution, published a related story on the partisan voting habits of justices.

Political scientists found that judges ruling in First Amendment cases favor speech with which they agree.

The implication is that judges are above passion and prejudice, and this research should come as a shock.

Of course, the thought that a person, any person, can be 100 percent impartial is very comforting, especially at a time when we are inundated from all sides with information and decontextualized data.

At least I find the thought comforting. Kind of like the thought that my cat won’t eat me if I should die while locked in my house.

I’ll be locking my cat out of my room at night from now on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

(Not a trick question) What color is the pink house?