I WAS LISTENING TO THE RADIO the other morning, and heard a short bit of the Senate hearings, which reminded me of "Who's on First?"

Senator Sessions was questioning Judge Sotomayor, and it really did sound like Abbot and Costello.

The point in question was a quote from Judge Sotomayor, which Sessions was determined to use as proof that she thought judges should be prejudiced.

The quote was:

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Admittedly, it was a compound sentence with relative clauses and an infinitive phrase thrown in, so perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on Sessions.

Let me break it down:

There are differences between judges.



I don't think anyone will disagree with this. Some of those differences result from experience and heritage.



Again, this is pretty obvious. Judges thus have: different opinions about things, different sympathies, and different prejudices.



Okay, a quick comment on that last one. It's important to note, because of the Republican spin, that there is no reason to believe that she was talking about racial prejudice. We all have prejudices, whether we like to admit it or not. I am prejudiced against calamari, for example, and against laissez-faire economics, and tax breaks for the rich. A judge can either accept these facts, or deny them. If a judge denies them, it simply means that the judge is kidding him or her self.



When people try to pretend that they are super-human, and have no opinion or sympathies or prejudices, they put themselves at the mercy of those prejudices. If I can't admit to a fault, I have no ability to correct it or guard against it. If judges accept the fact that they, like all human beings, have opinions, and sympathies, and prejudices, then they are in a position to do something about them.



The less reluctantly—the more willingly—a judge accepts her own idiosyncrasies, the better chance she has to keep them from interfering with her objectivity, and to make sure that she is following the law. A good judge will not live in denial, but will accept the fact that she has these opinions and sympathies and prejudices. She will then, in each case, consciously examine them in light of the law.



Forewarned is forearmed.



Not all of her sympathies, or opinions, or even prejudices, may go against the law in every case. In some cases they may actually be in tune with the law, and in those cases they may help her to see the case more clearly than if she didn't have them.



But it is a judge's duty to be aware of her own sympathies, opinions, and prejudices, and to keep them in service of the law, and to make sure that they do not mislead her judgment. She can only do this if she willing accepts the fact that she has these idiosyncrasies in the first place. Judge Sotomayor willingly accepts this fact, and conscientiously works to keep those leanings, which everyone has, from interfering with the proper execution of her role as judge.

I might add that any judge who could not agree with that statement should not be allowed near a bench.

Got it, Sessions?

That's the name of the guy on first.

At least, that's what I think today.