![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Propping Up Justice
Aug. 6th, 2010 07:04 amI got a question in my Formspring inbox asking me what I think about the Prop 8 ruling. I have to say that like Newt Gingrich, I'm disappointed in Judge Walker for not recusing himself from the case due to his obvious conflicts of interest.
First of all, asking a human being to judge a case relating to human rights is always a bad idea... that's like putting the fox in charge of the, uh, foxhouse. We all know how that ends.
Second of all, as a rational individual, Judge Walker was clearly susceptible to reality's well-known liberal bias and extremely prejudiced against the sort of "non-traditional" or "alternative" evidence that the defendants' case depended on.
I ask you, in the 21st century do we still believe that an idea gets to choose whether it's going to be a fact, a supposition, or an opinion? Of course not. So why do our nation's courts insist on enshrining facts as having special privileges over the unsupported prejudices of fearmongering bigots? Even if we presuppose that the government has some interest in the truth, it's not like every fact leads to some greater revelation.
So who would have been better to hear the case than Judge Walker? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few possibilities for jurists who could have overseen a trial much less biased against the defendants.
1. A Criminal
Criminals are, as the proverbs tell us, "a superstitious and cowardly lot", which means that while they might still give the facts a full hearing, they wouldn't necessarily elevate them to a level where they're somehow above fear and innuendo.
2. Bizarro, Superman's Flawed Duplicate
As we see in cases ranging from Texas v. Lawrence to The Board of Education v. Brown, Bizzaro World's jurisprudence often results in rulings that are a cliched opposite to how similar cases were resolved here on Earth Prime. As a bonus, Judge Bizarro's habit of referring to the court as "me" in his crayon-scrawled rulings would probably pass as "folksy" to Prop 8's supporters.
3. Harvey "Two-Face" Dent
Let's face it: flipping a coin is probably the closest way to a fair and rational system that could have found in the defendant's favor. That's not to say that deciding issues of civil rights using purely random methods is all that fair or rational, but hey, it beats subjecting the rights of minorities to a majority vote, doesn't it?
You know, I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't have written this right after watching the cinematic trailer for DC Universe Online...
First of all, asking a human being to judge a case relating to human rights is always a bad idea... that's like putting the fox in charge of the, uh, foxhouse. We all know how that ends.
Second of all, as a rational individual, Judge Walker was clearly susceptible to reality's well-known liberal bias and extremely prejudiced against the sort of "non-traditional" or "alternative" evidence that the defendants' case depended on.
I ask you, in the 21st century do we still believe that an idea gets to choose whether it's going to be a fact, a supposition, or an opinion? Of course not. So why do our nation's courts insist on enshrining facts as having special privileges over the unsupported prejudices of fearmongering bigots? Even if we presuppose that the government has some interest in the truth, it's not like every fact leads to some greater revelation.
So who would have been better to hear the case than Judge Walker? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few possibilities for jurists who could have overseen a trial much less biased against the defendants.
1. A Criminal
Criminals are, as the proverbs tell us, "a superstitious and cowardly lot", which means that while they might still give the facts a full hearing, they wouldn't necessarily elevate them to a level where they're somehow above fear and innuendo.
2. Bizarro, Superman's Flawed Duplicate
As we see in cases ranging from Texas v. Lawrence to The Board of Education v. Brown, Bizzaro World's jurisprudence often results in rulings that are a cliched opposite to how similar cases were resolved here on Earth Prime. As a bonus, Judge Bizarro's habit of referring to the court as "me" in his crayon-scrawled rulings would probably pass as "folksy" to Prop 8's supporters.
3. Harvey "Two-Face" Dent
Let's face it: flipping a coin is probably the closest way to a fair and rational system that could have found in the defendant's favor. That's not to say that deciding issues of civil rights using purely random methods is all that fair or rational, but hey, it beats subjecting the rights of minorities to a majority vote, doesn't it?
You know, I'm starting to think that maybe I shouldn't have written this right after watching the cinematic trailer for DC Universe Online...
