Cenk Uygur at HuffPo: Would A Black Judge Have Been Biased In Brown V. Board Of Education?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/would-a-black-judge-have_b_675152.html

Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
Posted: August 9, 2010 02:42 AM

Would a Black Judge Have Been Biased in Brown v. Board of Education?

US District Judge Vaughn Walker is the judge who issued the ruling that Prop 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional. Conservatives are now claiming that he is gay (which is unconfirmed at this point) and that his gayness presents an obvious bias. Furthermore, he should have recused himself from the case because as a gay man he would have a conflict of interest in deciding a case on gay rights.

The obvious question is - would a straight man not have a bias? Prop 8 would maintain straight people's monopoly on marriage. Wouldn't a straight person have a conflict of interest in deciding a case about whether they get to have more rights than other people in society? Presumably a lot of straight people voted in California to take away the right of gay people to get married - wouldn't they be biased in favor of protecting their own rights and taking away the rights of gays in California?

- snip -

Now, let's think about it a different way. What if there was a black justice on the Supreme Court when they were deciding Brown v. Board of Education? Would he be biased in favor of having the same rights as white Americans? Should he have stepped down from the case because he would obviously want the same constitutional rights as any other American? Bias!!

- snip -

As you can see, although the bias argument might seem appealing at first blush to some, it is quite absurd when you break it down. If you're not already convinced, let me give you one last example. What if California decided to take away women's right to vote - could a female justice not rule on that case because they would be biased in favor of keeping their own constitutional rights?

MORE

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[marmar]

2. Exactly on point.....

The absurdity of the arguments of those opposed to Judge Walker's decision can easily be dismantled with facts and logic.

[jpljr77]

3. I think a better analogy would have been Loving v. Virginia

Not that the piece isn't great. But Loving v. Virginia is a little more of an apples-to-apples comparison, since both cases dealt with marriage.

Loving was decided 9-0, and there were no black Justices at the time. But I wonder if there had been one, what the reaction would have been from the haters. Bias? Even though the vote was identical to the other Justices? Probably.

[jody]

4. Will each of the six Catholic justices be unbiased on abortion cases? Does swearing eternal

allegiance to a god trump swearing allegiance to the Constitution and We the People?

[unblock]

5. if the president passes a decree that he's the only one with ANY rights,

would any judge who's not the president be biased?


all they have is hate. no one knew or cared or said a thing about his sexual orientation before the decision, but immediately afterward they just had to find something to hate, and some way of making about the judge and not the judge's decision or words.

[KeepItReal]

6. Yeah, Republicans and Democrats could not have possibly judged Bush v. Gore!

Both had horses in that race's outcome.

Good take, Cenk.

[ihavenobias]

7. K & R n/t

[DirkGently]

8. It's a common bigot's fantasy that it's the minority whose bias

we have to worry about. Oppressors often claim it's they who are the victims. How many people here have posted something online in defense of non-whites, or gay people, or overweight people, and been immediately "accused" of being a member of that group? Bigots can't imagine sticking up for someone not in their own group, because they imagine that culture is a big group identity battle for the biggest piece of some imaginary cookie. They are outraged at the idea that "one of their own" would stand up for "the other."

This noxious fallacy has become a core part of recent rightwing narrative. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, constantly hammer at the notion that majority groups are under fire from from minorities who, they assume, are out to "turn the tables" and oppress as they've been oppressed. A common example is the ubiquitous fear among race-obsessed conservatives of "slavery reparations," which Beck has specifically accused President Obama of wanting, with no evidence or course, save his fevered paranoia.

Or they conflate equality or neutrality with anti-majority bias, such as the ludicrous "War on Christmas" notion O'Reilly touted wherein saying "Happy Holidays" is somehow an attack on Christians. It's gotten to the point where hearing from these people, you'd think that being in a racial or religious minority or being gay or a woman is now a great cultural advantage. A number of people have ludicrously suggested that President Obama, the standout Harvard Constitutional law scholar, somehow owes his success to an imagined enormous advantage in being black.

It's a pretty transparent case of projection, in my opinion. The people saying these things believe themselves that "their" group has taken unfair advantage, and therefore assume the same will be done to them at every turn. Like the thief with twelve locks on his door, they assume everyone thinks like they do.

[Turborama]

9. K&R! Good points very well made

Thanks for posting, Hissyspit.

[jgraz]

10. Tony Perkins compared Walker's sexual orientation to being an evangelical preacher.

In the ABC interview alongside David Boies, he seriously asserted that someone who happens to be gay is as biased as someone who's spent a lifetime preaching hate against homosexuals.

What a fucking toad this guy is.

[ihavenobias]

11. What do you expect

9 out of 10 organizations with "family" in the name are run by radical right wing Christians.

In this case it's Family Research Council. Give them credit for good framing with their choice of names though.

[OhioChick]

12. Kick n/t