Comments on: A False Gotcha http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/15/a-false-gotcha/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Dom http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/15/a-false-gotcha/comment-page-1/#comment-8431 Dom Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:13:40 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3408#comment-8431 Here is what she said: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” "...gender and national origins ..." Sounds like she is mentioning ethnicity and race to me. Here is what she said: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

“…gender and national origins …” Sounds like she is mentioning ethnicity and race to me.

]]> By: Cheerful Iconoclast http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/15/a-false-gotcha/comment-page-1/#comment-8405 Cheerful Iconoclast Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:38:40 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3408#comment-8405 What way does that cut, Julian? Gilligan's theory is that men resolve moral questions by applying rules, while women resolve moral questions by emotion, intuition, feelings, relationships, etc. Gilligan-style feminists have an implicit normative claim: basically that the touchy-feely emotion-based decision-making is superior to to cold masculine use of reason. However, not all of us share this normative judgment. In fact, one could argue that a great deal of our success as a society is based upon this thing called "the rule of law." We want judges to apply rules rather than emoting. If the Gilligan thesis is true, then it's an argument for an all-male judiciary. Or at least a judiciary composed of men and relatively small number of women who think like men. It's also worth noting that Sotomayer herself does not seem to have taken this line of defense. In answering questions, she has adopted the "I am just following the rules" approach that draws upon the traditional male rule-based conception of what a judge does. She has had an opportunity to defend Gilligan-style judicial reasoning, but she has not taken advantage of that opportunity. What way does that cut, Julian? Gilligan’s theory is that men resolve moral questions by applying rules, while women resolve moral questions by emotion, intuition, feelings, relationships, etc.

Gilligan-style feminists have an implicit normative claim: basically that the touchy-feely emotion-based decision-making is superior to to cold masculine use of reason. However, not all of us share this normative judgment. In fact, one could argue that a great deal of our success as a society is based upon this thing called “the rule of law.” We want judges to apply rules rather than emoting.

If the Gilligan thesis is true, then it’s an argument for an all-male judiciary. Or at least a judiciary composed of men and relatively small number of women who think like men.

It’s also worth noting that Sotomayer herself does not seem to have taken this line of defense. In answering questions, she has adopted the “I am just following the rules” approach that draws upon the traditional male rule-based conception of what a judge does. She has had an opportunity to defend Gilligan-style judicial reasoning, but she has not taken advantage of that opportunity.

]]>