I'm a five.
I'm
close to totally objective. I doubt anybody is truthfully totally objective, as Benjamin Cardozo explained. In his classic work, "The Nature of the Judicial Process," (published 1921), Cardozo said,
The traditions of our jurisprudence commit us to objective standards. I do not mean, of course, that this ideal of objective vision is ever perfectly attained. We cannot transcend the limitations of the ego and see everything as it really is. None the less, the ideal is one to be striven for within the limits of our capacity.
The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to "the primordial necessity of order in the social life."
It's important to remember that maybe no one can ever be perfectly objective, but objectivity is an ideal to be striven for. That resembles a quote from Carl Schurz, "Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands. But like the seafaring man on the desert of waters, you choose them as your guides, and following them you will reach your destiny."
I was a Republican once, in the 1990's, but I rejected Bush's claim that there was anything unconstitutional about how the ballots were being recounted in Florida in 2000, and so I opposed his request for an injunction to stop the recounts, and I was devastated at the Supreme Court's ruling in
Bush v. Gore. I'm gay, but I have rejected the Supreme Court's rulings in
Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, and
Obergefell v. Hodges. I'm pro-choice on abortion, but
Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey are not valid interpretations of the Constitution.
Poll
