Presumption of Prejudice

Looks like there will soon be a new Justice of the Supreme Court to pick, and the city of Washington, DC, prepares it’s forces for combat.

Conservatives want a proven conservative in the seat, and their political rivals quite predictably want the exact opposite. Both sides are preparing themselves to do whatever it takes to get their person into that extremely powerful position.

To which I say, “Why all the fuss? If a new Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is fair , then what difference does it make whether they hail from the Left or Right? A fair person is fair, right?”

The entire room (from both sides of the aisle,) their eyes aghast, turn to face me with complete , total (and rather unkind, to be honest) astonishment. They all look at me like I’m totally, inexplicably and unfathomably deranged !

Of course (they all believe to the marrow of their bones) it is existentially important that any new Justice of the Supreme Court be prejudicially committed toward one political belief or the other [conservative, or liberal, as the case may be) ! How could the dispensation of Justice possibly even be possible if conflicts were decided by someone not favorably disposed to one mindset over the other? Since judges will “judge” things in favor of their own predilections (in other words, their own prejudices) then the only way to assure good judgments is to have judges whose prejudices are of the correct orientation, right? A self evident truth to every partisan.

This Presumption of Prejudice is so fundamental to everyone’s core beliefs that unfairness is simply assumed without question. Not only does it go without being said, it goes without even being thought. The idea of a truly impartial judge is below laughable, because nobody actually wants it. No one wants fairness or justice. No one wants impartial logic. What people want is victory, for their side, period.

The Smarter of Three Thieves

Three thieves are at the train station to admire the dazzlingly new locomotive train sitting on the tracks, sun gleaming from it’s new paint, polished brass and lavishly furnished coaches. Each of the three lusts to possess it for themselves.

Climbing into the cab they inspect the gauges and levers and things which its engineer would use to control the machine.

The smarter of the three speaks first, “I know that the both of you want to steal this wonderful device, too bad you’re too stupid to know how to do it.”

“That is untrue and unfair,” the two say in their individual ways. “We wish to steal nothing, and therefore do not care one fig about the ways such a crime might be done. You, on the other hand, are so low that you would steal it yourself if you were able, but are just bluffing about knowing how to pull it off.”

“I would never entertain such a dishonest thought,” replies the smarter thief, “But as for knowing how to drive a train, why that’s simple. You just pull back on that big brass throttle lever, there, right between the two of you.”

The two less clever thieves glance at the throttle lever and immediately begin long and complicated strategies and ploys to gain control of it. Their game to outwit each other begins with sly and misleading maneuverings (mostly verbal) but openly hostile conflict is inevitable and soon the competition degrades into a violent physical struggle.

While the two are thus engaged with each other, and oblivious to all else, the smarter of the three thieves exits the cab, hitches a switch engine to the entire train, and hauls it away.