Definition of Philosophy

  • Personal
  • News
  • Logic
  • Ethics
  • Religion
  • Philosophers
  • Books

The Sotomayor Hearing: A difference in Judicial Philosophy

September 25, 2023 by Jon

Obama Supreme CourtWith the Sotomayor hearings pervading the news it is no wonder that I have become a bit pre-occupied with judicial philosophy. The big hoopla the US senators, both for and against Sotomayor’s confirmation, have been making over empathy and it’s role or non-role in the judicial system is a very interesting matter.

Lately I came across Michael C Dorf’s article “What is Sonia Sotomayor’s Judicial Philosophy?” and just feel that I have to share his wonderful insights on “formalism” and “legal realism”. According to Dorf, “formalists believe that legal interpretation is a matter of finding the objective meaning of formal legal materials, such as the words of statutes and constitutional provisions.” He says that ideology has no place in formalism and the judges are seen as “simply a vehicle for the expression of the law.” On the other hand, he says that legal realists assert that “formalist’s view of the law is false, or at least radically incomplete.” He further explained that “legal realists believe that formalists are not being honest (perhaps, not even with themselves) when they disclaim any influence from their own values upon their judicial decision making. Nor, they say, could matters be otherwise in a complex and evolving society in which legislators and constitution writers cannot possibly have anticipated all of the circumstances in which the provisions they wrote would be applied.”

So it is quite clear that the contention between those that want to confirm Judge Sotomayor and not is caused by the differing jucidicial philosophy. The question of course lies in who is right – the formalist or the legal realist? I leave it up to the senate committee to sort it out.

Originally posted on July 16, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

The Influence Of Media

September 25, 2023 by Jon

Health Food Junk Food

Why do you think companies spend big bucks on advertising? Because they want to entertain people? Because they want to irritate people? I have always thought that I was immune to the manipulating moves of these companies. I have this thing when it comes to manipulation – I pride myself in being able to discern the motives behind actions.

Yet this weekend, I realized – to my dismay – that I have been influenced by media. Despite my pride, the ever present ads have been subtly working to influence me – a little bit here, and a little bit there.

Case in point. I wanted lunch. I didn’t feel like cooking. Where to eat? What to get? Automatically my mind conjured up pictures of a nice juicy burger hot off the grill. Ooh, this burger would be great with crispy fries fresh out of the deep fryer. While I am at it, why not get a super sized softdrink. It will surely quench my thirst and give me enough energy to keep going.

Where do you think those images came from? Maybe my mind made them up myself? I am pretty creative but heck, I know influence when I see it. I can attribute those images – and the craving that ensued – to the endless TV ads, print ads, and even radio ads that I see and hear day in and day out.

You may think that you’re too smart to fall for commercials. I did too. But I was wrong before and boy, I am ashamed to say that I was wrong again.

Originally posted on January 31, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

Categories

  • Aesthetics
  • Books
  • Comics
  • Conferences
  • Ethics
  • Experimental
  • Film
  • General
  • Institutes and Education
  • Internet Philosophy
  • Logic
  • Media
  • Music
  • News
  • Personal
  • Philosophers
  • Religion
  • Science
  • Theology
  • Work