Two months ago ‘The New Criterion’ published an essay explaining the lynching that was done to Conrad Black in the name of ‘diversity’. I must admit that I remained perplexed until I read that essay, for I only remember what the prosecution promoted alongside a complicit media. Needless to say, along with the rest of the humanities, a militant atheist (historicist) hermeneutic has taken hold on American judicial impartiality. It’s a dangerous mess! Let’s try to make sense of it.
Currently, impartiality is under attack in the legal profession. Positivism has wedded itself to the enclousure of postmodernism: namely relativism. Here we will find the likes of all those failed French academics that raged througout the 1980’s, Derrida and his disciples. (Not to worry, every a cursory reading of Patristics can defeat them!) Nevertheless, with the total abandonment that was the rule of law embodied in judicial impartiality, we’re left with political expressions of a dominant minority.
As Jamie Whyte, the Senior Fellow of the Cobden Centre in London recently wrote: those who demand judicial diversity have implicitly given up on the rule of law. It is the American left who continues to view the law as pretext for rule of judges. This manner of positivism has it patrimony in Germany and France but not in America or Great Britain where natural rights doctrine still animates common, statutory law.
Here’s what’s dangerous: the American left and its diversifiers do not seek a remedy for judicial partiality; they seek only a proportionate distribution of it.
This displays an alarmingly tribal view of the proper function of judges and a pecular ignorance of legal history. From the 19th to the mid 20th century, the legal rights of women and minorities were dramatically extended in both London and the United States. During this period of time, the vast majority of judges and legislators were white men. How could this happen? How could this be a fact if, as the left would have it: humans cannot transcend their own prejudices?
Anyone interested in a discussion on the ethcis of ‘proportionalism’ from ‘Veritatis Splendor’ or Leo Strauss’ ‘History & Natural Right’?