Freedom and Justice for Many
"Seasons of Justice": The Merits of Using a “Life Cycle” Biographical Approach for Writing about the American Supreme Court’s Performance
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Bruce Allen Murphy
This paper will explain how a “life-cycle,” biographical narrative, analytical approach for studying individual Supreme Court justices’ behavior can help us to better understand how Justices, such as the “swing voter,” Anthony Kennedy, will affect future judicial decisions. The “seasons of life” life-cycle analytical theory outlined by psychologists Erik Erikson and Daniel Levinson is ideal for biographically examining, and creating a narrative about, the lives and decision-making of the American Supreme Court. Since this body is staffed by nine justices, who are appointed in mid-life, and serve for decades, I argue that once a justice is appointed, a judicial “life-clock” runs parallel to one’s personal life cycle, affecting the way that a jurist’s decision-making approach evolves. With nine justices experiencing their individual life cycles simultaneously, any changes in the membership of the body, or the voting behavior of a sitting justice, will affect the life-cycle and decision-making of the entire institution. After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, followed by President Obama inability to appoint his successor, resulting in the seating of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and with three octogenarian justices now nearing retirement, this life cycle analytical approach is perfect for exploring this Supreme Court’s future decision-making.
Not in My America: Examining Systematic "Other"-ing in Immigration Policy
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Selina March
Since its founding, America has been marketed as a beacon of hope for groups of people facing disadvantage, offering a new beginning in a world purporting to value merit above privilege, skill above heritage. However, below the surface there is a drastically different story defined largely by disadvantage. Even as America was founded on the ideals of democracy and freedom, there were entire populations deprived of these fundamental rights. As time progressed, this "other" population continuously shifted, with different groups being labelled as such at different points in time. This shifting "other" can be seen quite clearly in relation to American immigration policy, with different groups receiving preferential treatment and others being disadvantaged at various points in time. As the idea of what it means to be "American" has evolved, so, too, has the idea of the "other." This paper analyses trends in American immigration policy from a critical race theory perspective, asserting that "other"-ing has been strategically used by those in power to systematically disadvantage entire groups of people. It also examines the parallels between various anti-immigrant movements and sentiments with the "Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)" movement. By evaluating the context in which American anti-immigration sentiment has developed, this paper places the current administration's rhetoric in an historical context. This paper argues that, if America is to live up to its founding vision as a haven for the disadvantaged, it must confront its history of "other"-ing.
Euthanasia, Morality and the Human Subject
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Kristine Van Dinther
Euthanasia is usually discussed as both dangerous and morally wrong; a practice which will lead down a ‘slippery slope’ to unbridled institutional power to kill those most vulnerable. Globally, considerable research has accumulated from the surveillance of these practices in places where it has been legalised. This evidence, however, is often largely ignored. In addition, the morality of such a practice continues to be conceptualised in terms of theology or philosophical ethics. The aim of this paper is to show that the ethics of such a practice cannot definitively be decided through such abstract means and that it is the omission of the examination of the human experience which is the problem. Drawing on my own empirical data, I will discuss the question of euthanasia where it emerges; at the intersection of institution, patient and family. Issues of patient autonomy, freedom and human rights will be discussed along with suffering and the idea of the humane. I argue that context is vital to questions of morality and that inter-subjectivity and emotions are central to this understanding. Thus, we can only evaluate the ethics of euthanasia practices when we incorporate and consider the human experience of the dying process. In this respect, we must reconsider freedom from a phenomenological examination of its antithetical forms.
