2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

In any situation where decisions need to be made by humans, either individually or as a group, it has been my experience that it is best for the decision makers to have a broad range of experiences, knowledge, and exposures.  In a group like a panel of judges, assuming we draw from a pool of highly qualified candidates, having people from varying cultures, classes, geographies, genders, etc, seems like a good goal.  But depending on our specific knowledge of the  people involved, this may not be the only criterion.  My goal would not be specifically for judges to match the population they serve, but to have the collective wisdom to make just decisions under the law.

posted 3 years, 9 months ago
view in context