Fairness has a face: neutrality and descriptive representation on courts

ABSTRACT

Some have argued that US judges should act like umpires, neutral actors who call balls and strikes according to the law. Though this is an appealing idea, it may have some troubling implications for descriptive representation on the courts. I explore two possible problems: first, that descriptive representation is erased for judges who fit the norm and, second, that it is over-emphasized for judges who do not. The judges-as-umpire ideal may lead to the reinforcement traditional identity hierarchies and the stigmatization of descriptive representation. I argue for an alternative approach to judging that avoids these problems and has implications for the study of descriptive representation in the judiciary more generally.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).