Tonight I attended the Rose Cafe talk with Judge Scott Miller. It was the second time I has the pleasure of attending an event that featured him. As someone who plans on attending law school in the hopes of becoming a judge, his insight into jurisprudence has been pivotal in the formation of my own. Even when discussion lends itself to more mundane topics such as first impressions and simple humanity, the talk never seems to dull.

I find it funny that every judge I have the opportunity to meet has been so laid back and progressive. They all seem like people I would love to have as friends, and Judge Miller is no exception. I interned with the Honorable Judge Stuart Rice, and he held the same air of confidence that engages his audience and makes them want to know more. One of my college advisors back at home, Judge Kevin Yourman, also has such a way with words. It was great to be in the presence of someone so similar to two key influences in my own decision to pursue law.

I wish we had more time to speak with him. I had so many questions to ask: his opinion on the privatization of institutions some think should remain public, his opinion on both the legality and morality of drone strikes in the middle east, if he thinks rehabilitation of those prosecuted is always feasible, how he partitions his personal bias from his ruling when they are so tangential… The list of things to ask seems to go on forever.

I think the most influential part of his talk this time was when discussing the judge who seemed to deride Larry Nassar when sentencing him to over 100 years in prison. While I relate with the sentiment of the presiding judge, I completely agree with Judge Miller that it was out of turn for her to speak her prejudices. When thinking of this case, the idiom “justice is blind” comes to mind. Besides following precedence in an effort to standardize the judicial system, a judge’s job is to listen to a case while simultaneously ruling without personal bias clouding their decision; this judge seemed to disregard her obligation to impartiality.

Judge Miller also brought up the interesting concept that the power dynamic in the courtroom mandates more maturity from the judge than the defendant. I hadn’t considered this, but his point is valid. As an authority, it is again the judge’s responsibility to carry herself with poise.

However, when Judge Miller expressed that universal healthcare and education were the two most pointed issues to be solved, I am not too sure if I agree. I think these two issues are very shallow compared to the underlying causes of this type of social stratification. I think back to Kimberle Crenshaw’s view on intersectionality: when we raise the standards for those at the bottom of the social totem pole, we inherently raises those also socially disadvantaged with them. And for Crenshaw, they were black women. Once we tackle the underlying issue of racism, sexism, and the subsequent results – such as inaccessible healthcare and below par education- then we will be one step closer to an America with equity. But I can appreciate where Judge Miller’s views come into play; I think we just have reverse approaches.

Similar to the last Rose Cafe with Judge Miller, he ended with a little pep talk about looking to the future, how the pendulum swings in favor of progress. It was a touching moment, and the call to action really made me want to make something matter. I’m not too sure what; just anything, I suppose: the privilege I’ve been afforded to go to Cornell, the diversity of the community around me, the opportunity to be where I am today. I just want it to matter. But if the the swing of the pendulum is now in our favor, when will it swing back to the other side?