you said i accept the proposition as professor resnick explains, to judge is an exercise of power and there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives. no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, you said. i further accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect our decisions. now, you're deep into the argument here. you've agreed with resnick there is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, no neutrality, which just as an aside is relativism run amuck. but then you say, what the professor's quote means to me is not all women or people of color or in all circumstances, but enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging. you're talking here about different outcomes in cases. and you go on to substantiate your case by first of all citing a minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differently than two male judges in a father's visitation case. you cited two excellent studies, which tended to demonstrate differences between women and men in makes decisions in cases.

than yours, and then you came back to it and said because i accept the proposition that as professor resnick explains, to judge is an exercise of power, and because as professor martha minnaur of harvard law school explains there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, you said. i further had to accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect our decisions. now, you're deep into the argument here. you have agreed with reresnick that there is only an objective stance. it's relativism run amok. but then you say what professor minaur's quote means to me is not all women or people of color or all in some circumstances or me in any particular case or circumstance but enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging. you're talking here about different outcomes in cases. and you go on to substantiate your case by, first of all, citing a minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differently than two male judges in a father's visitation case. you

you said i accept the proposition as professor resnick explains, to judge is an exercise of power andhere is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives. no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, you said. i further accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect our decisions. now, you're deep into the argument here. you've agreed with resnick there is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, no neutrality, which just as an aside is relativism run amuck. but then you say, what the professor's quote means to me is not all women or people of color or in all circumstances, but enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging. you're talking here about different outcomes in cases. and you go on to substantiate your case by first of all citing a minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differently than two male judges in a father's visitation case. you cited two excellent studies, which tended to demonstrate differences between women and men in makes decisions in cases. y

yours, and then you came back to it and said, because i accept the proposition that, as professor resnick explains, to judge is an exercise of power and because as professor martha minow of harvard law school explains, there's no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. danone neutrality, no escape from choice in judging he said. i further accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect our decisions. now, you are deep into the argument here. you have agreed with resnick that there is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, net neutrality-- which just as an aside, it seems to me is relativism run amok. then you say what professor minow's "means to me is not all women are people of color or all in circumstances, or me in any particular case or circumstance but enough women and people of color in and of cases will make a difference in the process of judging. you are talking here about different outcomes in cases and hugo want to substantiate your case by first of all siting in minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differentl

you said i accept the proposition as professor resnick explains, to judge is an exercise of power andre is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives. no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, you said. i further accept that our experiences as women and people of color will in some way affect our decisions. now, you're deep into the argument here. you've agreed with resnick there is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, no neutrality, which just as an aside is relativism run amuck. but then you say, what the professor's quote means to me is not all women or people of color or in all circumstances, but enough women and people of color in enough cases will make a difference in the process of judging. you're talking here about different outcomes in cases. and you go on to substantiate your case by first of all citing a minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differently than two male judges in a father's visitation case. you cited two excellent studies, which tended to demonstrate differences between women and men in makes decisions in cases. you