Bwahaha! It's a good day. Supreme Court triple slam dunks liberalism!

[The Rabbi]

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

You're an idiot.
Every justice brings an "ideology" to the court. Is the Constitution to be interpreted strictly or loosely? Is the overwhelming consideration public good or individual freedom? Are ideas and concepts from Europe fair game for US cases or not? Every judge has opinions on these and brings them to bear on the case in question.
Impartiality means that two litigants stand before the judge. It does not matter that one is an elderly black lady and the other is WalMart. They are both entitled to equal hearing, something the liberals seem to have forgotten with their talk about "empathy." The court is not a place for empathy but for justice.

Empathy does belong in the courtroom; but only as a servant to justice. Not instead of justice. Judges must feel empathy for people or they are worthless, particularly when it comes to sentencing. Judges must be able to empathize with victims, and if they sympathize with victims it makes sense that they empathize with human beings, period. I know a judge who says that she very consciously applies empathy to her judgements.

Where is empathy a requirement for justice?
I was particularly thinking of civil suits. Saying, well she's a poor old black woman who's been abused by the system and WalMart is a big rich corporation so we'll award her the judgment, is a debasement of justice.

 

[George Costanza]

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.

Read your own article

"Ideological" lines? Why sugar coat it, TM - why not say what it really was: POLITICAL lines.