Empathetic or not?

[Nik]

Deciding law based upon the law isn't emotionless.

Umm, you'll have to explain that one.

Oaths of Office For Federal Officials - Supreme Court
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Now knowing the oath, how are Justices suppose to take into effect the emotions of the parties before them?

Now this is what Obama stated....
Souter's exit starts new justice search - USATODAY.com
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."


You don't see a contradiction between the oath and Obama's criteria for choosing a Justice?

No, I don't. You are missing the part of "administering justice" equally to the poor and to the rich. That is, treating them each justly. That, obviously, doesn't mean treating them the same in every respect. In your strange interpretation, shall the Justices perhaps declare that Bill Gates should receive welfare, since they must treat rich and poor equally in all respects?

 

[Nik]

Aaah ... but there's a flaw, how do you just turn off emotions?

You don't turn them off, but you can subjugate them to your intellect. I believe strongly in due process for all individuals. And yet, my girlfriend was going to work at a clinic defending people who had their kids taken away for abuse (often with little to no due process). Several good friends of mine were abused as kids and if there is one thing that makes me want to kill someone, its people who abuse their kids. And I don't think I would be able to defend them, but I support my girlfriend doing it. Because they, like everyone else, deserves due process rights. And despite my emotional reaction of wanting to kill them, the intellectual reaction of knowing that despite the fact that the state has accused them of something, they may well be completely innocent.

Exactly my point, a suspected child abuser and a thief should receive the same treatment under our laws.

I'm assuming you know that you can interpret laws in different ways, and that common law is judge made law. You do also know that one of the methods of interpretation that come into these things is "public policy", yes? If a justice can understand and empathize with others, especially the poor, they are likely to have more equitable views about public policy.

 

[jreeves]

Umm, you'll have to explain that one.

Oaths of Office For Federal Officials - Supreme Court
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Now knowing the oath, how are Justices suppose to take into effect the emotions of the parties before them?

Now this is what Obama stated....
Souter's exit starts new justice search - USATODAY.com
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."


You don't see a contradiction between the oath and Obama's criteria for choosing a Justice?

No, I don't. You are missing the part of "administering justice" equally to the poor and to the rich. That is, treating them each justly. That, obviously, doesn't mean treating them the same in every respect. In your strange interpretation, shall the Justices perhaps declare that Bill Gates should receive welfare, since they must treat rich and poor equally in all respects?

No that's a false analogy. Because we both know that the government sets up criteria for how a person qualifies for welfare. From which, Obama's statement or from the oath, am I missing the part of "administering justice"?

 

[Nik]

Oaths of Office For Federal Officials - Supreme Court
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Now knowing the oath, how are Justices suppose to take into effect the emotions of the parties before them?

Now this is what Obama stated....
Souter's exit starts new justice search - USATODAY.com
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."


You don't see a contradiction between the oath and Obama's criteria for choosing a Justice?

No, I don't. You are missing the part of "administering justice" equally to the poor and to the rich. That is, treating them each justly. That, obviously, doesn't mean treating them the same in every respect. In your strange interpretation, shall the Justices perhaps declare that Bill Gates should receive welfare, since they must treat rich and poor equally in all respects?

No that's a false analogy. Because we both know that the government sets up criteria for how a person qualifies for welfare. From which, Obama's statement or from the oath, am I missing the part of "administering justice"?

The oath. And the oath doesn't say treating them equally under the law, it says treating each of them justly.

 

[jreeves]

You don't turn them off, but you can subjugate them to your intellect. I believe strongly in due process for all individuals. And yet, my girlfriend was going to work at a clinic defending people who had their kids taken away for abuse (often with little to no due process). Several good friends of mine were abused as kids and if there is one thing that makes me want to kill someone, its people who abuse their kids. And I don't think I would be able to defend them, but I support my girlfriend doing it. Because they, like everyone else, deserves due process rights. And despite my emotional reaction of wanting to kill them, the intellectual reaction of knowing that despite the fact that the state has accused them of something, they may well be completely innocent.

Exactly my point, a suspected child abuser and a thief should receive the same treatment under our laws.

I'm assuming you know that you can interpret laws in different ways, and that common law is judge made law. You do also know that one of the methods of interpretation that come into these things is "public policy", yes? If a justice can understand and empathize with others, especially the poor, they are likely to have more equitable views about public policy.

Public policy isn't about empathizing with the parties. Its about what is customary and acceptable in society.

 

[jreeves]

No, I don't. You are missing the part of "administering justice" equally to the poor and to the rich. That is, treating them each justly. That, obviously, doesn't mean treating them the same in every respect. In your strange interpretation, shall the Justices perhaps declare that Bill Gates should receive welfare, since they must treat rich and poor equally in all respects?

No that's a false analogy. Because we both know that the government sets up criteria for how a person qualifies for welfare. From which, Obama's statement or from the oath, am I missing the part of "administering justice"?

The oath. And the oath doesn't say treating them equally under the law, it says treating each of them justly.

So my link is incorrect, is that what you are saying?

 

[Nik]

Exactly my point, a suspected child abuser and a thief should receive the same treatment under our laws.

I'm assuming you know that you can interpret laws in different ways, and that common law is judge made law. You do also know that one of the methods of interpretation that come into these things is "public policy", yes? If a justice can understand and empathize with others, especially the poor, they are likely to have more equitable views about public policy.

Public policy isn't about empathizing with the parties. Its about what is customary and acceptable in society.

Umm, no. Its not. When judges rule on a matter as public policy, they aren't ruling on something because its customary and acceptable. If it was customary and acceptable, they would rule on it as a matter of custom. Public policy is something else entirely. It is the idea that certain things promote societies well being, and those things should be encouraged.

 

[Nik]

No that's a false analogy. Because we both know that the government sets up criteria for how a person qualifies for welfare. From which, Obama's statement or from the oath, am I missing the part of "administering justice"?

The oath. And the oath doesn't say treating them equally under the law, it says treating each of them justly.

So my link is incorrect, is that what you are saying?

No. Your link is correct, but your previous conclusion is incorrect because you, personally, missed the part about justice.

 

[jreeves]

The oath. And the oath doesn't say treating them equally under the law, it says treating each of them justly.

So my link is incorrect, is that what you are saying?

No. Your link is correct, but your previous conclusion is incorrect because you, personally, missed the part about justice.

What that justice should be administered to both the rich and poor with equal rights? I agree with that...

 

[jreeves]

I'm assuming you know that you can interpret laws in different ways, and that common law is judge made law. You do also know that one of the methods of interpretation that come into these things is "public policy", yes? If a justice can understand and empathize with others, especially the poor, they are likely to have more equitable views about public policy.

Public policy isn't about empathizing with the parties. Its about what is customary and acceptable in society.

Umm, no. Its not. When judges rule on a matter as public policy, they aren't ruling on something because its customary and acceptable. If it was customary and acceptable, they would rule on it as a matter of custom. Public policy is something else entirely. It is the idea that certain things promote societies well being, and those things should be encouraged.

I agree somewhat, said a different way. Society isn't individuals though, the individual should receive equal treatment under the law without respect to the emotions of the case, don't you agree?

 

[Nik]

Public policy isn't about empathizing with the parties. Its about what is customary and acceptable in society.

Umm, no. Its not. When judges rule on a matter as public policy, they aren't ruling on something because its customary and acceptable. If it was customary and acceptable, they would rule on it as a matter of custom. Public policy is something else entirely. It is the idea that certain things promote societies well being, and those things should be encouraged.

I agree somewhat, said a different way. Society isn't individuals though, the individual should receive equal treatment under the law without respect to the emotions of the case, don't you agree?

I do, as long as you realize that emotions aren't the same thing as social justice issues. Brown v. Board of Ed didn't really have much law supporting it. It was mostly a social justice case, not one based on emotions. Justices have the right to see injustices, and to stop them whether they fall under current law or not.

 

[jreeves]

Umm, no. Its not. When judges rule on a matter as public policy, they aren't ruling on something because its customary and acceptable. If it was customary and acceptable, they would rule on it as a matter of custom. Public policy is something else entirely. It is the idea that certain things promote societies well being, and those things should be encouraged.

I agree somewhat, said a different way. Society isn't individuals though, the individual should receive equal treatment under the law without respect to the emotions of the case, don't you agree?

I do, as long as you realize that emotions aren't the same thing as social justice issues. Brown v. Board of Ed didn't really have much law supporting it. It was mostly a social justice case, not one based on emotions. Justices have the right to see injustices, and to stop them whether they fall under current law or not.

As long as there is good law behind the decision like Brown v. board of ed. had the 14th amendment you know the equal protection clause?

 

[DamnYankee]

empathic judges etc is what brought us the terry shivo bullshit...empathic is not a legal merit....the ussc is suppose to rise about all but the us consititution....wouldnt that be nice

Actually, Christian fundamentalists are what brought us the Terry Schiavo bullshit. The USSC denied the certs for Schiavo. There is a difference between empathy and being emotionally overwrought.

Actually, it was a difference of opinion between a spouse and parents, and the lack of an AD, that brought the Terri Schiavo BS.

 

[DamnYankee]

Umm...common law as constrasted with statutory law. For a simple primer see this: Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The US has a rich history of such law, and in fact much of our current property and contract law is common law. Do you want to throw out 500 years of tradition, 200 years of American jurisprudence, and a rich history of judge-made law? Why do you hate our traditions so much?

Judges aren't supposed to make law. THey're supposed to enforce it.

Incorrect. See the past 500 years of Ango-American jurisprudence. Again, why do you hate our American traditions?

It would be good if you made up your mind....

That being said, your reference (Wiki) not only has a "citations needed" section, but a "This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." disclaimer.

 

[DamnYankee]

I re-iterate, judges aren't supposed to make law. THey do it, but they're wrong to do so.

Oh, well, because you say they aren't supposed to do it, that makes it all ok. What exactly makes you more of an authority on what judges are "supposed" to do than centuries of jurisprudence?

This work for you?

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. The President nominates justices to the court. The Senate must vote its approval of the nominations. The whole Congress also has great power over the lower courts in the federal system. District and appeals courts are created by acts of Congress. These courts may be abolished if Congress wishes it.

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

 

[Nik]

I agree somewhat, said a different way. Society isn't individuals though, the individual should receive equal treatment under the law without respect to the emotions of the case, don't you agree?

I do, as long as you realize that emotions aren't the same thing as social justice issues. Brown v. Board of Ed didn't really have much law supporting it. It was mostly a social justice case, not one based on emotions. Justices have the right to see injustices, and to stop them whether they fall under current law or not.

As long as there is good law behind the decision like Brown v. board of ed. had the 14th amendment you know the equal protection clause?

Sure and the court considered a bunch of gobbedly gook socialogical evidence to determine whether segregation was equal or not. After all, the court had already ruled that separate was ok, as long as it was separate but equal. The court in Brown said that separation was inherently unequal, no matter what the state of the two schools.

 

[Nik]

Umm...common law as constrasted with statutory law. For a simple primer see this: Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The US has a rich history of such law, and in fact much of our current property and contract law is common law. Do you want to throw out 500 years of tradition, 200 years of American jurisprudence, and a rich history of judge-made law? Why do you hate our traditions so much?

Judges aren't supposed to make law. THey're supposed to enforce it.

Incorrect. See the past 500 years of Ango-American jurisprudence. Again, why do you hate our American traditions?

It would be good if you made up your mind....

That being said, your reference (Wiki) not only has a "citations needed" section, but a "This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." disclaimer.

Umm, made up my mind about what exactly? And the Wiki article is largely accurate.

 

[Nik]

I re-iterate, judges aren't supposed to make law. THey do it, but they're wrong to do so.

Oh, well, because you say they aren't supposed to do it, that makes it all ok. What exactly makes you more of an authority on what judges are "supposed" to do than centuries of jurisprudence?

This work for you?

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. The President nominates justices to the court. The Senate must vote its approval of the nominations. The whole Congress also has great power over the lower courts in the federal system. District and appeals courts are created by acts of Congress. These courts may be abolished if Congress wishes it.

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

Umm, considering that this is an extremely simple minded piece written for 6th graders and that its not on point to anything we've been saying, what is your purpose in posting this exactly?

 

[Nik]

empathic judges etc is what brought us the terry shivo bullshit...empathic is not a legal merit....the ussc is suppose to rise about all but the us consititution....wouldnt that be nice

Actually, Christian fundamentalists are what brought us the Terry Schiavo bullshit. The USSC denied the certs for Schiavo. There is a difference between empathy and being emotionally overwrought.

Actually, it was a difference of opinion between a spouse and parents, and the lack of an AD, that brought the Terri Schiavo BS.

That was the underlying cause of it,but Christian fundamentalists in their "omg, we have to keep everyone alive whether they want it or not" bullshit is what brought Schiavo to the national stage.

 

[jreeves]

I do, as long as you realize that emotions aren't the same thing as social justice issues. Brown v. Board of Ed didn't really have much law supporting it. It was mostly a social justice case, not one based on emotions. Justices have the right to see injustices, and to stop them whether they fall under current law or not.

As long as there is good law behind the decision like Brown v. board of ed. had the 14th amendment you know the equal protection clause?

Sure and the court considered a bunch of gobbedly gook socialogical evidence to determine whether segregation was equal or not. After all, the court had already ruled that separate was ok, as long as it was separate but equal. The court in Brown said that separation was inherently unequal, no matter what the state of the two schools.

Is this what you are referring to?
Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[3] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[4] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation had an impact on black schoolchildren's mental status.[5]

It proved that the school systems were not equal, I don't see social activism. SCOTUS, in effect gave all parties the same opportunity at an education, both blacks and whites, particularly blacks. Maybe you could explain, where you see social activism in this ruling?