Empathy versus Law

[alan1]

A MINORITY VIEW

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009

Empathy Versus Law

President Obama's articulated criteria for his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is: "We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

What is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable start for an answer is the recognition that our Constitution represents the rules of the game. A Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only namely; he is a referee. There is nothing complicated about this. A referee's job, whether he is a football referee or a Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and make sure that they are evenly applied without bias. Do we want referees to allow empathy to influence their decisions? Let's look at it using this year's Super Bowl as an example.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have won six Super Bowl titles, seven AFC championships and hosted 10 conference games. No other AFC or NFC team can match this record. By contrast, the Arizona Cardinals' last championship victory was in 1947 when they were based in Chicago. In anyone's book, this is a gross disparity. Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it's like to be a perennial loser and what would you think of a referee whose decisions were guided by his empathy? Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the Steelers and less stringently against the Cardinals. Or, would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule? You'd probably remind him that the league makes the rules, not referees.

I'm betting that most people would agree that football justice requires that referees apply the rules blindly and independent of the records or any other characteristic of the two teams. Moreover, I believe that most people would agree that referees should evenly apply the rules of the games even if they personally disagreed with some of the rules.

The relationship between Supreme Court justices and the U.S. Constitution should be identical to that of referees and football rules. The status of a person appearing before the court should have absolutely nothing to do with the rendering of decisions. That's why Lady Justice, often appearing on court buildings, is shown wearing a blindfold. It is to indicate that justice should be meted out impartially, regardless of identity, power or weakness. Also, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts." The legislative branch makes the rules, not judges.

Interventionists often make their case for bending the rules based on the unfairness of outcomes such as differences in income, education and wealth. After all, how can the game of life possibly be fair when some people's yearly income totals in the hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, while many others scarcely earn twenty or thirty thousand dollars? Some people find that argument persuasive but it's nonsense. Income distribution is an outcome and fairness cannot be determined by outcomes. It's the same with football. The Steelers winning six Super Bowl titles and Arizona winning none is an outcome and cannot be used to determine football fairness. Fairness in either case must be settled by process questions such as: Were the rules unbiased and evenly applied? If so, any outcome is just and actions based on empathy would make it unjust.

 

[dilloduck]

ie---We get another fucked up judge on SCOTUS.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm wore out my arguments in a similar thread. A damn good topic though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian has voiced her opinion that this is fine and dandy. Now of course if Bush had used this criteria we would have never heard the end from people like Jillian about the rule of law and the IMPARTIAL process.

Can we say Hypocrite?

If the Senate approves a Judge on their empathy we should start recall procedures on all that vote yes.

 

[dilloduck]

Jillian has voiced her opinion that this is fine and dandy. Now of course if Bush had used this criteria we would have never heard the end from people like Jillian about the rule of law and the IMPARTIAL process.

Can we say Hypocrite?

If the Senate approves a Judge on their empathy we should start recall procedures on all that vote yes.

but we won't. We don't run the show anymore.

 

[alan1]

I'm patiently waiting for somebody (read liberal) to attempt to discredit Mr Williams so I can laugh at their failure.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm patiently waiting for somebody (read liberal) to attempt to discredit Mr Williams so I can laugh at their failure.

Not holding your breath, are you? Long-distance CPR certification is still pending....

 

[alan1]

I'm patiently waiting for somebody (read liberal) to attempt to discredit Mr Williams so I can laugh at their failure.

Not holding your breath, are you? Long-distance CPR certification is still pending....

I only hold my breath while being waterboarded.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm patiently waiting for somebody (read liberal) to attempt to discredit Mr Williams so I can laugh at their failure.

Not holding your breath, are you? Long-distance CPR certification is still pending....

I only hold my breath while being waterboarded.

Good thinkin'....

 

[foggedinn]

Jillian has voiced her opinion that this is fine and dandy. Now of course if Bush had used this criteria we would have never heard the end from people like Jillian about the rule of law and the IMPARTIAL process.

Can we say Hypocrite?

If the Senate approves a Judge on their empathy we should start recall procedures on all that vote yes.

Should a judge without empathy be nominated and approved?

 

[dilloduck]

Jillian has voiced her opinion that this is fine and dandy. Now of course if Bush had used this criteria we would have never heard the end from people like Jillian about the rule of law and the IMPARTIAL process.

Can we say Hypocrite?

If the Senate approves a Judge on their empathy we should start recall procedures on all that vote yes.

Should a judge without empathy be nominated and approved?

If you can find one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jillian has voiced her opinion that this is fine and dandy. Now of course if Bush had used this criteria we would have never heard the end from people like Jillian about the rule of law and the IMPARTIAL process.

Can we say Hypocrite?

If the Senate approves a Judge on their empathy we should start recall procedures on all that vote yes.

Should a judge without empathy be nominated and approved?

Should a Judge that rules by feelings NOT the written Law be nominated? The ENTIRE point of law is that it is a SET STANDARD unaffected by bias.

 

[Care4all]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

 

[dilloduck]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

Average guy ?

 

[Care4all]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

Average guy ?

i was gonna say average joe, but joe the plumber got in my mental way from doing such...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

That would be WHY the Senate has to AGREE.

 

[DamnYankee]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

Please allow me to remind you, as I pointed out in the earlier thread, that in the case of Roberts, Obama was tasked with voting 'yea' or 'nay' on his confirmation. Upon careful review of Roberts' record, Obama orated that he was impressed BUT based solely on HIS impression of 1% of Roberts' rulings (that 1% didn't display the appropriate empathy in HIS opinion), Obama could not bring himself to vote in favor of his appointment. 1% overrides 99%? How fucked is that? And we're supposed to accept EMPATHY as a sound reason for appointment? Sheesh....

 

[Care4all]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

That would be WHY the Senate has to AGREE.

Yes, the Senate most certainly has to Advise and CONSENT of each president's choice....

care

 

[Bfgrn]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

Please allow me to remind you, as I pointed out in the earlier thread, that in the case of Roberts, Obama was tasked with voting 'yea' or 'nay' on his confirmation. Upon careful review of Roberts' record, Obama orated that he was impressed BUT based solely on HIS impression of 1% of Roberts' rulings (that 1% didn't display the appropriate empathy in HIS opinion), Obama could not bring himself to vote in favor of his appointment. 1% overrides 99%? How fucked is that? And we're supposed to accept EMPATHY as a sound reason for appointment? Sheesh....

I only wish all Senators took the deep and responsible approach to Supreme Court nominees as then Senator Obama...

America is very fortunate, at this crucial juncture in our history to have a president with Barack Obama's scope, depth, sense of fairness and intrinsic intelligence...

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge John Roberts - Complete Text

 

[DamnYankee]

i'll take a stab at it

as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...

he did not say sympathetic, thank god!

sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion

they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas

they have been picked for being female....

they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....

they have been picked for being federalists....

why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?

this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....

Please allow me to remind you, as I pointed out in the earlier thread, that in the case of Roberts, Obama was tasked with voting 'yea' or 'nay' on his confirmation. Upon careful review of Roberts' record, Obama orated that he was impressed BUT based solely on HIS impression of 1% of Roberts' rulings (that 1% didn't display the appropriate empathy in HIS opinion), Obama could not bring himself to vote in favor of his appointment. 1% overrides 99%? How fucked is that? And we're supposed to accept EMPATHY as a sound reason for appointment? Sheesh....

I only wish all Senators took the deep and responsible approach to Supreme Court nominees as then Senator Obama...

America is very fortunate, at this crucial juncture in our history to have a president with Barack Obama's scope, depth, sense of fairness and intrinsic intelligence...

Obama Speech - Confirmation of Judge John Roberts - Complete Text

Thanks ever so much.... Unlike some of the followers of the Pied Piper, I am more than adequately informed with regard to the POTUS. You see.... I listened and read what he had to say, and compared it to all the candidates before making a decision, and refused to allow the media to make it for me.