~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
A U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... and we are about to get a new one.
For those of you who might not be familiar with the process, Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" (majority vote) of the Senate (currently holding a Democratic majority). Once appointed, Supreme Court Justices effectively have life tenure. Their terms end only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment. These are the people who determine how laws will be interpreted and upheld in the future. Although they may seem like nothing more than a geriatric coffee club, their decisions reach down and grab each and every one of us.
Friday, President Obama described what he would be looking for in David Souter's (set to retire in June) successor. Most of the qualifications Obama listed were those we expect to hear: legal experience or extensive legal training, spotless ethical record and devotion to the rule of law. But then he added another component - one he mentioned during his campaign - empathy.
This makes absolutely no sense. Empathy? It sounds great - warm and fuzzy - but empathy has no place in any courtroom, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court.
The American Heritage® Dictionary defines empathy as:
Yet courts are required to be impartial - not favoring one more than another, treating all alike, unprejudiced, unbiased, disinterested, equitable, fair, just - in other words, empathy and impartiality are NOT synonyms.
It is likely this Justice appointment will not significantly change the "look" of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although David Souter was nominated by President George H. Bush, and initially aligned with the conservative side of the Court, he is now considered part of the liberal wing of the Court as will likely be true of his replacement. But looking for an empathetic replacement? That's just a slap in the face of the U.S. Judicial Branch.
A U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... and we are about to get a new one.For those of you who might not be familiar with the process, Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" (majority vote) of the Senate (currently holding a Democratic majority). Once appointed, Supreme Court Justices effectively have life tenure. Their terms end only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment. These are the people who determine how laws will be interpreted and upheld in the future. Although they may seem like nothing more than a geriatric coffee club, their decisions reach down and grab each and every one of us.
Friday, President Obama described what he would be looking for in David Souter's (set to retire in June) successor. Most of the qualifications Obama listed were those we expect to hear: legal experience or extensive legal training, spotless ethical record and devotion to the rule of law. But then he added another component - one he mentioned during his campaign - empathy.
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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," Obama said. "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
This makes absolutely no sense. Empathy? It sounds great - warm and fuzzy - but empathy has no place in any courtroom, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court.The American Heritage® Dictionary defines empathy as:
Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
Yet courts are required to be impartial - not favoring one more than another, treating all alike, unprejudiced, unbiased, disinterested, equitable, fair, just - in other words, empathy and impartiality are NOT synonyms.
It is likely this Justice appointment will not significantly change the "look" of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although David Souter was nominated by President George H. Bush, and initially aligned with the conservative side of the Court, he is now considered part of the liberal wing of the Court as will likely be true of his replacement. But looking for an empathetic replacement? That's just a slap in the face of the U.S. Judicial Branch.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
21 comments:
I agree with you on some levels: the law is the law and needs to be applied, empathy is not neccessary.
But I also think that there are times when there is ambiguity or when an outdated precident needs to be overturned and that requires seeing beyond the black letter. Perhaps there is room to be empathetic without losing impartiality?
I going to be thinking about this one - very thought provoking.
As someone who frequents a courtroom or two, I am torn. Empathy can be good quality in a judge. I worked mainly in family division courts which are "courts of equity" as opposed to "courts of law". In custody or juvenile delinquency matters, for example, the court is charged with different responsibilities than in criminal or civil courts. While there are statues and precedent that the court must follow, there are very few hard and fast rules. Judges have a lot of leeway to make "best interests" decisions and "equitable and fair" decisions. Courts of equity are supposed protect children/families and act fairly through a form of "rough justice".
That is where empathy comes into play. The judges who are human and can emotionally relate are a lot better in those courtrooms. In that setting empathy is not about being impartial to either party, but relating to a child so that their best interests are protected.
Now, appellate courts, such as the Supreme Court, don't really deal with people in the same way. In theory they should be dealing with legal issues only. There, I agree there is no room for empathy or emotion on that level.
This is also the court that has members who look at foreign laws for guidance in making a judgement in their court. Constitutional law seems to be a subject barely touched upon in law school. Several Supreme court justices seem to be lacking in this important educational fact.
SO if empathy has no role in justice, why are there sentencing guidelines? Why do DAs have discretion what charges to file? Why does the President have the power to pardon someone for crimes they committed? Why is there the possibility of parole and parole boards?
If you say that empathy has nothing to do with any of the above you're fooling yourself.
So tell me again how looking for a jurist with empathy is a slap in the face to the Judicial Branch?
I think empathy has a lot to do with mercy, as described by some writer fella in England:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
It's the court's job to dtermine whether a law or verdict is constitutional or not.
Empathy has no place in constitutional law. It's a yes or no answer which will affect everyone down the line.. not just that one case.
I have a feeling that Obama has no clue as to how our system of government really works.
Kimberly, here is my question, which side are you empathetic towards? How does personal bias figure in to empathy when doling out legal decisions?
Karen, I can see a VERY limited place for empathy in the family court, especially considering custody/visitation tends to be biased towards mothers (don't get me started on that one), but in Constitutional law?
doomed, Constitutional Law *is* very different from other forms of law and issues are not ones that have room for warm and fuzzy.
Hubman, sentencing guidelines are not supposed to be used as a means of empathy, but to narrow down a punishment based on it's severity. Discretion on filing charges has nothing to do with empathy either, but is rather a situation of addressing a greater good (allowing a lesser crime relatively unpunished in order to secure a verdict in a more serious crime), and pardons are most often politically motivated, not a case of empathy.
The Supreme Court decides Constitutional law, not guilt or innocence. COMPLETELY different beast and absolutely no room for empathy.
Volly, mercy? Really? In the Supreme Court? Again, I cannot begin to define how wrong I feel that idea is ... but I do love the poem!
Hammer, exactly! I cannot speak to Obama's knowledge of constitutional law, but the fact that empathy was mentioned leads me to believe he is either trying to make brownie points, or really has no clue.
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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,"Oh the humanity! A supreme court justice who doesn't side with the corporate world or strict ideology and instead actually takes into account the consequences of the law on the real lives of real people?
We can't have that now, can we?
"I cannot speak to Obama's knowledge of constitutional law, but the fact that empathy was mentioned leads me to believe he is either trying to make brownie points, or really has no clue."He was a constitutional law scholar and professor. But, he couldn't possibly actually know anything about it. He certainly isn't the expert you are. ;-)
You gave the very strict, literal dictionary definition of the word "empathy." In his statement, the part I quoted above, Obama gave his interpretation of how he believes "empathy" applies to judges and the law. We know this because he followed those words up with "I view THAT quality of empathy..." meaning the qualities he just outlined.
The law isn't black and white. There are a lot of grey areas in there. The court is constantly being asked to interpret the "meaning" of laws and what the "spirit" of the law is. In those cases, where they are being asked to do these things, the real world impact on people and their lives is a legitimate thing to take into account.
Not everybody is a literalist. Not everybody says "here is the dictionary's definition of a word and there can be no other interpretations or applications of this word and it cannot have any other characteristics other than what I say it can."
When someone gives you his or her interpretation of how a word applies to a specific thing like judges, you can't then turn around and say "No THIS is the definition of the word and that's it!"
Love ya babe. ;-)
Dana, on this, you and I agree... It boils down to this.. You either want someone who upholds the law/constitution or you don't... It is not the task of the Judicial Branch to create the laws. They are only to determine the constitutionality of them and apply the ones that pass that test to the situation at hand.
They are not to apply the laws with regards to their personal feelings.. And empathy is a personal feeling...
Seems like I remember someone saying something along the lines of the law being impartial.. So, either it's applied the same to all or it's not.. Which of these scenarios would be impartial?
It's not my country, so I'm not that bothered. But the logical extension to your ideas is both sinister and cold.
Remove empathy? Produce absolute objectivity?
We can get robots to do that. Present a crime, circumstances, and if guilt is proven have a machine dictate the 'correct' sentencing.
It's like the McDonald's set meal version of justice, without the capacity to ask for no pickles on your burger.
Jay, MEANIE!!!
No Jay, we cannot not have that - not in the Supreme Court. If we are going to have empathy, we need to have it on BOTH sides, otherwise it's called bias/favoritism and doesn't belong in an impartial courtroom.
Empathy is empathy. We don't get to change the meaning of words so that they sound good and yet still get our point across - not even as President. His definition and the one I printed are the "same" - I don't take issue with his definition, I take issue with the fact that he believes it belongs in the Supreme Court.
And yes, after further study (How did I not know about his EXTENSIVE Constitutional Law background? Now THAT is embarrassing!) I am even more surprised that he made that statement regarding empathy.
Just me, absolutely - "we" get some say in the law making process. The Supreme Court has a very clearly defined, and limited scope, task.
Leonhart, the task of the U.S. Supreme Court does not include determining guilt or innocence, or sentencing for crimes. They decide if laws are constitutional - a process that is far less gray than some would like to believe.
Jay summed up everything I wanted say, dammit. And if the Supreme Court had no empathy in the past, we would still be living in a seperate but equal society. However they undid much of that when ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. Cheers!!
The Supreme court should hold the letter of the law, regardless of the law. If the laws, like civil rights are immoral or otherwise unliked by the majority then there is a process to change them, then the supreme court can rule on the new definitions as set forth in the newly changed law.
It seems easy to me.
The Founding Fathers sought to balance power..sometimes it works that way, sometimes it's gridlock. Our system never anticipated all the hidden agendas and loop holes it allowed.. Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Dictatorships all can work with moral- fair minded individuals at the helm.. But unfortuately, as our Roman Empire friends discovered- "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"..
dana...outstanding post with outstanding comments. I agree with you 100%, if these men and women serving on OUR Supreme Court turn all *mushy* on us, what will happen to the strength of our nation?
Nicely done!
~AM
Jay hit all the points I was going to make...
In my mind, if we could have an entire court of Judge Souter's we would be in great shape.
I don't necessarily agree he was on the 'liberal' side of the Court. he was on the side of the Court where he felt each individual case need to be.
His rulings cross over the line over and over.
Matt-Man, That's what happens when you are fashionably late to the party! I would say that the ruling on Brown v. Board of Education had NOTHING to do with empathy and everything to do with proper interpretation of the law.
Southern Sage, EXACTLY! The Supreme court is not in the business of lawmaking - that is what voters are for.
buffalodick, I will agree with your hidden agendas and loop holes theory - it has mucked things up a bit.
AirmanMom, I still say there is no way for a justice to be empathetic AND impartial. If you are favoring one side because you "identify" with them, then you are NOT being impartial.
Bond, I'm just going to have Jay post comments and sign your and Matt-Man's name to them *wink*
Souter most definitely sided with the liberal wing of the Court more times than not from 1995 until 2009. He is considered one of the biggest blunders of George H. Bush's presidency, and that's saying a lot!
I don't think empathy has a place in the Supreme Court.
-The decisions should be of stern matter.
That is all.
Post a Comment