~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
