Rambi, all of us use empathy when making decisions involving the interactions of people, judges more so than many. Many legal questions require judges to balance human costs and on a constant basis they're charged with determining legislative intent. Empathy is the skill that allows us to put ourselves in the shoes of others to fill in the blanks and interpret written and spoken words so that we don't make ridiculous interpretive mistakes. It also allows us to accurately survey the human costs and benefits of one decision versus another, a critical factor in writing a decision that implements a law so that the application of the law is consistent with the legislative intent of those who wrote the law.
The real question, therefor, isn't whether the nominee will use empathy but rather whether the nominee has a tendency to be so empathetic that she may sometimes ignore legislative intent or, alternatively, may tend to be selectively empathetic, favoring certain groups unfairly.
Frankly, I'd like to see a justice to balance the empathy tendencies of Scalia, a man who often seems to acutely feel the pain of advantaged, conservative America. Assuming her heart doesn't overrule her head it will be beneficial to have someone on the court who comprehends the tough reality that many Americans live, and who doesn't rush to lay most of the blame on them.
The question I have with respect to her is whether she has the kind of mind that can brilliantly examine and articulate complex issues and strongly influence the court and the clarity of the law, or whether she's simply a good, workmanlike jurist who can be counted on to make competent decisions. I think she's more in the workmanlike category but we'll see.
If she's not brilliant then over the next 7 years Obama will undoubtedly get another opportunity and maybe he'll choose for brilliance then. Ed |
