Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (112117)	5/28/2009 1:40:56 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

It made me nervous personally because I don't like the idea of feelings influencing interpretation to the extent it makes law I assume that happens constantly with all judges, whether they pretend it doesn't or not. If the law could be interpreted purely mechanically, we would feed SC briefs into a big IBM computer and let it spit out a result. Our SC will continue to have four ardent conservatives and five moderates to liberals for the foreseeable future, which is a decent balance that kind of reflects the society they are judging for. Of course, if they really reflected that society there would be five women and not just two. ;<)

To: Rambi who wrote (112117)	5/28/2009 1:55:16 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

>>RE: Empathy<< If the law is not to be a meat grinder, I think adding some humanity and empathy is a good thing. Knowing what is balanced and right based upon an understanding of the suffering involved by both parties should be part of the decision process of the SCOTUS. One could argue that the situations leading to the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments had already been settled in law by the 3/5 compromise in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Ironically, the Declaration of Independence says "All men are created equal..." These words should have set the tone, but when people with limited empathy are involved, a generic term "men" became "straight white males" and not "humanity". I doubt if pressed on the implications of the words, that many would have had a 21st century take on their meaning back in the 18th century. Fortunately empathy is generally expanding in the U.S. over time. Someone without empathy could interpret the law as being clear. The number of SCOTUS cases involving what should be clear matters of law indicates that the law is a blunt instrument and as social institutions change, the law (and its interpretations) must change with it. The SCOTUS provides this and I hope to hell that the men and women that are seated their have some humanity and empathy.

To: Rambi who wrote (112117)	5/29/2009 12:45:08 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

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