Empathy would seem to be an essential characteristic of any good judge. It is the tool by which the judge can temper their own bias.

The right is simply trying to find an excuse to hang their opposition to Obama's nominee on. They argued for deference to Presidential preference for Bush's nominees. They need some justification for reversing that viewpoint. However, the reality is that they will simply oppose his nominee reflexively.

Agreed. No Republican will be permitted to actually make a decision regarding support or opposition for President Obama’s nominee. The orders will go out and the blocking will begin. Anyone who does not obey will be “Specter’ed.”

Fletc: "Empathy would seem to be an essential characteristic of any good judge. It is the tool by which the judge can temper their own bias."

Very well put!

It is well put, but in it lie the seeds of its own illogic. It makes no sense to seek a judge who will use a tool to temper his bias; instead you must seek a judge who recognizes that he is susceptible to bias but is capable of judging by using that part of his mind that is without bias. If you have ever served on a jury, you were asked to do the same thing, and I hope you did it. You may well want a judge with broad experience, or a good imagination, so that he can understand things of which he has no direct experience, but the very last quality you should look for in a judge is empathy. Empathy is an emotional response, and if you want justice uniformly applied, inviting emotional responses to real cases is no way to get it.

It is of interest that the subject of this skein has become "right wing codewords." It is Mr. Obama who has chosen to establish "empathy" as the hallmark of a good judge. Not knowledge, or wisdom, or honesty, or respect for the rule of law, or even "judicial temperament," the king of buzzwords, but empathy. He began using it on the campaign trail and so, from my perspective, empathy is very much a left wing codeword.

Finally, think of it in selfish terms. Bear in mind that Mr. Justice Souter is not the only one whose view from the bench has proved out to be not quite "as advertised." If you have gone to the trouble of electing representatives to write laws that you want written, and if you have gone to the trouble of electing executives who craft regulations that you want enforced, why in the world would you want to APPOINT FOR LIFE someone who is inclined to undo all that, take your representation away from you, because he has more empathy for the other guys?

Not to say I am an Obama-lover, but in this realm he is no ordinary President... he was a constitutional law professor, for pete's sake. So I trust he will make a good judgment on whoever he picks. But to support his use of "empathy" is seriously flawed.

Even Obama would admit that "empathy" in this case is a nebulous word that means as much as he wants it to mean. Judges are there to make rulings based on the statutes (maybe not, though, to take it to the Scalia level). So when you, Dahlia (and I love your work), critized the Ledbetter decision b/c the court should have ignored the text of Title VII simply b/c Lilly was underpaid, you crossed the bounds of ruling based on the statute just to fix this one circumstance where it is unfair. Once you get into this area, then the statute holds no force... and then going down that waaay-far-down-the-road slippery slope, you have lawlessness. Let the legislators, for this reason, be the empathizers. And let the legislators fix Title VII to correct this unfairness.

One case that every law student see is this: Everyone knows it is illegal to steal. But what happens if an poor, elderly black woman goes to the grocery store and, b/c she can't afford anything and is starving, she steals. Should she be punished?

The answer: yes!!! She violated the law. Do we want an "empathetic judge" to rule that what this poor soul did was legal based on our circumstances? No!!! Laws need to be clear and consistent and handled in the same fashion.

The constitution assures us we are all equal under the law. Duress, poverty or need can be viewed to understand motivation, but does not excuse behavior in any way. Justice is blind and in the application of the law, no difference should exist between poor, rich, white, black or any other special group. Only the lack of mental capacity, or the inability to understand the consequences of the actions committed should be considered when judging a case. A justice system that sees all as equals, that should be the goal.

fletc3her:

Empathy would seem to be an essential characteristic of any good judge. It is the tool by which the judge can temper their own bias.

Thank you for making my point for me - since ANY judge considered for the Supreme Court would presumably be empathetic, it is a lousy criterion upon which to base the search. Using empathy as your primary criterion then makes it look as if you are trying to hide a person's views, rather than pulling them out and taking a look at them, which is the whole point of the confirmation process. It's analogous to searching for a new dog using "furry" as your primary criterion; it simply isn't useful as a way to pick your perfect pooch, since there are so many who qualify...

You miss the point. Republicans hate "empathy" solely because Barak Obama used that word. Republicans are so filled with venom that they would have hated any word he used.

Republicans would hate mustard if Barak Obama used it on a hamburg.....

Oh wait! He did. And they did!