When Republicans first declared their National War Against Empathy From the Court (NWAEFC), I found it amazingly out of touch with basic common sense. But it's Republicans we're dealing with here.
Bitter conservatives instantly attacked Obama's mention of empathy as a quality he would be looking for in a new Supreme Court Justice. Of all things to attack, movement conservatives chose empathy. Now that Obama has selected Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, the unhinged wingnut chorus will no doubt escalate it's national war against the to-be-dreaded human quality….empathy.
Who knew that empathy could be so dangerous?
Empathy….."the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
Conservatives do not want to see ANY of that quality on the Supremes bench, as RNC Chairman, Michael Steele said, "Crazy nonsense empathetic! I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind!" Steele is leading the Republican Party comeback.
From a piece by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com…..
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, speaking on This Week, warned that if a jurist were to show empathy, "politics, preferences, personal preferences and feelings might take the place of being impartial and deciding cases based upon the law, not upon politics." In an opinion piece in the Washington Times warning that Obama is poised to be the "first president to make lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court Justices," Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network saw empathy as a kind of temporary insanity that so distorts a jurist's vision as to make it difficult "to uphold the federal judicial oath to dispense justice impartially." Over on Fox News, Sean Hannity warned that empathy is the first step toward "social engineering." And in a delicious Freudian slip, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama snorted: "I don't know what empathy means."
Obviously, then, conservatives and Republicans have found something else besides "terror" to be deathly afraid of. Empathy from a judge is the new Islamic extremism.
Consider. The Constitution, as written by the Framers, did not include freedom or equality for slaves in America. Nowhere in the original text were slaves recognized as equals. Slavery, had it been left exclusively to textual, yet empathy averse, Constitutional jurists, would have never ended.
My point is that without empathy, it isn't even possible to fulfill the spirit of our Constitution's letter. How is it possible to identify what's right and wrong in cases concerning human beings if a judge can't make….."the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."?
Why should women have a right to vote? Why should minorities not be openly discriminated against? Without the ability to empathize, those questions are not even recognized as legitimate questions.
Let's take one John Roberts ruling to illustrate why empathy in a Supreme Court Justice is a good thing and not something to be afraid of. In the Lily Ledbetter case, a case involving pay discrimination by Goodyear, Chief Justice John Roberts could have written his decision based on the original intent of the congressional law under consideration, if empathy would have been allowed to creep into his thinking. The original intent of the law was to protect people like Lily Ledbetter from being discriminated against in the area of pay equality.
Instead, Roberts searched the letter of that law to find a justification for Goodyear's discrimination of Ms. Ledbetter. A loophole. And he found it. Roberts had no empathy. Roberts did not identify vicariously with the true victim in the case. Roberts did not for one second try to put himself in the experiencial shoes of Ms. Ledbetter. Roberts saw the case as a game to be played in order to assist powerful corporate interests.
Because of John Roberts lack of empathy, Congress had to rewrite equal pay legislation so that future empathy-challenged Supreme Court judges could not coldly discover a loophole to bypass the very intent of the law.
I welcome the upcoming war against empathy by conservatives and their corporate media stenographers.
Conservatives might feel guilty in defending the savage torture of powerless detainees if empathy wins this war. Conservatives of the neo-kind might not feel as comfortable pressing for more and larger wars of aggression against countries posing no threat to the U.S., if empathy prevails. Conservatives might not be able to openly and defiantly bash and discriminate against gays if empathy is fully embraced in America. Conservatives might not feel so righteous in attacking women who must make their own difficult reproductive choices….if empathy is left on the national table.
And so to those in the conservative swamp who are girding their loins for battle against this new and horrible enemy….I leave you with this familiar challenge….
Bring it on.
Here is an exceptional piece on John Roberts by lawyer and CNN contributor, Jeffrey Toobin.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
Empathy, liberial code word for "lets make them all feel better about themselves". Keep your empathy…give me results.
Empathy, the liberal code word for divisive identity politics and legislating from the bench.
I didn't notice much empathy from Sotomayor in the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
For more details, see my blog.
In addition, by using words like – "out of touch, wingnut, bitter, unhinged, deathly afraid," etc. to describe Republicans, it seems the Rev himself doesn't have much empathy.
Rev says, "Because of John Roberts lack of empathy, Congress had to rewrite equal pay legislation so that future empathy-challenged Supreme Court judges could not coldly discover a loophole to bypass the very intent of the law."
And that's exactly how it should be. Laws should be written by the LEGISLATIVE branch of government. That's why it's called the LEGISLATIVE branch. The judicial branch should only apply existing law. That's why there are different branches of government in the first place. Thanks for precisely describing the problem with the judiciary having empathy toward certain groups of people (at the expense of other groups of people). That's why statues and pictures of Blind Justice are seen in every courthouse in America.
You are correct Rev that slavery was not illegal in the Constitution. In fact it was recognized by the Great Compromise, you know, slaves count for 3/5 of a free man. In order to make slavery illegal you needed to change the Constitution. It can be done. Not, however, by the Surpeme Court, but by the Congress and state legislatures. It's all in the Constitution. You should read it some time. Brief summary: Congress makes the laws; the executive branch enforces the laws; the Supreme Court rules on the legality of the laws passed. Anything else is unconstitutional.
As a white male I understand my opinon to be inferior and defer to those that have the innate ability to grasp and promote the correct path.
Excellent comment angry. Seriously….good one.
Here's where I disagree on the Roberts case…..Roberts knew the intent of the law. The intent of the law is primary. Yet, Roberts purposely chose to ignore the intent of the law,….and for what?…..so he could correct, like some schoolmarm, every freaking piece of grammar in the law to find what he needed to favor the powerful?
Roberts is a Republican hack. As activist as one can get.
And King, I have empathy for those in the conservative quagmire. I have ideas for them that they won't listen to….because they have become calcified in some Limbaughian cocoon. I know how it feels to be in the minority, thus powerless, for 8 years….so I empathize, but, see…..the Democrats did something about it. Republicans, because conservatism is a political creed that fears change, can't see that their party needs to change, and change radically.
I kind of expected that empathy would be seen as a bad thing by conservatives.
MTV's is my favorite….
"Empathy, liberial code word for "lets make them all feel better about themselves". Keep your empathy…give me results."
No, empathy, to liberals, doesn't mean we want people to feel better about themselves. Empathy and human understanding are the ONLY qualities that can move societies forward. I want those qualities not only in my judges…..but in elected officials, as well.
In the context of the court…without the ability to understand the case from the plaintives point of view, which could include empathy from the judge, true justice can't be accomplished.
Those who don't want judges to have empathy, want the application of law, law intended to serve humans, to be dead and soulless, dehumanized. What Republicans want, and just about have, is a court that sides with the powerful overwhelmingly.
I would argue that empathy does get results. Empathy is not about feeling sorry for anything. Empathy is necessary for a judge to be able to see it from both sides.
Once again you show that liberals have no grasp of the function of the Sumpreme Court. You need to go back to school and take a basic government course. You think this is some sort of threrapy group that gives hugs to all participants. Empathy has no place in the Supreme Court. Juries can be empathetic, the legislature can be empathetic but empathy has no place on the Supreme court on any appellate court.
FYI the job of the court is to be the supreme arbiter of federal law and ensure that laws are Constitutional.
Rev,
What you're leaving out of the Ledbetter case is that there was a 180 day statutory limit to suing for discriminatory pay practices under Title VII. The majority Supreme Court opinion followed existing law at the time. You are arguing that they shouldn't have followed that law. The correct remedy was applied by Congress, who changed that law with the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Again, I'll repeat, the legislative branch makes the law. The judicial branch applies it. That's the way it's supposed to be under our Constitution. So-called "empathy" has no place in the equation.
angry,
How close to the Supreme Court do you suppose a white male nominee would get if he said his opinions were better than others due to the fact that he's white ?
I'm thinking the Senate would vote against him approximately 100-0.
Rev, I am amazed and yet not surprised at the Republican outcry for this Judge’s appointment. She has numerous times made it clear hat she upholds the Constitution. Looking at her track record, she indeed has upheld the law. I believe empathy is indeed a great trait for a judge to have. A person mature in their judicial career should have the skill to interpret the intent of the Constitution in context with today’s society. That occurs through empathy.
This is a similar argument that Evangelical conservatives use in interpreting the Bible. Understanding the Bible is more than cherry picking scriptures out of context to support your position. Its true meaning is unveiled when we understand the story and the message being told and can apply it to our lives in today’s society. I applaud the judge for being skilled in interpreting our founding father’s wishes in context of today’s world. Empathy + the Constitution = Fair and just treatment for all.
Well said, Tom.
And once again King, you have stuff wrong. The Ledbetter case pivoted on WHEN the Goodyear discrimination against her started. Goodyear, and Roberts, said, even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing she wasn't being paid equally with men, that her pay discrimination case began when she was hired.
That is an obvious gaming of the discrimination law's very intent. How in the hell can a woman being discriminated against over pay, have 180 days from when that discrimination started to file suit, when she has no ability or avenue to find out about when it started?
Thanks Roy for the go-back-to-school offer….but no thanks.
"You think this is some sort of threrapy group that gives hugs to all participants."
On the school thing…..I'm thinking a refresher course on word meanings, usage, etc….might clear this issue up for ya'. Your welcome.
I just love the white man victimhood wails. White men are so abused and downtrodden. Won't someone help all the poor white males? Please.
Why is she a good candidate? She's been around a long time, but has she written any outstanding decisions or interesting articles in that time? I haven't seen a single one cited as yet, though I haven't gone looking either.
"Poor white males" … It's always race, isn't Reverend? But I thought you hated Mexicans almost as bad as The Joohs? Or was that just a NIMBY thing?
She is toast. Her stance on the 2nd ammendment will ruin any chance of her approval.
average….hold your fire my good friend. The Senate Republicans are not going to stand unamiously against a Latino woman…..ain't happening. If they did….next go around the GOP will only have 30 senators. That's the politics side of Obama's strong nomination.
Soto, and I think that's what we should call her, it sounds cooler…..anyway, Soto is deeply experienced in being a,……wait for it…..judge. Soto has more experience being a judge than any nominee in 100 years. Does that, like, not count for anything? And tell me….what the hell did Alito, or Roberts ever do that was so monu-f*cking-mental? Can you name any great rulings, other than Stripsearch Sammy's memorable yes vote for police stripsearching a 14 year old girl?
It's always race with you, larry….but not me. The whiny-ass-titty-baby complaining by white conservative con men is getting annoying. Their white supremacy-laced feelings are hurt because that bad black president nominated a female Hispanic. Sure, white men still run and own most everything, but they reserve the right to bitch if there's the least bit of a movement towards diversity and equality. Odd, that.
So it's race, gender and longevity. That's okay, Reverend–it's all I've seen anywhere.
We get your point, Reverand. You believe that empathy and "the ability to understand the case from the plaintives (sic) point of view" are important qulaifications for a justice of the Supreme Court. You are not only wrong, you are also inconsistent.
As King points out, there is a reason that Lady Justice is portrayed as blindfolded as she balances the scales of justice. Justice is not supposed to be a respecter of persons. Justice is to decide a case by applying the law to the facts. What you advocate is not Justice, but the manipulation of the law to favor certain classes of people on the basis of race and ethnicity.
Although Sotomayor will, absent some unexpected turn of events, be confirmed, she doesn't even consistently follow your prescription of following the "plaintives" point of view. Most (in)famously she ruled against the plaintiffs in the New Haven Firefighter Case, thus upholding governmental discrimination on the basis of race.
Republicans do not have a war on empathy. They also believe that Justices should be empathetic. They should show empathy towards the law.
Rev,
You didn't mention anything I had wrong in the Ledbetter case, you only mentioned your problem with the letter of that law (which has since been changed). I agree with the changes in the law, but that is beside the point. The Supremes deal with the law as is, not as they wish it would be.
And let me add that it simply astounds me that you clearly see the discrimination in the Ledbetter case, but not in the Ricci case. How is that even possible ?
Because in the Ricci case, the judges were following Title VII guidelines.
Roberts sought to game the law by searching for a loophole for the powerful. And you refused to respond to my "intent of the law" point. That's the whole ball of wax.
Quid…."empathy toward the law". Seriously? Empathy towards inanimate and lifeless words…..but none toward a victim/plaintiff?
I think you are confusing empathy with feeling sorry. I don't want judges to feel sorry for anyone before them. But I want judges to be human, you know, with hearts, and be able to "get it" from both perspectives. That takes empathy and human understanding.
And here….
"she doesn't even consistently follow your prescription of following the "plaintives" point of view. Most (in)famously she ruled against the plaintiffs in the New Haven Firefighter Case, thus upholding governmental discrimination on the basis of race."
Soto's a conservative, I think. A centrist conservative. That's the kicker of this whole argument about empathy.
And you're simply asserting, rather recklessly I'd say, that the government was discriminating on the basis of race in the Ricci case. The Ricci case focuses on testing and what portion the testing plays in the overall evaluation of applicants, how the test was chosen, the reason and evaluation of disparate results, and a few other fine points. Soto agreed with the District Court's decision and simply passed in along with another judge on the panel whom, I believe, was a Republican. Soto was first nominated by Bush, the Elder. What's ole' Poppy gonna' have to do now, apologize to Daddy Rush?
"Soto's a conservative."
LOL. Hilarious. Where do you get this stuff ? From that new liberal website bafflethemwithbs.com ?
You mistated the Ricci case too. It wasn't about testing and what portion testing plays in the evaluation of applicants. No, no. It was about changing the rules of the game after the fact because the outcome wasn't the racially desired one (aka, discrimination).
You demonstrate your lack of understanding about the Ricci case.
And you say zilch.