Empathy has no place under a robe

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Empathy¦the ability to identify with and understand somebody else's feelings or difficulties.

Empathy is a fine quality, and one that most of us could use a bit more of from time to time, but is empathy an underlying criterion for a Supreme Court justice? President Obama seems to think so and has said as much. He explained that a judge should be able to empathize with a poor person, a young single mother, etc.

A Supreme Court justice should be well qualified in the law with a special understanding of the Constitution because after all the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and other laws in the context of the Constitution and to resolve disputes among the states. It would seem to me that setting empathy as a quality for a justice goes beyond the job and encourages personal feelings when interpreting the law. It is difficult for us humans to be objective in all things; personal feelings come to play even when we try to be objective. It hardly seems proper to encourage those feelings in a position that requires the utmost objectivity and strict legal interpretation.

Local courts grant leniency and have leeway in being empathetic in cases especially when considering the actions of individuals based on the facts and circumstances, but the Supreme Court guards our governments checks and balances and our Constitution¦. Big difference! :-2



The following is from Wikipedia: “The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances.