Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

I will have to defer to a 'right-winger' for an answer to that portion of your question, Chuck Howard. As to Obama's reference to "empathy", I meant what I wrote. I do not think that empathy should play any roll in determining the constitutionality of an issue, and I am in even more disagreement with him when he says it should be on an equal if not greater footing than the use of reason.

CORRECTION: After finding a transcript of what President Obama actually said when announcing Sotomayor's nomination, and comparing it to the article I read in the Wall Street Journal, I have concluded that the portion I struck through in the paragraph above was not said by Obama, but rather was a characterization inserted by the writer of the article. In other words, it appears to have been meant to deceive the reader. This means that my argument in this regard has been compromised. My apologies.

Dems and other modern 'libs' should not get too worked up over the appointment because the eventual appointee will be politically a tinge to the left, but still stridently supportive of his or her boss, the Eastablishment. It's a done deal.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The SCOTUS performs two basic functions. It interprets Congressional statutes when the appellate courts disagree over the meaning or application of those statutes. And it rules on the Constitutionality of federal, state, and municipal statutes and ordinances.

When performing those functions, I do not want the Justices to rule based on sympathies they may have for the parties. I do not want the Justices to rule out of a sense of compassion for the parties.

I do, however, want Justices to know that their rulings have real-life effects on real people. I want the Justices to be able to empathize with those people when making those rulings. I want the Justices to be able to empathize with a property owner when affirming a "taking" by a local government. I want the Justices to be able to empathize with a person suspected of a crime when affirming an arrest or a search and seizure. I want the Justices to be able to empathize with the police officer when setting aside an arrest or a search and seizure.

Empathetic jurists can (and do) make dispassionate rulings on legal issues every day.

Toward what judicial purpose, Chuck Howard?
Yours,
Issodhos

If a judicial ruling were nothing more than a mechanical application of law to a set of facts, then empathy would serve no judicial purpose. Of course, judges wouldn't be needed to apply law to facts if it were that easy. We could design computers to render judicial decisons.

The rendering of a judicial decision is not, however, a mechanical process. It is a human endeavor with very real consequences in the lives of people directly (and indirectly) affected by the ruling. Spend any time reading opinions written by judges resolving disputes between litigants and you'll know what I mean. I believe that a jurist who can empathize with the litigants on both sides of a dispute is more likely than not to "get it right" when ruling on their dispute. That is the "judicial purpose" which is served.

Interesting find, Chuck.

I do not think that we are that far apart, Chuck Howard, if by "empathy" you simply mean someone having an understanding of the human condition, as opposed to allowing "empathy" to override the law. The question, I guess, is whether Obama and his nominee think the same, or are they both desireous of manipulating the Constitution when necessary to acheive their desired political or social outcome.
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, I am sure you are aware that any and all litigation is designed to manipulate the judicial process to one end or another. Any litigation involving the Constitution necessarily and without exception is a manipulation. That is the nature of the beast.

From what I have read, both Pres. Obama and Judge Sotomayor see the process as Chuck Howard has ably described it. Do you have other information or are you just speculating?

I am fully aware that lawyers, especially government lawyers, often engage in litigation with the intent of circumventing or subverting the constitution, Phil, but I think we were discussing how a judge on the Supreme Court should arrive at her decision. Last time I checked, it was not through self-litigation.
Yours,
Issodhos

Chuck Howard, in case you missed my "correction notice" in the first post at the top of this page, take a look .
Yours,
Issodhos