I thought I would add to the intellectual climate of this corner of the world wide web with a few thoughts on a disturbing comment from liberal Senator Barbara Boxer concerning the confirmation hearing of Sonya Sotomayor.
Sen. Boxer said in a conference call yesterday that judges “should bring every human feeling . . . including empathy” to their public lives. The dictionary defines empathy as follows: “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” Empathy in the courts? Whatever happened to justice being blind?
The role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic is that of umpire – to determine whether laws are consistent with a minimum and difficult to alter set of principles which are codified in the constitution. The Supreme Court does not exist to create law – that is the role of the legislative branch – but rather to determine whether legislated laws are consistent with the constitution. Empathy does not enter anywhere into that role. Either a law or regulation is consistent with the principles laid out in the constitution or it’s not.
Empathy should be left to the legislature. It has no role on the bench. Sotomayor’s personal story, however compelling it may or may not be, does not qualify her for a position on the nation’s highest court. Her legal knowledge and history as a judge at interpreting the law is all that should matter.
Comments such as these from Senator Boxer are disturbing. It is even more disturbing that our president evidently adheres to a similar philosophy as pertains the law and the role of justices in interpreting it.
Sen. Boxer said in a conference call yesterday that judges “should bring every human feeling . . . including empathy” to their public lives. The dictionary defines empathy as follows: “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” Empathy in the courts? Whatever happened to justice being blind?
The role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic is that of umpire – to determine whether laws are consistent with a minimum and difficult to alter set of principles which are codified in the constitution. The Supreme Court does not exist to create law – that is the role of the legislative branch – but rather to determine whether legislated laws are consistent with the constitution. Empathy does not enter anywhere into that role. Either a law or regulation is consistent with the principles laid out in the constitution or it’s not.
Empathy should be left to the legislature. It has no role on the bench. Sotomayor’s personal story, however compelling it may or may not be, does not qualify her for a position on the nation’s highest court. Her legal knowledge and history as a judge at interpreting the law is all that should matter.
Comments such as these from Senator Boxer are disturbing. It is even more disturbing that our president evidently adheres to a similar philosophy as pertains the law and the role of justices in interpreting it.
Bow Down to The BPE
No comments:
Post a Comment