U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter told President Barack Obama he intends to retire. This means Obama will get to nominate a replacement. Who will it be? What will their qualifications have to be to meet Obama’s criteria?
Interestingly enough, Obama announced what he would be looking for – legal experience and training, a clean record, their commitment to the rule of law and all the other “traditional” qualifications we should look for in selecting a Supreme Court justice. There’s been talk about finding someone to fill racial, ethnic and gender wants and wishes but really, isn’t it about the most qualified?
President Obama however threw out the word empathy. He said he wanted a justice who would be empathetic. Is that really a sought after quality in a Supreme Court judge?
The dictionary definition of empathy is: “1. Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. 2. The attribution of one’s own feelings to an object.”
Obama had this to say about why he thought empathy was something he would seek in a justice appointment. (From Fox News).
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
He later said this:
“I want my justice to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don’t have political power,” Obama said. “The people who are on the outside. The people who aren’t represented. The people who don’t have a lot of money; who don’t have connections. That’s the role of the court.”
I find this troubling in that our president believes that the role of our highest court is to consider social justices and injustices and rule according to a person’s individual problems and social status.
Nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that I am aware is this consideration of empathy being necessary to interpret the law. I challenge Barack Obama in that I believe the Constitution was carefully crafted by men full of empathy and that if the Constitution is respected and adhered to, most of these court problems would disappear. It is not the role of our courts to be empathetic and it should frighten people to hear this.
It’s not necessarily frightening what he says about empathy but it is as pertaining to the role of Supreme Court justices or any judge for that matter. The role of the court is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and our rules of law. If those laws don’t happen to fit nicely into any judges personal ideals, far be it from them to create their on form of legislation to achieve that end.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s web site offers this about the role of the Court.
The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
On the same page of that site, it speaks of the Constitution and the purpose of that extremely valuable document and the role it plays in law and order of our society. Nowhere does it say that the U.S. Supreme Court has the role of altering that document and changing it based on being empathetic toward an individual’s needs or circumstances. Once again, the role is the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Our legislative branch handles creating laws within the Constitution.
It is probably with his own empathy that President Obama feels our judges should be empathetic in defining our laws, it is a dangerous path to walk down if we care about the preservation of our Constitution. I think Mr. Obama would better serve the American people if he did, as all of should do, and show our empathy toward our own neighbors. If that could again be achieved, I question how much work the U.S. Supreme Court would have and there certainly would be no need to be seeking empathetic judges.
Tom Remington
