Empathy Isn't Justice
Thomas Sowell on the problem with Obama's professed method of Supreme Court justice selection:
That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.
We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.
Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words "rule of law." And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.
In Forbes, law professor Richard Epstein concurs:
Focus too much on the homeowner or the tenant in the individual case, and it is easy to overlook the lenders and landlords who may cut back on lending and renting to these groups if stripped of their legal protection. Ex ante accessibility to credit and housing is of vital importance to everyone, members of vulnerable groups included.In addition, we must never forget that the Supreme Court docket contains more than abortion and civil rights. Antitrust, securities regulation, bankruptcy, administrative law and civil procedure are all staples of the Supreme Court's diet, and it behooves any successful judicial nominee to have working knowledge of at least some of these vital areas before taking his or her seat.
It's a dangerous experiment, and it scares me. On the other hand, the Subversive Anarcho Libertarian in me is a bit excited at the challenge. Can we *still* thrive with this smooth-talkin' snake-oil salesman in charge? Can an economy grow while the supply end of the demand functions is being so thoroughly vilified? Even, dare I say, Oppressed? Jesus. I have no idea.
Frank at May 6, 2009 6:03 AM
How about a Constitutional Supreme Court justice?
Oh yeah that silly constitution-we really don't follw that much anymore. (sarcasm intended)
David M at May 6, 2009 6:31 AM
In all honesty I would love to go to a traffic court with empathy towards speeders!
D
David Dennis at May 6, 2009 7:14 AM
Thank goodness the appointees have often strayed back to the rule of law after an appointment made to satisfy political constituencies.
tom penry at May 6, 2009 7:49 AM
"We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. "
Actually there is nothing new or particularly strange about this. On the extreme end of the scale Jim Crow was like this. We've been there. You think we would have learned something.
Jim at May 6, 2009 8:30 AM
You would think. The thing is, people who are upset about discrimination are clearly not -- they are wanting their piece of the action as discriminators -- if they stand for anything other than a color-blind meritocracy.
I'm still disgusted about the piece I posted a few weeks ago -- a journalism conference that said they'd pay for the flights of minority attendees. Poor white kids somehow find plane tickets more affordable than poor black kids?
There are both poor white kids and poor black kids at the inner city school I speak at -- they come from the same neighborhoods and, most likely, from similar financial circumstances. I'm of the mind that kids from poor neighborhoods and financially struggling backgrounds are those who need our help -- whatever color they are. Any other practice is racial discrimination.
Amy Alkon at May 6, 2009 8:36 AM
"...a journalism conference that said they'd pay for the flights of minority attendees. Poor white kids somehow find plane tickets more affordable than poor black kids?"
The issue is that a lot of kumbaya types are so ignorant of the realities of the lives of the people they purport to help that to them black = poor and righteous and needy and white = rich, spoiled, priveleged. It just never crosses their minds that there may be poor white kids in this country, like millions and millions of them.
There is something else going on with this. Look at the way the classes interact in the South, for instance. Rich white people can get all concerned and active when it comes to heklping black folk, that's socially acceptable, but they wouldn't be caught dead near some white trash because - horrors! - people might think they're related or something.
Jim at May 6, 2009 1:13 PM
If you want to gauge your own comprehension of the role of the USSC, don't forget the basics, including references, and pay special attention to jurisdiction.
You don't get to say if your case goes to the Supreme Court.
Radwaste at May 6, 2009 8:42 PM
Leave a comment