Wise Latina

Here’s the thing- I don’t really think that the Republicans have much to go on to nail Sotomayor and oppose her candidacy for the Supreme Court. Their points of attack are less than stellar, and unfortunately have the effect of seeming peevish and partisan.

I think this self-styled “wise Latina” may have misspoke with her one-time racist comment, but I don’t think she’s inherently racist, even with her ruling on the firefighter case.

I have issues, however, with her empathy.

Yes. I know- I’m a practicing Christian, shouldn’t empathy be at the top of my list? Sure. When dealing with the poor, when deciding to help a homeless man, when wondering how to best debate a friend on social isues. Empathy. What you do for the least of these, etc.

Empathy is one of those ideas that sounds great, theoretically. Identifying with someone is one of the most amazing things a human can do…putting oneself second- thinking of another first. And when you’re awash in this relativist culture, empathy can be a boon to understanding each other, and making strides towards action.

But when dealing with what should be an impartial Supreme Court bench? Not so much. Obama touted her empathy, and yet- is that really what we want? Empathy is all fine and good when it serves your outcome- when the judge looks with empathy on your case and decides in your favor- but how about when his/her empathy goes the other way?

So bah humbug and no thanks. I like my justice blind, thanks, and my judges impartial. Even if she’s a wise Latina like me. πŸ˜‰

This entry was posted in christianity, faith, mission, politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Wise Latina

  1. Empathy is ok in Congress where the laws are written. It is ok in the Presidency where laws are executed. But in the courts, as a whole it, must be absent. When you become a judge you must be able to separate yourself from most levels of emotion and be able to look coldly at the facts and evidence of a case. It is your job to detemine truth and apply it to the body of law that is relevant to the case. Your judgement must be made on that basis and not on your personal belief structure. If it is your desire to effect change, run for Congress. The great problem with our overall judiciary today is that to many legislators are sitting on the bench in robes.
    Just a thought, Glenn

  2. Ink says:

    I’m not sure there is such a thing as an impartial Supreme Court judge, though…

  3. antropologa says:

    I like the empathy, and at any rate, I think impartiality is impossible. You can just try to have empathy for both sides. πŸ™‚

  4. insider53 says:

    I agree there is no place for empathy in the law. Just because you understand why a person broke the law and maybe even feel they were justified, the law is still the law and if you break it you pay the penalty. The only room for interpretation is how large a penalty.

  5. evenshine says:

    Impartiality may be impossible, but I don’t think we stop attempting to find the most impartial judges possible. Empathy has other uses. The law is not the place for it.

  6. faemom says:

    I think he meant more of going on about The Spirit of The Law versus The Law. My father and I have had many conversations lately over the difference. He has inevidately persuaded me to understand it is The Spirit of The Law that is more important because The Law cannot take into account all the grey that is out there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s