Ignoring Alito, Thomas, Wash. Post labels judicial empathy a "liberal" idea

[Revmitchell]

SUMMARY: The Washington Post characterized the view "that a judge should have empathy" as "an idea floating within liberal legal thought," ignoring numerous conservatives who have also stressed the importance of personal experience and compassion in judicial nominees.


More Here

 

[Aaron]

Of course. Socialists are liars and thieves. Having none of their own, they will steal the humanitarian qualities that inevitably flow from conservatism.

 

[Crabtownboy]

SUMMARY: The Washington Post characterized the view "that a judge should have empathy" as "an idea floating within liberal legal thought," ignoring numerous conservatives who have also stressed the importance of personal experience and compassion in judicial nominees.


More Here

So personal experience is important?

Hmmm, seems quite a few who call themselves conservative were criticizing Sotomayore for saying personal experience is important.

Compassion? I have yet to hear a conservative SC Justics say anything about compassion.

 

[LeBuick]

SUMMARY: The Washington Post characterized the view "that a judge should have empathy" as "an idea floating within liberal legal thought," ignoring numerous conservatives who have also stressed the importance of personal experience and compassion in judicial nominees.


More Here

What are your thought on this Rev?

I can't imagine a judges personal experiences not bleeding into their interpretation of the law. Think of the Ricci case, clearly reverse discrimination because of quota's and affirmative actions will make even a supreme court justice say enough is enough. And so they decide contrary to civil rights laws but instead go for the decision of equal justice for all.

I can honestly see both sides of that case but can say it's a new day since that decision was handed down. Now there is precedence.

I think every judge has a little activist in them waiting to come out.

 

[windcatcher]

I think real justice on earth is meant to follow closely the justice standard of heaven: We have God's mercy and grace extended towards us as long as our choices are made before the judgement..... but by the time of trial and judgement.... everything that could be used to balance the scale is done, is finished.... and there remains nothing left but the law. In our courts..... any mitigating circumstances are either revealed before hand or brought to trial and presented as witness: but once presented and once tried.... The person is then tried ...i.e. did he break the law..... and the law is tried..... i.e. under the circumstances or results of his action.... is this law specifically applicable.

The Surpreme Court has no room for empathy in its verdict. It's sole determination should be.... is this law.... or in this particular application of law..... applicable and CONSTITUTIONAL. If it is not constitutional.... then it is not applicable. If it is applicable then were constitutional rights preserved or wavied or infringed, during the processes of investigation and trial.