Obama’s Judgement

Judge Souter is due to retire, thereby giving Obama the chance to further advance the cause of liberalism in America.

This is what he said to the White House Press Corps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/05/01/The-Presidents-Remarks-on-Justice-Souter/):

“So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  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. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.  I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”

In essence, this describes an activist judge in the most politically correct way a liberal can put it.

Sure, it’s filled with nice, fluffy words that are liable to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Of course, “justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory”, and “empathy” is always a fail-safe device to make any liberals heart faint with gooey fuzziness.

The question is, however, whether “empathy” and the ability to see beyond “abstract legal theory” are the top two qualities that we need in a Supreme Court Judge.

Anyone is most welcome to correct me, but by my understanding, it is the Supreme Court’s job to uphold the Constitution and the Law. It is NOT the Courts job to make decisions as to “how to apply them in our time”, for this would mean that the essence of the law depends on “the times” and thereby on how fashion, mood and opinion would like to see them applied.

There is such a thing as “checks and balances”, remember ?

Congress MAKES the laws. The President EXECUTES them. The Jurisprudence assesses whether they are in keeping with the constitution and ensures they are being upheld.

The Supreme Court’s is NOT to assess how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives – doing so would mean creating a multi-tiered justice system. Previously, what’s good for the goose was good for the gander, but now, that we’re busy assessing the laws’ impact on people’s lives, this might change. 

Take a case of, let’s say, rape: the poor guy, who had a tough childhood, got hit by his Mum and abandoned by his Dad, who never amounted to anything in life and who has always been the butt of all jokes wherever he went, might invoke “empathy” in the judge and be sentenced much milder than the “rich kid” who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Where is the empathy with the victims ? Did the woman who got raped by the “poor kid” suffer less than the woman who got raped by the “rich kid” ? Of course not.

Where is the respect for the law, if it can be bent ad libitum by the application of “empathy” ? Where is the respect for the Constitution, which to uphold is the primary concern for the Supreme Court ?

What is going to happen to the Supreme Court, if Judges like Sotomayor, who are obvious activist judges (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q) are being seriously considered for the vacant seat ?

This is, what Obama SHOULD  have said:

“So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice is about the application of the Law to everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or religious and political convictions, regardless as to whether rich or poor. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”

It’s just a minor change that I propose – but a decisive one.