Ask Me Help Desk - A Supreme Court Justice WITH empathy

Hello:

Do you want your next Justice to have empathy?? The right wing says no. They just want the law to be enforced as written...

But, the right, as usual, is WRONG! I won't go into how the right wing justices have "empathy" for the police and the prosecutors... But I WILL bring up one case that illustrates my point better than anything...

The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on the legality of children being sentenced to life without parole. They're going to be using the same logic that they used earlier when they decided that children shouldn't be put to death...

It should be noted that the US is ALONE in the world. NO other country sentences its children to prison FOREVER.

In the majority opinion in the death penalty case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that teenagers were immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences, including peer pressure. “Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile, is not evidence of irretrievably depraved character.”

Scalia dissented from that opinion and believes that children SHOULD be put to death. I'm assuming that he'll rule similarly in this case.

Seems to me that Scalia lacks a certain empathy for children that has him making wrong decisions. Now, you TOO may lack empathy for children, and that's exactly why we need someone WITH empathy on the court.

excon

Are judges suddenly counselors rabbi's and priests ? I don't care what they feel about the law or the subjects . They need to intepret the law and resolve dispute based on constitutionality and impartiality . As a black American he should appreciate the concept of blind justice .

So far the selection process by all appearances is disappointing . Instead of talking about qualities that make a good judge there is more of a debate about which groups should get" their judge " .

Obama also said :"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."

I hope these are the words that quide his selection.

All that is valuable in the United States Constitution is one thousand years old. Wendell Phillips

I think there's a place for empathy in the judicial system, but Supreme Court justices are charged with interpreting the law and the constitution are they not?

But while I'm at it, why is it that when it comes to things like sex and abortion kids are smart and mature enough to decide for themselves but when they commit heinous crimes they're "immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

why is it that when it comes to things like sex and abortion kids are smart and mature enough to decide for themselves but when they commit heinous crimes they're "immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences?"

Hello Steve:

Why is it?? I don't know that it IS. But, IF it IS, it's just as whacked. You don't assume I think that drivel, do you?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think there's a place for empathy in the judicial system, but Supreme Court justices are charged with interpreting the law and the constitution are they not?

Hello again, Steve:

The Constitution says ".... nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..."

When deciding what this means, in terms of the fate of children, how could one NOT use empathy??

You'll notice that they didn't make exceptions for really bad criminals... In fact, the Amendment address's who WE are, rather than who the criminal is...

Hmmm. That seems to be a recurring theme with me. I wonder what I get it from?? Doh! My gosh. It's the CONSTITUTION.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Why is it?? I don't know that it IS. But, IF it IS, it's just as whacked. You don't assume I think that drivel, do you?

Nope, just pointing out the inconsistency. Here's the opening to Scalia's dissent on the case for the record. Perhaps you can judge it based on its merits and not emotion:

Quote:

In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id. at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

Sounds like your kind of guy to me, or do you think SCOTUS should be the "sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards" based on their own personal moral principles, the whims of foreigners and an "evolving" constitution instead of the one we have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed....

Sounds like your kind of guy to me,

Hello again, Steve:

I can mount a legal argument with anybody. Scalia, in this case, makes it easy. He has a sharp legal mind. It's just pointed in the wrong direction...

In this case, he argues against the decision because it's based on what others perceive as changes in our society. He sees no change as it relates to the Constitution and thereby dissented against the decision.

If I argued the case with nothing more than the bare facts presented here, I'd ask where in the Constitution does it say NOW, or where did it say it longer than 15 years ago, that we could execute children?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Do you want your next Justice to have empathy?? The right wing says no. They just want the law to be enforced as written...

Interesting. When we select a jury, we select it based, in part, on its impartiality. We ask a potential jurist what he thinks about the case, and if he has any preconceived notions, he's thrown out. If he is empathetic toward one side or the other, he's thrown out. We specifically look for people who do not have empathy to either side to be members of a jury. We can spend weeks, even months, doing jury selection for a single case in order to find impartial people.

Are you arguing that Judges in the highest court in the land have less of a responsibility toward impartiality than jury members?

Sorry, excon, but I don't buy it.

Quote:

But, the right, as usual, is WRONG!

"Usual" is a term that assumes that it has happened before frequently. I'm still waiting for the first time.

Quote:

I won't go into how the right wing justices have "empathy" for the police and the prosecutors...

Really? I have not seen that. What I have seen are justices that have a strict understanding of the law as it is written, not as they believe it should be written.

Quote:

But I WILL bring up one case that illustrates my point better than anything...

The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on the legality of children being sentenced to life without parole. They're going to be using the same logic that they used earlier when they decided that children shouldn't be put to death...

It should be noted that the US is ALONE in the world. NO other country sentences its children to prison FOREVER.

In the majority opinion in the death penalty case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that teenagers were immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences, including peer pressure. “Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile, is not evidence of irretrievably depraved character.”

Scalia dissented from that opinion and believes that children SHOULD be put to death. I'm assuming that he'll rule similarly in this case.

Seems to me that Scalia lacks a certain empathy for children that has him making wrong decisions. Now, you TOO may lack empathy for children, and that's exactly why we need someone WITH empathy on the court.

Excon

That Scalia lacks empathy and is instead looking at the facts of the case is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Let me ask you this... what makes an 18-year-old more "adult" than a 17-year-11-month-old? What changes in that 30 days?

What is the difference between a multiple rape-murder by an 18-year-old and a multiple rape-murder by a 17-year-11-month-old? Both crimes seem pretty depraved to me. Both of them seem to be cases that should result in a death penalty. If not, both should be cases of life without parole.

But you would have more empathy for the criminal who is one month younger. And you would want a judge to treat the cases differently.

Why?

Why is the magic number 18 so important toward your empathy? Why are you more empathetic toward the younger defendant? Why should a judge be more empathetic?

And what of empathy with the victim? What if a judge has empathy for every victim of every criminal that steps into his court, and as a result that judge sentences every criminal that steps into his court to maximum sentences, regardless of their past histories? That's empathy too. Is it fair?

What if a civil court judge has empathy toward every civil-case victim he sees, and awards outrageous amounts to those victims, regardless of the merits of the case? That's empathy too. Is it fair?

The whole point of our judicial system is IMPARTIALITY. That's why Lady Justice wears a blidfold.

http://notaboutsusanlefevre.com/yaho...e.31175408.jpg

From the Bible:

Exodus 23:3 Do not favor [even] the poorest man in his lawsuit.

Deuteronomy 16:18 Appoint yourselves judges and police for your tribes in all your settlements that God your Lord is giving you, and make sure that they administer honest judgment for the people. 16:19 Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone].

There should be no "empathy" in the justice system. It is the JUSTICE system, not the "Feel Good About Yourself and Others" system.

Elliot

Here is another justice's view

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don't remember who it was, butsomebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath.”
Chief Justice John Roberts

Here is the view of a judge with empathy :
“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up”
Justice Thurgood Marshall .

Then there is the dissent in the Dred Scott Decision by justice Benjamin R. Curtis

“When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean”

Hello, again Activist Jurist supporters:

Certainly you deny what's plain to everyone. Your side has "activist judges" too, who empathize greatly with the COPS. You just don't admit it.

Let me ask you this. WHERE in these words:

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses papers and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated..."

Do you find authorization for a no knock warrant?

Of course, you don't. YOUR Supreme Court Justices made it up out of thin air. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Yes, your kettle is blacker than most...

excon

What does unreasonable mean ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

what does unreasonable mean ?

Hello again, tom:

An empathetic person would know.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Let me ask you this... what makes an 18-year-old more "adult" than a 17-year-11-month-old? What changes in that 30 days?

Hello again, El:

Why is 41 seconds of waterboarding torture when 40 seconds isn't?

excon

Empthy is feelings . unreasonable in the 4th has to do with expectation of privacy.

It is considered reasonable if the courts issue a search... correct ?

Then there is no issues if the court also deems it prudent to conduct a no knock search since the issue of reasonable was established with the issuing of the warrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

empthy is feelings . unreasonable in the 4th has to do with expectation of privacy.

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go. You guys just don't know what empathy is. The question, and my answer about reasonable, is spot on point.

Empathy is the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern. It simply means being able to understand where the other person comes from.

If you cannot put yourself in someone else's shoes, how can you EVER possibly be a judge of what's reasonable? Of course, you couldn't. You could only judge it from YOUR perspective, which may not be reasonable at all.

Reasonable, is reasonable, is reasonable... Whatever one is being reasonable about whether it's the expectation of privacy, or the expectation of not getting punched in the nose when walking down the street. It's all the same.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Why is 41 seconds of waterboarding torture when 40 seconds isn't?

excon

You're asking the wrong guy, because I don't think it is.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Why is 41 seconds of waterboarding torture when 40 seconds isn't?

excon

And you didn't answer the question. You simply tried to divert it.

Please explain why a 17-year-11-month-old is less guilty or more deserving of leniency than an 18-year-old who committed the same multiple rape-murder? Why should they get different sentences?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Lemme ask you this. WHERE in these words:

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses papers and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated..."

do you find authorization for a no knock warrant?

Of course, you don't. YOUR Supreme Court Justices made it up out of thin air. Did you think we wouldn't notice? Yes, your kettle is blacker than most....

excon

Here is the full text of the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I see mention of warrants being issued, based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. A "no knock" warrant is still a warrant. There is no requirement of identification by the police in the execution of a warrant within the 4th Amendment. No Knock Warrant's are provided for in the Constitution. It wasn't made up by the SCOTUS. It already existed in the 4th Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Please explain why a 17-year-11-month-old is less guilty or more deserving of leniency than an 18-year-old who committed the same multiple rape-murder? Why should they get different sentences?

Hello again, El:

I give you post #5 again, when I answered Steve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The Constitution says ".... nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted..."

When deciding what this means, in terms of the fate of children, how could one NOT use empathy???

You'll notice that they didn't make exceptions for really bad criminals... In fact, the Amendment address's who WE are, rather than who the criminal is...

Hmmm. That seems to be a recurring theme with me. I wonder what I get it from??? Doh! My gosh. It's the CONSTITUTION.

excon

Hope that works for you, Elliot. In terms of the law, we act the way we do, because of who WE are. You guys never stop with your lists of people who you say the law doesn't apply to. I'm never going to stop pointing it out.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I give you post #5 again, when I answered Steve.Hope that works for you, Elliot. In terms of the law, we act the way we do, because of who WE are. You guys never stop with your lists of people who you say the law doesn't apply to. I'm never going to stop pointing it out.

excon

Ahh, excon. You don't get it. I'm not saying who the laws apply to. The LAW is saying who the laws apply to. I'm not interpreting anything, I'm just reading it and applying it. YOU are the one who has had to come up with some new interpretation of who the Geneva Convention applies to, because it specifically DEFINES who is an unlawful combatant, and states that unlawful combatants do not receive the protections of the GC. You have somehow redefined terrorists as lawful combatants who are protected by the GC. The reinterpretations are YOURS not mine.