Sonia Sotomayer

[Bob]

Do not confuse empathy with sympathy. Empathy is the capacity to recognize another's reality. It doesn't imply that impartiality is negated. It doesn't trump reason, it informs reason. The Founding Fathers would not have been able to draft the Constitution without it.

Lady Justice's eyes are blindfolded because she is not to be swayed by outside influences; if there was to be no empathy, then instead of scales, her heart and head would be in her hands. If justice did not possess empathy, then we could just have computers interpreting the law.

scalia and ginsberg are as predictable as computers

 

[hnooe]

Good one Mr. Obama..You are a very empathetic President!
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[6thGen]

scalia and ginsberg are as predictable as computers

Not really. Scalia dissented with Stevens in Hamdi, and completely went off the reservation in Raich. Interesting that you bring up Scalia and Ginsberg because they are pretty close on a personal level, despite ideological differences.

 

[hnooe]

The disassembled Republican machine won't put up any fight on Sotomayor--sure go ahead and alienate ONE more minority group, the Hispanics--they''ll quickly be seen as the party of just the crusty, fat, white men.

 

[Bob]

Not really. Scalia dissented with Stevens in Hamdi, and completely went off the reservation in Raich. Interesting that you bring up Scalia and Ginsberg because they are pretty close on a personal level, despite ideological differences.

should have said usually

 

[Yarmap]

I wonder how she'll rule on eminent domain when the next resort developer wants to move 30a and take away some private beach property to send more tax dollars to the county.

 

[rapunzel]

can you say "ginsberg"? Judging with empathy brings an unfair system followed by choas. Laws are laws and we must all obide by them or chaos follows. Judging with empathy will prove this to be true because not all cases will be the same. Law and order must prevail in the end. And it will be the left that yells louder once empathy is used against them rather than the law as it stands.

If the founding fathers did not want empathy to play a role in the judiciary, why would they have been so insistent about the right to trial by a jury of peers? How is the judiciary a balance to executive and legislative power if it is completely black and white, and never recognizes the logical consequences of actions? never acknowledges shades of gray?

 

[6thGen]

If the founding fathers did not want empathy to play a role in the judiciary, why would they have been so insistent about the right to trial by a jury of peers? How is the judiciary a balance to executive and legislative power if it is completely black and white, and never recognizes the logical consequences of actions? never acknowledges shades of gray?

The judiciary should acknowledge shades of gray, or call balls and strikes to paraphrase CJ Roberts. Recognizing logical consequences of actions, 9 times out of 10, is the legislators' job. Determining the innocence or guilt of an accused criminal is much more subjective than interpreting the Constitution, hence the trial by jury.

 

[rapunzel]

The judiciary should acknowledge shades of gray, or call balls and strikes to paraphrase CJ Roberts. Recognizing logical consequences of actions, 9 times out of 10, is the legislators' job. Determining the innocence or guilt of an accused criminal is much more subjective than interpreting the Constitution, hence the trial by jury.

So, do you not agree that the Constitution flowed logically from, and in response to, English common law?

9 times out of 10, a Justices job is to be a check and balance to the legislator, no?

 

[goofer]

The judiciary should acknowledge shades of gray, or call balls and strikes to paraphrase CJ Roberts. Recognizing logical consequences of actions, 9 times out of 10, is the legislators' job. Determining the innocence or guilt of an accused criminal is much more subjective than interpreting the Constitution, hence the trial by jury.

IMHO, the Constitution should be interpreed as a dynamic document reflecting the times we live in. When the Constitution was written there was no stem cell research or intellectual property or mass media outlets and Slavey was an acceped practice. It is not a static document but a living breathing document that needs to evolve to incorporate the complexities of the times we live in.