House of Eratosthenes

Thomas Sowell writes with some interesting thoughts about the replacement for retiring justice David Souter. Said thoughts inspired by a snippet from the Holy Lips of our Divinely Inspired President Himself…in keeping with what we have come to expect from Him, polished to a mirror finish, but reckless and poorly-thought-out nevertheless.

“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,” [President Obama] said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Wow, what a great deal! Who can argue against justice?

Not so fast. Out here in the world of grown-ups, there’s a little bit more to a “just outcome” than this Alan Shore tactic of figuring out who the “good guy” is and then giving him everything. Professor Sowell reminds us what maturity is by going back over a piece of American history.

Part I:

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Part II:

Like most people, Justice [Oliver Wendell] Holmes had empathy for some and antipathy for others, but his votes on the Supreme Court often went against those for whom he had empathy and for those for whom he had antipathy. As Holmes himself put it: “I loathed most of the things in favor of which I decided.”

Justice Holmes thought like a grown-up. It is a type of diligent thinking that often escapes those who enjoy the luxury of bringing about a revolution, and thus to think about justice in purely black-and-white terms.

Part III:

Barack Obama’s vision of America is one in which a President of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell banks how to bank, control the medical system and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor other politicians have any expertise or experience.

The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.

Appointing judges to the federal courts– including the Supreme Court– who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.

Part IV:

This process of “interpreting” the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism. But, as a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining “judicial activism” to mean something different.

By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a “judicial activist.” The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution– justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas– are now called “judicial activists.” It is a verbal coup.

Our vocabulary is being assaulted. With that, our tethering to reality is likewise under assault; and with that, our sense of justice as well.

As I reflect on the wisdom of Dr. Sowell’s words, I realize something: Of all the privileged victim-groups that now enjoy the benefits of stylish empathy, very few of them do so in any modern or revolutionary way. It comes down really to just black people. Nobody can say no to a woman, of course — but that’s been true for an exceptionally long time. Back in the Middle English years, in the days of Chivalry, it was thought to be ungentlemanly for a dude to even somehow become intertwined in a battle of wills with a female, let alone to try to prevail in one. Five, six, eight or ten centuries later, men still wait, without Obama’s “empathy,” to enjoy one day in court on an equal footing with the mothers of their children. In many cases, with the mentally-imbalanced, drug-addicted, larcenous or gold-digging mothers of their children. Justice needs to show more empathy there? Justice has already shown an excess of it.

What about the poor? It’s very fashionable now to root for the underdog. But this has always been the case. How many centuries have people said Oh, look at me, I’m the good guy because I’m doing something for poor people. And that includes judicial officers. Obama wishes to start something new here? Something new would be empathy toward corporations that are targeted with obviously baseless lawsuits, and are compelled to settle out of court because of the anticipated costs involved with fighting.

What other group needs some empathy, that hasn’t already gotten it?

It’s a very sad thing to realize, this late in the game, that a blind Lady Justice is a novelty. That it should be so far out of “mainstream” thinking to expect two parties should appear in court, with the expectation that they’re taking their conflict to something resembling a level field.

But hey. This is the era of hope and change. So get ready.

Apropos of not much… one of the things I’ve puzzled long and hard over is just how a woman makes the transition from Ms. Right to “…the mentally-imbalanced, drug-addicted, larcenous or gold-digging mothers of their children.” And usually within the space of five years or so, too. I’m serious: How DOES this happen?

Just a nit, I know. 😉
- bpenni | 05/11/2009 @ 15:45
It has to do with, when you give dolls to little girls they start dressing the dolls, declaring how the dolls walk around, what the dolls say to each other, how the other dolls react, et al…whereas, when you give the same dolls to little boys they point the dolls at each other and go “Bang!!”

It also has to do with hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, during which time we (fellas) found mild, enclosed, comfortable habitats for our women and children…which the women then organized and decorated…while we went out and faced the elements. Men are programmed to do with everyday work, exactly what women are programmed to do with social vibes, and vice-versa. Women resonate with every conscious mind of which they are aware, while organizing things within a well-defined perimeter, while the masculine mind does his work within a well-defined perimeter while insisting on knowing what’s going on over as wide and broad a terrain as he can possibly manage. So the females are just as big control-freaks as we are, just in a different way. And a lot of that comes from playing with dolls when they’re little girls while, when we’re the same age, we’re usually doing something that would horrify our mothers if they could see us doing it. We are conditioned to leave things to chance, “just to see what happens,” while they’re conditioned to “manage” things. Which means people. That’s why when there’s a wedding rehearsal, you’re conditioned to figuring out what she wants you to do, while she’s conditioned to figure out what she wants you to do.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2009 @ 17:04
“Our vocabulary is being assaulted. With that, our tethering to reality is likewise under assault; and with that, our sense of justice as well.”

May I quote you on that? What a great line!
- Fai Mao | 05/11/2009 @ 19:26
Whatever’s meant to be a secret, ain’t making it in here. Quote away.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2009 @ 19:32
“It has to do with, when you give dolls to little girls they start dressing the dolls…”

All of which doesn’t explain how/why someone’s Perfect Woman turns into a harridan he’d be perfectly content to NEVER see again after the blanket is split… in most cases. This ain’t a caterpillar/butterfly metamorphosis in reverse… my point being, of course, that a leopard never changes its spots. Most men don’t frickin’ SEE the spots, to begin with. I suppose you could say I knew the answer to this question going in. But I was curious as to your take, Morgan.
- bpenni | 05/12/2009 @ 12:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

EmpathySunday, May 10th, 2009

Empathy
Sunday, May 10th, 2009