.jpg)
Empathy and Justice for All
The confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor began this morning, once again stirring the pot that made empathy the dirty little word of the new administration. President Obama's earlier comments citing empathy as "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes" caused quite a ruckus among some conservatives.
Obama has a long history of siding with empathy. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he named the capacity to understand others "at the heart of my moral code."
Before choosing Sotomayor Obama promised to, "seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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... [to have] that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles..."
Parent educators recognize the benefits of empathy in working with children and families and the Center for Nonviolent Communication upholds empathy as one of its core principles. So why is it so unequivocally derided by our representatives?
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), called empathy "a code for liberal activism" and Wendy Long, legal counsel to the Judicial Confirmation network and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas said, "What’s wrong with that is it is being partial instead of being impartial. A judge is supposed to have empathy for no one but simply to follow the law."
According to Merriam Webster, empathy does not assume preference, only understanding.
Empathy: noun.
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it.
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) is expected to lead the criticism of Sotomayor, calling her stated belief that her life experiences affect her judging "shocking and offensive to me...I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for anyone who will not render justice impartially," Sessions said. "Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law," he said, "In truth, it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom."
Is it truly possible for the law to be blind and empathetic to no one? Aren't laws are subject to interpretation and predisposed to change with the times? Otherwise, why the need to convene a high court to adjudicate upon matters which have already been settled in the lower courts? Obviously, the law is not as black and white as it may seem.
Despite the controversy, it is predicted by both Republicans and Democrats that Sotomayor will be confirmed as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
For more info:
Empathy and Justice for All
Sonia Sotomayor
Sotomayor Myths
Comments