THE COURT OF EMPATHY

Elena Kagan will most likely be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, but is she really what's right for the Court?  Is she even what President Obama said he was looking for?  Kathleen Parker says:

Obama said he wanted someone with a "keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."

How can a woman with no real-world experience in her chosen field possibly know how law affects the daily lives of American people?  Let alone a woman who was raised on the affluent Upper West Side of  NYC and spent her college and working years in elite educational enclaves?  How is this woman in tune with, say, some guy in Wyoming who is having his ranch cut in half by the federal government to confiscate for use as nature preserves or wildlife habitats?  Perhaps we could start a new form of translation.  Instead of different languages, there would be cultural translations

In his eternal quest for social justice, Obama has lumped our Supreme Court in with the lesser courts.  The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be empathetic, it is supposed to interpret laws to decide if they adhere to the Constitution.  They are also not supposed to judge a case based on the benefits or losses to the single party petitioning them - their job is to judge based on the good of the country.  The Supreme Court doesn't indulge in case-by-case decisions.  That is the task of the lesser courts.  The Supreme Court merely keeps the country on a path directed by the Constitution in a rather black and white way.  Lesser courts can "tweak" the laws a bit into those grey areas.  If they tweak too much, though, the case heads back up to the Supreme Court to be redefined in a constitutional context.  Yes, you've strayed too far off the path, or no, you're still heading in the right direction.

His "empathetic court" seems more like a way to discard the Constitional guidelines by ignoring them or not referencing them anymore in favor of case-by-case style decisions.  It's an empathetic end run around the constitution.

Let's take the Arizona immigration law, for instance.  The odds are pretty good that the Court will find that the law merely allows state authorities to enforce federal laws (with additional corresponding state penalties), and that it's not unconstitutional.  Under an "empathetic court" the odds would be pretty fair that a lawsuit filed by an illegal immigrant would be heard and empathy gained on the basis of their "suffering" under the law.  Does it count as discrimination if you are discriminated against because of your illegal status?  An empathetic court might be inclined to think so.  

This sets up an interesting precedence, though.  Will we soon be letting other criminals off because, after committing a crime, they suffered such anguish at the thought of being caught that they were somehow traumatized by it?  We know you burned down that entire block, Bob, but we feel you've suffered enough having to live as a fugitive from justice for the past ten years, so we're just gonna let you go.  Don't forget to sign up for your free healthcare - you might want to get some therapy for that pyromania.  In the meantime, have this lovely brick of government cheese!

Should anyone be surprised that there is a history of Mr. Obama opposing former administration nominees for not having enough experience?  Finding video/audio of him attacking the former administration for things his own administration is now doing has become fairly routine these days.  It seems the only thing this administration is consistent on is hypocrisy:



Yes, Mr. President, absolutely. They all need to be more forthcoming.  Including Ms. Kagan and yourself.  Selecting a 'blank slate' was unacceptable for Bush, and it is unacceptable for you, too. 

 We don't need a justice with empathy, we need one with a good, working knowledge not just of the Constitution, but of the Federalist Papers and the Founding Fathers themselves.  This would endow them with a deeper understanding of what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.  A justice proficient in those things will be a justice who will serve the Constitution and the country well.

Unfortunately, progressives believe the Constitution is flawed and must be adapted to changing times.  The Constitution is NOT an "evolving" thing.  It was written to stand the test of time, not just a mere two hundred years.  Times change, yes, but that change is merely technology.  Human nature is unchanging.  The Constitution was written to protect this country and her people from the follies and machinations of man, not technology.   Protections that have never been more necessary than they are today.   Which is why the progressives are desperate to subvert the Court with empathetic justices like Kagan and Sotomayor.  It is our last line of defense against a rapacious government.

Let's not forget that President Obama was, according to the fawning media, a constitutional law professor.  As such, he should not only understand the authority of the document, but also how to get around it.  After all, isn't that what lawyers are all about?  Finding ways around the law?