Chief Justice Roberts famously likened judging to being an umpire in baseball who sits back and calls balls and strikes dispassionately. But that is not always a fair analogy. As has been observed many times, the law is not always clear, and there will be discretion involved. If this weren’t true, we would just have computers spit out decisions.
Since we still use human beings instead of the new Mac book pro to make decisions, this indicates that we accept that there is gray area in the law, and that we recognize Judges cannot just use text of the law or refer to precedent. In making decisions in those cases, Judges will inevitably bring their own experiences and their own understanding of what is or is not unacceptable. When a decision of that sort is necessary, I would argue that it is critical to have someone on the bench who understands the perspectives of the different parties in the case and who will consider how the ruling will affect them.
Perhaps the most farcical aspect of the controversy is when certain conservatives claim to want complete objectivity in all judicial decisions. That’s patently false. Many conservatives just want empathy for a different set of litigants. Pat Robertson would love to have a Justice who had empathy for a child in the womb instead of the mother. Still others want the Supreme Court to have empathy for a white man suing because he failed to gain employment, promotion, or admission to college because of affirmative action.
We all want to have a fair judiciary. I certainly have no desire to see a Court that simply “legislates from the bench,” and substitutes its own preferences for those of Congress or the American people. But just as surely, when there is gray area in the law, and a Judge has to exercise discretion, I do not want a Judge who refuses to consider the perspectives of the litigants and how the ruling affects different people.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Yet more yammering about how a jíbara was nominated to the supreme court of the United States. This is truly tiresome. The real threats, like the North Koreans, and the real lack of an intelligent American response, go unnoticed and unread here....
2 - Dave Nalle
We did have an article on the North Korean bomb. But really, Ruvy. It's not like North Korea behaving like lunatics is much of a surprise.
Dave
3 - El Bicho
"This is truly tiresome."
Actually what's truly tiresome is seeing someone complain about what volunteer writers decide to write about, especially when said commentor hasn't offered up his own piece on the subject. Either put up or shut up.
4 - Ruvy
Dave,
Obama picking a New York Rican (Jíbara really refers to someone from the mountains of Puerto Rico) as a supreme court nominee is no real surprise. Ahmadinejad threatening or acting as if he intends to destroy us in Israel is no surprise either. And the North Koreans flexing a nuclear muscle or smoking a nuclear cigar should not be a surprise at all.
The real issue is which of these is the greatest threat to the US(SA). I would politely suggest that a North Korean EMP or missile is a far greater threat than a New York Rican on the federal bench.
5 - Ruvy
EB,
I commented elsewhere praising Jordan Richardson on his article on North Korea. The only thing I could contribute would be an interview with Professor Stephen Fox, who taught in North Korea for some years.
But he hasn't been around for some time.
As for the empathetic New York Rican judge nominated to the supreme court, after 9 articles, don't you think it's enough?
As for my own pieces, don't worry, they're in the cooker, in various stages.
6 - Elvira Black
Liked your piece, Marcus. As a New Yorker who now lives in the Bronx, I can't help but take special pride in this nomination.
As they did with Obama, the more radical Repubs are grasping at straws. She's either too "empathetic" or too "harsh" in her "demeanor." What pathetic BS...barring some secret revelation, she's as "clean" as they come, as was Obama---but in any case, I think the only question is how soon Congress will let this through. Would be nice if they did so sooner rather than later.
Hi Ruvy, Dave et al...been awhile...
7 - Bliffle
"What I’ve yet to hear is an explanation of why understanding how the law plays out as a practical matter in everyday life for real human beings is a bad thing."
Because judges are biased in favor of powerful institutions like government agencies and corporations, so to do their duty and crush little weenie citizens they have to remove concern for mere individuals from their considerations.