With a chair left empty in the Supreme Court, the big B.O. moved very quickly to nominate the next chair warmer. Obama interviewed Diane Wood, Merrick Garland, Sidney Thomas, and Elena Kagan. The first three having more than a decade of Judicial experience. Our President nominates Kagan, to which National Review replies, “Beyond zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. She had never argued in any court before becoming solicitor general last year. And during her entire career in academia, she has written only a handful of scholarly articles.”
President Obama’s theory (the theory which he is most likely to nominate by) is that when difficult cases arise, they “can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” Therefore, the critical ingredient, “is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Wait, shouldn’t he be wearing a blindfold?
You might think, “Maybe Obama’s theory didn’t bleed into his decisions.” Well, it’s hard to find out what Kagan thinks. Tom Goldstein, a “hyper-connected” D.C. lawyer and blogger who is very close to Kagan said that he doesn’t “know anyone who has had a conversation with her in which she expressed a personal conviction on a question of constitutional law in the past decade.”
Dig a little deeper. Kagan’s senior thesis on the history of socialism in New York City found it befuddling that Americans “are more likely to speak of . . . capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.” Socialism’s greatness? (See: socialism) In 1993 Kagan revered Justice Thurgood Marshall’s view that the Supreme Court freedom “to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.” Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it? Kagan referred to this idea as “a thing of glory.”
If our President really is rejecting the idea that he’s a socialist, then why is he nominating them? In addition, if Kagan thinks that the Justice system should be empathetic to one’s circumstances, what happens to the justice system? The reason the statue of Justice has a blindfold on her, is because justice is not supposed to be empathetic. Justice by definition is impartial enforcement of the law.
What happens when you take the word “Justice” out of the Justice system? All you’re left with is the “system.” And we can’t very well say that Obama is nominating Kagan to the “Supreme system.” Although, if ideas and views like hers embody themselves into the Supreme Court, a “system” is all that will be left.
Empathy by definition is partial or subjective decision making. Making choices with emotions. So literally, by saying that one should judge on “empathy” is saying that a Judge should let their emotions guide their decisions. Where is the justice in that? If we start deciding things based on wealth, race and circumstances, there is no justice. Suddenly it no longer matters that one stole from another, because they felt as though they needed it more than the person who had it. Empathy is the ruin of the justice system, because with empathy, there is no justice.
The question must be raised: Where is her blindfold?