President Obama drew significant criticism from conservatives when he said that he wanted to appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices with “empathy.” He expressed this during the presidential campaign and repeated it when Justice David Souter announced his resignation in the spring of 2009. But the intense criticism caused Obama and others to stop speaking of empathy as an important attribute in a justice. This is a mistake, and two cases argued at the beginning of this Supreme Court term show the importance of empathy in judicial decision making.
Empathy, like so many qualifications, is elusive to define. It is about justices considering the effects of their rulings on people and their lives. In deciding cases, justices often have great discretion, and Obama’s point was that the court should try to understand, and always be mindful, of the human impact of its decisions. The opposite of a person with empathy is a sociopath and surely that is not what we want on the nation’s highest court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
