Six months after President Obama took office he had the opportunity to name a successor to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter. Among other typical requirements such as intelligence and experience, he also spoke of empathy as "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a female Hispanic appellate court judge from the Second Circuit, who was eventually confirmed by the Senate. Her prior remarks precipitated healthy criticism from Republicans and legal scholars alike for her now famous "wise Latino woman" reference anad other remarks she made about her own view of judging.
Please read the article linked below and respond to any one or more of the following questions:
1) Given the fact that the Supreme Court has been charged with protecting minority interests from the self-serving majority in this country, is empathy a legitimate criterion for new Supreme Court nominees?
2) Is it realistic to presume that any judge can separate his or her personal background, experiences, and perspective from his or her decisionmaking on the bench?
3) Are you concerned that Justice Sotomayor will be biased in her decisionmaking on the Supreme Court, or do you think she was merely stating what we all know to be true: that the Supreme Court does engage in judicial activism from time to time, and as such, does make policy when it feels the need to do so?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
I'm not that concerned that Sotomayor will be overly biased. I think that, like most judges, she will do her best to be impartial, as she claims. However, I also believe that it is nearly impossible to be truly impartial. Who someone is, how they were raised, and where they grew up all make a significant impact on their thought processes and thus on the way they make decisions in court. And I do think that it's very hard to separate one's background from one's decisionmaking on the bench. But that's just a part of politics--not everyone is going to see things in the same light. As long as someone tries, like Sotomayor says, to "question [their] own 'opinions, sympathies and prejudices,'" then they will still be an effective judge.
I am also not very concerned that Sotomayor will be too biased. I think that she will do the best she can to be impartial. I believe diversity is a very important part of politics, you have to get people of all different kinds of backgrounds so that the people as a whole are represented. I think past experiences and where people are from and who they are does definitely have an impact on the way they see things. But I don't beleive this is a bad thing. We need to have people thinking about all aspects of each situation, especially in the court system. Like Lizzy already said, it's politics, there are so many different views and opinions and nobody is going to see things exactly the same as someone else.
i think its unrealistic to presume that a any judge can seperate their background from their decisions. Sotomayor, like every other judge, will try their best to do what is fair. however, their background may influence exactly what they think is the fair treatment. Your background is a part of who you are, and even if you are trying to be impartial, you will still have influence from your personal experiences.
I agree with Jess in that diversity is an important part of politics. The Supreme Court has been historically made up of a bunch of old white guys, and I think that it is significant that Sotomayor is representing a demographic that has as such been underrepresented in the Supreme Court. One specific group of people cannot truly represent the interests and beliefs of America's diverse population. It's also important, however, that someone isn't given a political position just because of their sex or gender. I don't think that this applies to Sotomayor though because she seems well-qualified and to have earned her position.
I am almost in complete agreement with Lizzy. I agree that Sotomayor represents a demographic that has yet to be represented and that Sotomayor will have to prove that she will be a good fair judge. I think that one's life is that person's path of learning and what you know comes from what you have gotten out of your experiences. So basically a fair judge is one that can find a balance between themselves and the law and find a way to make it fair for the people on trial and for the people pressing charges. I'm not exactly sure how because if I knew I would be a judge by now, but I still think that background has some place in a judgement. I think Sotomayor will be a fine judge and not just because I'm a girl and I support any female judge. Overall I think she is doing well and she should keep it up.
I personally think that the a Supreme Court judge should be rightly presumed to be able to seperate their background and perspective from what's right. After all, they are being appointed to the highest court in our country, they can't be allowing these things to get in their way. I am concerned about Sotomayor's comments because it seems like she got free pass whereas if a white male made comment about a "wise white male" there would be a serious backlash. Also, it does strongly hint that there is a likely bias as a basic principle of our court system is "Blind Justice" meaning it's not dependent on race, sex, nationality, etc.
I'm going to start off by responding to the first question. The Supreme Court has been charged with protecting minority interests, but that doesn't mean that it should go out of its way to help the minority. Nobody said they were supposed to improve the welfare of the minority, just protect their interests. No decision should be made based off of how it affects any particular group, only the country as a whole. (That is, as long as it isn't something so offensive that the said group reacts violently). Basically, it's good and all that we are looking out for the minority, but the Supreme Court needs to treat everyone equally and shouldn't go running off to help the minority when it hurts 95% of the country.
I believe that it is important to diversify the supreme court, but, having said that, I also think it is important that judges act impartially when examining cases. I'm not too concerned about Sotomayor placing too much bias in her opinions on cases because I find it hard to believe that she is the only judge on the Supreme Court with bias. She is simply more vocal about her opinions and background than other judges. Also, there are other judges on the court to balance out the system if one judge rules on a case based on personal bias. It would be impossible for her ruling on a case to win if she is the only member who rules that way on the case.
I think that judges should try to seperate their own personal experiences and backgrounds from their work as much as possible, but I don't think people can seperate their personal experiences completely from their work, no matter who they are. I don't think that Sotomayor will have a problem with being overly biased because it's her job to be impartial and to abide the law, and she's kind of a big deal, so she's probably aware that being biased isn't an option.
I believe that no judge can truly separate their background from their decisions, simply because alot of who people are is their background. That said, however, I believe that judges should be as impartial as possible and do their job, which is to interpret law and the Constiution. I have little concern that Sotomayor will be biased. Scalia has been equally vocal about his Italian heritage in the past, yet not many have accused him of being biased towards Italians. I agree with Kelly that Sotomayor knows that she is a big deal and knows that she is under a microscope, meaning bias is out (to the extent it really can be). I agree with Lizzi that although diversity is extremely important in government, no one should receive a position simply because of their sex or gender. That being said I don't think that is the case with Sotomayor as her resume is quite impressive.
I do believe that it is very important to act impartial as a supreme court justice and I am not worried that Sotomayor will do the same. However everyone does have a past and set of ideals they have grown up with so that is inevitable and cause some bias. As long as they are trying to keep their own personal beliefs aside I think they can remain mostly impartial.
For the sake of discussion, how exactly are people worried about empathy in the Supreme Court? Are they worried that the judges will feel bad for people they identify with and let them off the hook? Personally, I think empathy does have a place in the new Supreme Court. Decisions should be made in a fair and orderly fashion, and the best way to do that is by separation from personal views. However, as many of my peers have said, it is impossible to completely separate yourself from the things that shaped you. These differences are things that enrich us as a society, giving us ideas and opinions that let us see issues from all angles. Granted, I do not think that the Court should be run by a bunch of bleeding hearts or anything like that, but I do believe that some cases call for moral flexibility rather than rigid interpretation of the law. Otherwise, we'd still be following the laws put in place roughly 300 years ago, regardless of how outdated they were.
As most people have previously stated, I think and like to hope that any judge can separate his or her own personal background, experiences, and perspective from the bench. However, as Lizzi said, I don't think that any judge is completely impartial in their decision making. I'm not concerned at all with having Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice. I think it's better that we have someone with a different perspective than that of an upper class privileged white man. People are concerned with her being bias when we still have a majority of white men as Supreme Court Justices and only two people of different ethnicity and two women.
In regarding to Sotomayor's race and genderI think it is a good thing that the supreme court is becoming more diverse. It helps bring new perspective into the court and help represent more of the country. I also agree with Teddy that empathy is a good quality in a judge because they can see why a person may have done a certain action and with that make a more fitting decision.
David, good points. Has anyone seen the movie "12 Angry Men"? I feel like this kind of relates to our discussion (only with a jury, not a Supreme Court Justice)... Anyway, in response to David, doesn't humanity need some amount of empathy? Doesn't a person need to have a "broad empathy" towards their fellow human beings in order to possess a sense of humanity and moral standards? Sorry, that might be completely missing the point of the question, I just think it's an interesting topic.
I do agree that decisions should be based off of facts, but there has to be some sort of humane interpretation. If a guy robs a bank, you can't just look at the fact that he robbed the bank, you have to dig deeper because the intentions and background may give a better idea of how justice should be carried out. If he did it out of pure greed vs. to get money to pay for his dying uncle's hospital expenses, he still robbed a bank, but one punishment, in my opinion, should be lighter than the other. Therefore, I think a lot of important decisions must be based on observations that go past the cold-hard facts. As I said before I do not think it should be "Oh I feel bad for him, so I'll change how justice should be carried out," but I do think that there is something to be gained by feeling for the people whose lives you might be changing and whose system of justice you might be altering.
I agree with what Remington said. Minority rights should be protected but not unfairly or at the expense of the rest of the country. After all, the Supreme Court is supposed to operate on Blind Justice so race isn't meant to play a role unless someone is violated based upon their race. Another thing is that Supreme Court Justices shouldn't try to rule in ways that only benefit minority groups because sometimes, these rulings can end up hurting the majority.
I agree with Teddy that it is important for Supreme Court Justices to look at the circumstances surrounding a person who has committed a crime. Whether or not a punishment should be lighter if their motivation for committing the crime is reasonable, is a whole separate debate, however. While I understand that many people believe law is law, and if someone broke the law then they need to be punished, no matter the circumstances, I believe that any case that has made it to the Supreme Court level should be handled extremely carefully. All aspects of the case need to be reviewed, as they usually are, and the true motivation for the crime must be determined. If the crime is truly egregious, like murder or some sort of abuse for instance, then yes, the person should probably receive proper punishment. But if your name is, say, Jean Valjean, and you've stolen a loaf of bread to feed your sister's starving child, is it right to be forced to face years in jail? I'm really hoping someone picks up on that reference.
obviously it is hard to be completely impartial. if one was completely impartial, no decisions would ever be made. i am not worried Sotomayor will be a biased judge, however i find her comments biased toward minorities. i am not saying it is a bad thing that she supports minorities, i am just saying i find it odd that everyone seems to think that minorities always have the short straw. though true in some cases, is inaccurate. i know that this doesn't really relate, but college admissions is a perfect example of this. if you are part of a minority, even to the slightest degree, your chances of acceptance are already ten times higher. sorry to drift off. just wanted to say that. overall, i think that no judge can act without empathy, because we all have different values and beliefs that could be triggered by a certain case and bias us towards one thing or another. its just kind of inevitable
I do not think that empathy is a quality that should be sought after in supreme court justices. I think that when you make legal decisions that carry such great weight, it is very important that the choice made is based off of both logic and the constitution, not empathy. So I do not agree with the idea of empathy being a desirable characteristic of supreme court justices. Justices have to be able to remain as impartial as possible, and having any sort of partiality towards one race has a disastrous potential in a legal system where cases from the supreme court carry a lot of weight.
As of right now I do not think anyone has a very good reason to believe that Sotomayor will be bias towards minorities to the point where it drastically affects the outcome of future cases. A judge that high up in the justice department did not get there by being bias and incompetent. Although there were most likely some political ramifications, I think that Sotomayor should be able to keep whatever sentiments she has towards a certain race under control.
However, if it were to become apparent that her bias towards minorities was, in fact, altering the outcomes of court cases substantially, Congress has to be ready to possibly impeach her. Even though she is considered a liberal, democrats have to understand that by not impeaching her, they would be threatening the idea that every American is entitled to a fair trial, and allowing there to be a possibility that this entitlement could potentially go unfulfilled for even one american is a failure to the American people.
I believe it is realistic and obligatory for judges of the supreme court to separate their background and life experiences from constitutional law. Everyone comes with a background, but a spot that holds this much impact on court cases shouldn't conflict. I do not like Sonia Sotomayer's quote:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
I think this is a statement basically expressing her future bias and her discretion is very concerning.
Emily. I totally agree. What it really comes down to is a CONFRONTATION between mercy vs. justice. I mean, if a man's acquittal doesn't take his intentions into account, even if it's only ONE DAY MORE in jail, I'd prefer that they took the risk of empathizing with him and BRING HIM HOME. I DREAMED A DREAM, and perhaps it was too ideological, that we lived in a world where mercy and justice could be a single set of ideas, so that the judicial system would be fair, filling our courts with EMPTY CHAIRS AND EMPTY TABLES instead of criminal and civil cases. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world. Men are not angels, as a certain famous someone once said, so we just have to accept the faults in each others ideas and try to find balance between empathy in justice. That is the only way we can realistically attain a level of fairness in our judicial system and let humanity reign as the "MASTER OF THE HOUSE" in the Supreme Court's decisions. I got your reference ;)
Teddy your comment just made me so happy.
Once again I would just like to reiterate that a person's background often shapes much of who they are, and so in that way it is impossible for them to totally separate their decisions from their lives.I would also to point out that this is a quote from Alito about his Italian heritage, "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender." Scalia and many other judges have expressed feelings that their backgrounds, whether ethnicity or religion have affected who they are. This to me is no different than the Sotomayor situation. She is proud of her heritage, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think that her resume speaks for itself and for all the judges, as they are all impressive.
I think that all judges strive to be fair and do their best to be impartial, but like Karly touched on, it's almost impossible for them not to let their background effect their decision making - whether they realize it or not. Where you come from and what you've experienced in life makes up who you are and thus what you believe in. When Sotomayor states that a Latina women would reach a "better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life" I think she brings up an interesting point. Not to say that she's right or wrong by this statement, I simply think that she has a point in bringing diversity to the court. It will be interesting to see in the future if Sotomayor and the 'white males' agree in the what's viewed as fair.
As has been stated, this conflict does pose an interesting divide between very humanistic problems. I think that empathy can be dangerous, but it's a human response. Similarly, a crime is a crime. I think that race, religion... whatever... you still did the WRONG thing. Yes, circumstances may have driven you to it, but it's the wrong thing. I think that that is a hard fact of life. Objectivity is key. People should be judged based on their crime. Obviously, this isn't realistic, but it's a fair way of keeping everything even.
I'm going to try and answer the second and third questions now. Starting with the third, I should hope not or she'll be out of there faster than she can blink. The nation's eyes are on her. As for the second question, it is a very difficult thing to do but something that needs to be done as well as possible. You can never abandon your culture and race, etc..., but you had better be able to at least put it in the back of your mind when it comes to nation-changing court decisions. Judge's personal matters do not belong in court cases, and nobody has had issues with that in the past, so there is no reason why there should be any now. I hope that nothing comes up and that Soto can keep a straight head *kind of a requirement for any high ranking government official*, or else I hope to see her gone because she won't be fit for the position.
I have to agree with Remmy's first comment that the supreme court has the obligation to protect minority rights but it does not have the power to overrule the majority in favor of the underdog. Empathy for one isn't fair unless there is empathy for all. That being said, I do believe sotomayer will use some bias in her future decisions but I think that she is mature and intelligent enough to find reason for her opinion in law, other than her past. She'll be fine and if she's not there might be enough of a republican resurgence to impeach her.
I believe that everyone has personal biased in their decision making. Obviously our opinions are going to be guided by our experiences in life. However, I believe the supreme court should attempt to expand its diversity in more ways. The diversity should be dependent on the personal experiences of the judges rather than visible traits. For example, seeking econmic diversity on the Supreme Court, while it may not be realistically feasable, could be enriching to the court.
Like many others have commented already, I think it's very unrealistic to expect a judge--or anyone for that matter--to separate their personal background and experiences from their decision-making. Therefore, I also agree with those who have stated that they have few concerns about Sotomayor being overly biased. While I definitely acknowledge that her background will have some affect on her future decisions on the bench, I think it can also be said that this is true for every judge on that bench. Like Karly said, all we can really do is hope that the judges do their best to remain as impartial as possible.
I feel that there are situations were a judge has the ability to separate his/her personal background their decision making. There are also situations were personal background can not be separated and the diversity of an individuals life experience will influence the courts ruling. This has always been the case just the individuals in the court have been less diverse and the influence of a minority women should not be an issue and cause for alarm as long as her personal experiences do not effect her decisions and cause her to abuse her power.
Eric brought up an interesting point and I mostly agree with what he had to say. Punishment of crimes should definitely
not be based upon one's religion, race, sex, etc, although we don't live in a perfect world and frequently this is the case. Except, I do think that judges need to base their decision on the circumstances on the person committing the crime. If someone is stealing money to buy bread for their starving family, they clearly do not deserve the same punishment as someone who is stealing money to be used for drugs or alcohol.
I agree with Lizzy on many points, mainly that I am not worried about Sotomayor as a judge because she is well qualified. she is not in the position she is because of her ethnicity or background, it is because she is qualified. Her background is a part of her decisions, but no matter what that background may be she has earned her spot by making good decisions and she will continue to do so. i dont see any reason to worry about her decisions, she is just as impartial as the next judge is despite her background
As multiple people have already stated,I think the idea of a judge seperating completly their background and experiances from their decisons is unrealistic.With that I do think Sotomayor's background will have some affect on her decision making, but I don't find that too worrisome.As carly said ealier I think Sotomayor has enough knowlege to know when it is ok to her integrate her experiances in her decision.
Everyone's said it all. Sotomayor is fully capable of seeing the difference between opinion and law, and separating completely from your background is nearly impossible.
P.S. Teddy and Emily, you're ridiculous.
It seems like both viewpoints have been pretty accurately summed up. Personally, I'd like to take a moderate standpoint on this and say that although because she said that, it does show that she is biased at least to some degree, it doesn't mean that it'll be the determining factor in most of any of her decisions. Although she might feel sympathetic to minorities, she has the rightness of mind to determine a worthy verdict.
I agree with Claire that empathy has to be present in order for any judge, especially a Supreme Court judge, to make decisions without bias. Its understandable that she might have close traditional with her culture and feels sympathetic but its her duty to make fair verdicts without having a minority bias.
I disagree with zena because I think that judges should be people and their bias accepted as their form of making a ruling which should already be proven as a proper way of deciding cases since they have been promoted to the Supreme Court already so they must have been doing something right in the mean time. I also believe that empathy played a part in their judgement because how can a person separate themselves from themselves? even the question seem ridiculous since it is apparent that they cannot.
I disagree with zena because I think that judges should be people and their bias accepted as their form of making a ruling which should already be proven as a proper way of deciding cases since they have been promoted to the Supreme Court already so they must have been doing something right in the mean time. I also believe that empathy played a part in their judgement because how can a person separate themselves from themselves? even the question seem ridiculous since it is apparent that they cannot.
I disagree with zena because I think that judges should be people and their bias accepted as their form of making a ruling which should already be proven as a proper way of deciding cases since they have been promoted to the Supreme Court already so they must have been doing something right in the mean time. I also believe that empathy played a part in their judgement because how can a person separate themselves from themselves? even the question seem ridiculous since it is apparent that they cannot.
To think that a justice won't engage in some kind of bias is just ridicules. Everyone has different views on issues and as much as they may try they will at some time in some way be influenced by these views. I'm not concerned that Justice Sotomayor will be too biased in her decision making because she is clearly qualified, not to mention smart and capable, if she was confirmed by the senate. While empathy shouldn't be the main factor in deciding a case i don't think we can look at everything heartlessly either. I think everyone does what Sotomayer is saying they just don't do it as openly.
Obviously it's impossible for someone to be completely objective, that's what makes us human. I think it's a good thing that Sotomayor is upfront enough to say it to the press/public. Although it's a good thing she admits it, Sotomayor (and everyone else for that matter) needs to be careful to control their prejudices, expectations and such so that they don't make the decisions. Sotomayor's background will in fact help the cause of the United States in further representing minority group opinions.
Let me start off with this: the American justice system is the way it is *because* the United States is based on empathy. The whole reasoning behind juries and trials are that there is always a backstory and that it is vital for both/every side to be heard - it's part of the Constitution. The fact that Sotomayor might empathize better with people of one ethnicity than another is expected - no white, caucasian, middle class American is going to empathize with a poor Indian peasant as well as a person who has had a similar experience or background. I don't know why Sotomayor being able to better sympathize with a part of the American population would ever be a bad thing.
I agree with Daphni, i don't see why it's so bad for a Supreme court judge to be empathetic because the job is based on them being human and to make the law shown through a reasonable eye. If Supreme court judges were all without emotion then the decisions they made wouldn't be practical because all of the decisions would be decided for a perfect world and not for the one we live in. I personally am happy with Sotomayer and i don't think we should be concerned with her appoinment
I agree with Karly made she has lead a different background then other supreme court justices but she still would not have been selected for the job if she is under qualified or will not make her decisions that have legal incredibility because she got to were she is now by making the right decisions and I don't think that will change.
Adding to what Kyle said about the importance of empathy, it is important for the supreme court justices to understand the sentiment of the American people. This is imperative to making practical decisions that will actually be implemented. I think the Supreme Court has done a good job of this thus far as evidence by the cases they select to hear; they know not to take on too controversial of issues before the public is ready to address them.
I agree with Daphni that any empathy Sotomayor may have for certain groups of people shouldn't be automatically viewed as a negative thing. I think empathy has an important role in the Supreme Court, but it's not the only factor to consider. Also, Kyle mentioned that it's important that these judges are "human", meaning they make their decisions with some emotion, and I agree with him. If the Supreme Court justices don't consider situations from the standpoint of a normal person, it would be almost impossible for them to gain the support of the American people when implementing these important decisions.
as many have already stated, i don't think judges can be completely impartial in their decision making. I am not worried about Sotomayor being overly bias, because like some have already said, multiple judges have expressed a similar view point. I believe she is just the first one to express it so strongly.
Post a Comment