In yesterday’s Best of the Web, James Taranto remarks upon the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ricci case. Specifically, he notes a little sparring between Justices Alito and Ginsburg regarding the role of “sympathy” in the justice system.
…an exchange between Justice Ginsburg (writing for the dissenters) and Justice Samuel Alito (joined in his concurrence by Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas) provides an interesting angle on President Obama’s call for “empathy,” a quality he says Sotomayor possesses.Ginsburg opens her opinion by observing that “the white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” To which Alito replies:
“Sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law–of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.
Presumably if the plaintiffs belonged to a group for which Ginsburg had “empathy,” she would have been more inclined to rule in their favor. “Sympathy,” by contrast, is an empty sentiment offered to disfavored classes in lieu of equal protection. Such distinctions between classes of people cannot be reconciled with equality under the law. “Sympathy” is the new “separate but equal.”
You know what the Supreme Court really needs? A wise latina to show them the way.
“Sympathy is the new ’separate but equal.’”
That’s extremely good.
Personally I’d like to see justices with more antipathy. Or, if we can’t have that, how about making the justices wear those wacky, powdered wigs? Or, maybe an antipathetic judge who eats a lot of powdered donuts and develops lymphopathy?
“Personally I’d like to see justices with more antipathy.”
Absolutely! I mean the witness is right there, and he’s already holding a little hammer…
Mike, welcome to Threedonia. Thanks for commenting, and don’t be a stranger. At least don’t be stranger than JohnFN.
I’ll be a justice. I have no sympathy or empathy. HA!
The left has no idea what they will unleash if we start letting judges decide cases based on their ideas about who deserves it more than according to the law. Ironically, they will find that the system gets amazingly harsher because the people who can afford to become judges (and the people who can support others who want to become judges) are all well connected to the very people the left hates — business.
I can’t count the number of judges I know who came from doing insurance defense and who really think that all plaintiffs (the people the left thinks will always win under a sympathy regime) are malingerers.
I’ve used these quotes on the firing range with whining recruits:
1.You can find sympathy in the dictionary. It’s between sh*t and syphilis.
2.You can find sympathy. You just can’t find it here.
All the Senators that will vote yay or nay on Sotomayor should be made to read Justice Alito’s remarks. Oh, yes I forgot, lawmakers don’t read anything anymore, they just vote. Well, if memory serves, we still vote too.
[...] But in a country founded on individual liberties and restraint on government, “social justice” as legal theory is simply hogwash. [...]
Very typical. As Michael Medved said in his piece at Townhall.com, “The core mistake of liberalism involves the confusion of charity and justice.”
As he points out, even the Bible warns against this follow in Leviticus 19:15, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.”
This is repeated several times, not that liberals really care about this Iron Age mythology.