Nice points here. I agree with all of it.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/07/empathy_versus_law_part_iii?page=full

There is a reason why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold. There are things that courts are not supposed to see or recognize when making their decisions-- the race you belong to, whether you are rich or poor, and other personal things that could bias decisions by judges and juries.

It is an ideal that a society strives for, even if particular judges or juries fall short of that ideal. Now, however, President Barack Obama has repudiated that ideal itself by saying that he wants to appoint judges with "empathy" for particular groups.

This was not an isolated slip of the tongue. Barack Obama said the same thing during last year's election campaign. Moreover, it is completely consistent with his behavior and associations over a period of years-- and inconsistent with fundamental principles of American government and society.

Nor is this President Obama's only attempt to remake American society. Barack Obama's vision of America is one in which a President of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell banks how to bank, control the medical system and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor other politicians have any expertise or experience.

The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.

Appointing judges to the federal courts-- including the Supreme Court-- who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.

If all this can be washed down with pious talk about "empathy," so much the better for those who want to remake America. Now that the Obama administration has a Congressional majority that is virtually unstoppable, and a media that is wholly uncritical, the chances of preventing the president from putting someone on the Supreme Court who shares his desire to turn America into a different country are slim or none.

The only thing on the side of those who understand this, and who oppose it, is time. Reshaping the Supreme Court cannot be done overnight, the way Congress passed a vast spending bill in two days.

Replacing Supreme Court justices is something that can only be done one at a time and at unpredictable intervals. What this means is that Senators who do not have enough votes to stop an Obama nominee for the High Court from being confirmed nevertheless have an opportunity- and a duty-- to alert the public to the dangers of what is being done.

This does not mean turning confirmation hearings into a circus or a kangaroo court with mud-slinging at judicial nominees, the way Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were smeared. But it also does not mean taking the path of least resistance by quietly voting for people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, who treat the Constitution as a grant of arbitrary power to themselves, rather than a restriction of power on the government as a whole.

It is all too easy to say "a president has a right to appoint the kind of people he wants on the Supreme Court." He does. But that does not mean that those who don't have the votes to stop dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to stand mute.

Since Justice David Souter is likely to be replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal. But with all the indications already as to how the Obama administration is trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public to the dangers is now.

Given the age and health of other Supreme Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama's time in the White House. Time is an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the composition of the Senate that confirms judicial nominees.

But time by itself does nothing. It is what we do with time that matters.

Wow, no comments?

I agree, but the article seems to be more about the President's agenda at large. In fact this seems something to throw onto the fire of outrage to build up the discontent by the more conservative minded.

The whole empathetic to other groups thing - I hope this doesn't mean different punishment but I think perspective is good. Honestly, 8 men and one woman - are they even going to view things in the same way? Maybe in a perfect world, but not in this one.

Personally, I think we should get over the delusion that justice is blind - in fact we should try to make justice as "fair" as possible because it cannot be blind. I don't hear anyone screaming about how Nancy Grace subverts the justice system. I'm going off on a tangent.

Justice should be blind. I agree. Not necessarily with the argument so much though.

im not sure if i understood all of it (Im quite tired atm)

but, i think judges should be impartial, i dont think that making exceptions for certain people is justice, more like a breach of, people all follow the same laws, theres no opt out of a law because of your religion or whatever, which the UK courts need to learn as much as any, here, christians can refuse to do there jobs and get away with it, see recent court case about gay adoption.

*Yawn* That was a boring article, got to something about replacing supreme court before I gave up... I think that maybe why no-one posted at first lol

Lawyer in training Akuma isn't around. This topic was made for him.

Hahaha, sorry guys, I can't peruse the forums as often during the summer. I have so little of a life during the school year that I try to make up for it during the summer.

I'll note that you posted an article from just about the biggest conservative hack in existence, Thomas Sowell.

The liberal/conservative spectrum doesn't really work so well when you are talking about judges. Some of the judges who claim to be conservative are some of the most activist judges in history who don't defer to the other branches of government and past precedent. "Legislating from the bench" if you will, although that term is so overused and misused that it isn't even funny.

This guy isn't even giving an accurate description of the scope of executive power or how the Supreme Court has defined the President's ability to do things like this. Unless Congress has expressly or impliedly through some piece of legislation disapproved of what the President is doing, the President has flexibility to act on his own power. Now there are still constitutional limits on that power, but it is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, during time of national/economic crisis, the standards tend to be a bit looser. And there is even evidence that Congress approved of what the President was doing, which would mean that the President's authority would be even broader.

Some people don't like to face the fact that the Constitution was made almost for the sole reason that the federal government was too weak. They just ignore the failure that was the Articles of Confederation.  I don't really see how you can claim with a straight face that the Constitution doesn't sometimes give incredibly broad power to the federal government when that was exactly what the Founding Fathers intended to do. The exception is criminal law, where there are some major restrictions throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And, ironically, Sowell was a big supporter of Bush, the guy who time and time overreached his authority through unconstitutional means as the head of the executive branch. So this guy doesn't care about violating the Constitution at all, just when violating the Constitution doesn't sync with his agenda. That is what I like to call hypocrisy.

Sowell acts like there is one correct way to interpret the Constitution. And that's frankly just BS. There are plenty of "conservative" judicial decisions that I don't necessarily agree with in terms of the outcome but that are well-reasoned opinions that I can't really criticize from a legal standpoint. Frankly, the Constitution just doesn't have a lot of details on some issues, particularly executive power in the non-military or criminal realm. To say that the Constitution automatically forbids the executive from doing things like this has little textual basis in the Constitution.

I'll give you all of Article II. Someone please point out where the President is expressly forbidden from doing things like this:

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.