Comments on y-intercept blog: Empathetic v. Conservative Judges

There is a reason that the statue Justice depicts ...

2009-05-29T09:45:57.921-06:00

There is a reason that the statue Justice depicts a blindfolded woman holding a sword in one hand and balanced scales in the other.

The job of a justice in law parallels that of an umpire or referee in sports. The job of such officials is to determine how actions on the field of play comport with the official rules. Fans get upset when they perceive that an official is favoring one team over another. Such favoritism is unjust both on the field of play and in the court room, even if it is well intentioned.

Ran, You are correct that the 6th ammendment give...

2009-05-29T00:49:00.336-06:00

Ran,

You are correct that the 6th ammendment gives people in criminal court the right to an "impartial jury."

Did you know that the Supreme Court does not have a jury?

It does not because the Supreme Court is something different than the local criminal court.

I came close to writing a paragraph to remind people that the Supreme Court is different from a local court. My posts are too long winded, so I skipped it.

Because the courts are different, empathy plays a different role.

The judge in a local court might make a decision based on empathy with one of the party. That decision affects one case.

The Supreme Court handles cases about precendent and class basis. So, the empathetic supreme court justice is making class distinctions in rulings.

BTW: Empathy is not the foundation of arbitration. Arbritration and mediation are about finding a mutually beneficial solution to a dispute. If the arbitrator has empathy for one party and makes a biased decision, then the arbitrator will fail to make a mutually beneficial decision.

Empathy can undermine arbitration.

Arbitration in the health care industry keeps running into the problem that powerful hospitals are good at finding arbitrators sympathic to their view.

The success of arbritation depends on the arbitrator being unbiased.

this of course is unshakeable reasoning if we acce...

2009-05-28T22:48:42.345-06:00

this of course is unshakeable reasoning if we accept your definition of both empathetic and conservative law. which we should not do. our legal system is actually defined on empathy rather than rigidity, thus the use of juries, arbitration, and... wait for it... judges!

so that makes what you've written here just a nonsensical attempt to appear legal educated, achieving only a foolishly simplistic rendition of legal scholarship that serves only to make one like myself, making a living teaching this very scholarship to curious young minds laugh heartily at your suppositions