Empathy is not Justice

David Harsanyi a href=”http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9198871″notes Obama’s take /aon how justices should be appointed:br /br /blockquoteAfter a recent Supreme Court death penalty case, Obama said he would nominate justices who shared “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” br /br /Relying on such extraordinarily subjective views undercuts the idea of blind justice. It implies that justices should be free to follow their own broader perspectives rather than the law. /blockquotebr /br /Empathy is a href=”http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empathy”defined/a as “Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.” Empathy might be important when one is a therapist, but one is to be impartial when in the role of a forensic psychologist where the goal is to be objective and follow the rule of law. Shouldn’t justices be held to an even higher standard, given the responsibility they have and the oath that they take?br /br /Update: a href=”http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12130″Protein Wisdom:/a But then, what’s the use of being a Messiah if you can’t rewrite the metaphysics of meaning, right?