A Supreme Mistake
By: Craig Chamberlain
With the retirement of Justice David Souter, President Obama will get his first Supreme Court appointment, an appointment that could be the first of three that will lead to him reshaping the court for decades. Despite the wishful thinking of some conservatives Justice Souter was no centrist. He made a mad dash to the left once he was confirmed, and spent his entire career ignoring the constitution and trampling on the liberties of the American people, one need only to look at the KELO decision to see the proof of that. The only reason his retirement should be seen as a problem is because it comes at the worst possible time. President Obama will be able to replace the retiring Souter with someone younger, and someone even further to the left. And it comes at a time when the GOP in the Senate can’t do a thing to stop President Obama from appointing anyone he wants, he could nominate Ward Churchill and there isn’t anything Senator Sessions, or any other Republican can do about it. It’s brutal, but it’s the truth.
What would President Obama’s ideal Supreme Court justice look like? He’s already answered that question. What quality is he most looking for? Is it intelligence, experience, or is it something else? Well, according to the President himself the greatest quality an American jurist can have is empathy. In his words he’s looking for a judge that understands what it means to be poor, a minority, a single mom, or a member of some other protected class. What he wants is a justice who is swayed by their heart, who with tears in their eyes is moved by compassion for the little guy, to hell with the law.
What about empathy for other groups. What about empathy for business owners? The people who struggle to start a business, who work long grueling hours to turn it into a success only to see it devoured by the federal government, but the Democrats have never cared about these people. They only see them as walking ATM machines who after they have been squeezed of every penny they earn the Democrats toss them aside while denouncing them as capitalist exploiters. What about empathy for law enforcement? The men and women who keep the streets safe, well they don’t factor into it either. President Obama wants someone who will take the side of criminals, because, after all, criminals are just innocent victims of a racist society, and law enforcement is nothing but a crypto fascist body that unjustly goes after young minorities. What about empathy for soldiers? The men and women who risk their lives in foreign lands to protect this country and its people (even when they make stupid decisions like voting for a Democrat)they don’t factor into the equation either. After all, their just imperialist storm troopers, baby killers who get their kicks bombing innocent third world villages. President Obama is more interested in protecting America’s enemies than he is in protecting its protectors. It’s not really empathy he’s interested in at all, he’s only interested in empathy for Democratic constituents. Everyone else can just stick it.
Let’s use the President’s model for other professions. Imagine if surgeons were hired based on their empathy rather than their skill with the scalpel. Would you rather be operated on by a doctor who was first in his class, is considered a top surgeon, but treats you like a piece of meat, or would you rather be operated on by the class clown who just feels your pain? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m all for being treated in a cold callous manner if it means surviving. Or what about teachers? I know this country has long since put any thought into hiring quality teachers, but ask yourselves would you rather your children be taught by someone who went to the best schools, actually knows something about the subject they are teaching, can discuss that subject without using a book that has the answers in the back, and will teach your children how to think for themselves, or a teacher who will just give your kids a big pat on the back no matter how badly they are failing? Sadly we already know the answer to this question, at least when it comes to the Washington establishment, or the teachers unions. You can apply this test to any profession, competence is always more important than empathy.
There’s nothing wrong with empathy, per se. But it can’t get in the way of doing your job and doing it in a professional manner. We see the results when empathy does get in the way. When teachers are too empathetic to their students and pass them to the next grade, despite failing scores are they doing the students any favors? When judges ignore the law, and let repeat offenders on the street, are they doing the rule of law, or society, any good? If an employer has too much empathy for an incompetent employee and let’s him keep his job, even to the risk of the company, is he doing good? You see? It might be a sign of virtue(certainly among the left) to have an abundance of empathy, but what good is it if it gets in the way of doing the job right, or if empathy ends up hurting people in the end? If you want empathy to be a guiding force, you should get into philanthropy, but I don’t think the Supreme Court should be for such people.
So, President Obama will get his way and his eventual nominee will sit on the high court, but at what cost? We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws, guided by a constitution. Can we remain that way if empathy is the guiding force behind the government instead of the law? While I’m no judge, I would bet the answer is “no.” The role of a judge is to enforce the law, and they can’t do that if they are openly taking sides.
It’s safe to say that President Obama doesn’t care about the rule of law, he cares about remaking the United States into his leftist vision, and in order to do that he needs willing accomplices on the judiciary who will ignore the constitution, and the statutes of this country, who are guided by “empathy” who will help him achieve his goal.