Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> SoapBox Law

Law Students

: SoapBox Law

Another Reason to Reject the Political Jesus

Outside of being commander in chief (there will be plenty to say later about how disastrous Obama would be as commander in chief), in my mind, judicial appointments are the most important thing a president does. I am confident that if you ask most Americans to describe which qualities they would prefer in our judges, the adjectives would probably include: competence, intelligence, knowledge of the law, high integrity, fairness, etc. So what would be the key to judicial appointments made by the Non-Partisan Avitar of Hope and Healing? Empathy! Yay! Here it is:

We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

Does this make anyone else nervous? What does this mean exactly? So if someone kills you, he wants to say "Well, he was gay, so we won't punish him as much." Or, on the other hand, someone beats up a poor person and we'll punish the perpetrator more because the victim wasn't rich? What is this? Here's a little more from Obama:

...when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.

So judges who know the law, who apply the law fairly regardless of the party's status are, apparently, unimportant in the calculation of Obama. I guess, in Obama's calculation, justice should be blind unless you fit into a particular group or category that is sufficiently needy. The problem with Obama and many on the left (this point was especially clear during Roberts and Alito's nomination), that if the party in a suit is a business, that = bad. If the other party is underrepresented minority, that = good. Therefore, if a court rules in favor of a business or white guy, regardless of the merits of the case, justice, at least "progressive" justice has not been accomplished. Can someone explain to me why this is a good thing?

Full post as published by SoapBox Law on February 28, 2008 (boomark / email).