Comments on: What's Wrong With Empathy?

By: Upturned Earth » “Empathy”

Upturned Earth » “Empathy” — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:58:29 +0000

[...] Wilkinson makes the case for diversity on the judicial bench, and it’s about the best that someone who lives by the Philosophical [...]

By: Oscar

Oscar — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:22:12 +0000

A good dinner means first of all good food. But you need time to prepare other stuff other than the actual food. The crock pot recipes offer you all the time you need. But they still are delicious. Here is one of the rival roast crock pot recipes. Recipe that will make your dinner fabulous.

By: Oscar

Oscar — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:22:12 +0000

By: caroll

caroll — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:00:18 +0000

Nobody expects unbiased justice, there is no such a thing in reality, actually some people of law build careers based on empathy in judicial system. There is nothing wrong with empathy as long as the judgment remains clear and as objective as possible.
Darry, Motion to File Document Under Seal

By: rightwingradical123

rightwingradical123 — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:43:01 +0000

About as well as the exam that Sotormayor struck down that the Conneticut firefighters took. When enough minorities did not pass the test, they threw it out so they could achieve their hiring quotas.

We had to have a women and a Latino or Latina was a nice touch. Now if someone can just prove she is also a divorced lesbian we would have the tri-fecta of liberal picks.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 20 May 2009 05:24:55 +0000

I was intrigued by this debate and decided to flex my “philosophy of law muscles” (from one undergrad class). The way I see it, the debate reminds me of the philosophy of law debate of whether judges legislate whenever they interpret the law. It reminds me of back-and-forth essays of Justice Scalia and Ronald Dworkin about Scalia's claimed “textualism” – interpreting the law from the context of the writers (take for example of whether the death penalty counted as “cruel and unusual” in 1700s or today). To me, Scalia's claim to be “true to the original” is just an elaborate justification for his conservative tendencies and Dworkin's push for a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution (e.g. the Fourteenth Amendment is legal grounds for banning segregation, though its writers probably didn't consider segregation in the 1800s), is an elaborate justification for more liberal policies. It seems to me this push and pull is necessary for some balance – on one hand we obviously don't live with the same mindset as people in the 18th century, but we do want the words in the law to have some sort of consistent meaning throughout history (“all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” as an extreme example). Call me a realist or whatever…

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:06:01 +0000

Did you play any of the Justices? If so, did you win? And, if so, when you won, did you yell something ferociously at them in triumph?

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:04:28 +0000

One of my housemates at the time was clerking for Roberts and got us in. Singular DC experience, like bowling at the White House.

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:47:10 +0000

How'd you get to play ball in the SC gym?

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:28:02 +0000

I wasn't talking legalese, since I think the deeper, philosophical perspective is more illuminating. You'll have to believe me that I understand pretty well how the whole thing actually works. Some of my best friends (and former roomates) clerked in the various appeals courts. And I've played basketball in the Supreme Court gym, which is obviously qualifies me to speak on matters of the judiciary.