Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take: "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. He hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job since he is not looking for someone to fulfill that vow but someone whom he knows willfully violates it. That is what Liberalism requires, judicial activism, not justice.

It is easy to contrast the above oath with BO's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court Justice. According to his White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx, along with several million other people -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts." In other words, her rulings should be tainted with her personal feelings rather than actual legal precedent.

Mr. Obama says law and precedent should only determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases" but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of 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."

Please keep in mind that Supreme Court cases just happen to constitute that 5% and nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For those hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule, not law. I think that is because liberal Socialists wish to change our country in ways that normal law will not allow but judicial activism can accomplish without legislation. Examples: Homosexual marriage, Equal Opportunity laws that emphasize not equality but favor for minorities, Abortion on demand, Social Security and Healthcare monies spent in non-citizens, etc.



So, what's so wrong with empathy vs. legal precedent? Not much, really. Empathy is fine and good for all decent people to employ, including Supreme Court justices. But it shouldn’t be the basis of all decisions, certainly not the law of the land.

Mr. Obama has something very specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants not just the justice's oath to be rewritten but that judges to administer their justice with direct respect to persons. They must be partial, not impartial to whomever they choose and so on.

This is not really open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "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'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The assumed reasoning here is dubious at best. Obama and Sotomayor assume firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or African-Americans or gays or whatever automatically require justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense elevated to astronomic heights. Surely Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any other justice currently on the bench. How's that working out for liberals? Why don’t they love him?

Naturally, liberals say anytime you disagree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas, abortion, or anything else, it's because you just don't care as much as they do about - minorities or women or ... That is why they've aggressively demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor which is an arrogantly stupid assumption. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Policy preferences are the province of Legislatures despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that courts are "where policy is made." That is where Socialist WANT policy made since they cannot control all the legislatures in any republic.

Just as importantly, who keeps saying conservatives are against judicial empathy? I think we are all for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution.

When the law (Constitution) means siding with a poor black man, great. If it means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays, gun owners, single mothers, and immigrants. We should all rejoice when justices actually fulfill their oaths giving everyone fair hearings, even if that's not how Obama and his minions see it.

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, 05/27/09