I was reading an article in the Economist the other day about the process of picking the next Supreme Court justice. Most of it was predictable, but one part, titled "Americans Need Protection, But From Whom?", gave me pause.
It made the point that Democrats think that people need to be protected from big corporations, while Republicans think they need to be protected from big government. It went on to say " For example, Democrats deride the court for ruling that companies may spend as much money as they like on political ads at election time. This will allow the likes of Exxon Mobil to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, they say. Many Republicans, in contrast, applaud the court for stopping incumbent politicians using campaign-finance laws to silence critical speech about themselves."Well, gee, I think that both of those are worthy. I don't see where agreement with one prohibits or constrains agreement with the other.
The article goes on to say that Americans fear big government more than big business, and think that government is getting too big, too costly, and too intrusive. That sounds right to me. I don't like agreeing with that last part, because I think there's good reasons for big government (but this big? this intrusive?), but it sounds right.
The very last part is what got me:
"Mr. Obama once said that his ideal judge would show 'empathy' for the poor. Polls suggest that most Americans would rather their judges upheld the law dispassionately."
I think that most Americans do feel that way, but only in the abstract. When they put a face on it, when it's someone they know or someone they see, someone they can identify with, then I think they would prefer that empathy.
Or am I projecting?
5 comments:
I have gone back and forth on this. If the decision is too harsh then maybe we should change the laws and not apply it hard or soft depending on empathy.
I'm not fond of the NRA, as I believe I've mentioned, but I find their 'slippery slope' image to be helpful in many cases, including this one. I don't care for judges who make law, yet I don't care for judges who shrug and say "Wish I could rule differently, but that's the law", when the result is legal, but unjust. I want a little activism. Not a lot, because we ought to be ruled by laws, not opinions. Just a little.
Slippery slope, anyone?
I'd rather them be consistent and fair for everyone, despite the economic status of the people standing before them.
The problem is, they're both desirable goals. Its like getting a warning instead of a ticket because you were speeding. The law says ticket; empathy says warning. We need a way to apply the laws fairly but with empathy. I suspect many people will say it has to be one or the other.
I just read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" once again. I think the first time as an adult. It is about creating first principles for a new nation.
Since I first read it, I have seen several new countries come about, and the book seems a lot more appropriate than it did lo those many years ago.
I think Mr. Heinlein has answered some of the very questions you have asked these recent months.
Laws should be applied only to those who don't have the money to bribe the policeman. What....you mean it works differently in your world? Didn't you watch ANY of the Goldman-money-sacks interviews?
(Gosh...I wish I was joking....)
Post a Comment