Carol Platt Liebau has written an interesting article on Townhall.com elucidating the danger in seeking judges that “empathize” rather than adjudicate. Liebau writes,
When a President emphasizes the importance of “empathy,” the more proper question becomes not whether a particular judge has empathy, but rather, for whom? After all, empathizing with a woman who wants a late-term abortion necessitates a certain lack of empathy for her unborn baby. Empathy for accused criminals can feel like something very different to their victims.
If a President’s criteria includes, “It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families,” Liebau is correct to point out that this “means he is seeking a judge who will side with unions or plaintiffs against businesses.” Shading court decisions based on “empathy” for a particular group of people, be they poor, uneducated, of minority status or other is not social justice, but injustice and decidedly unbiblical. Leviticus 19:15 states, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” and Exodus 23:3 states, “nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.” The Bible also has plenty of provisions against favoring the rich (Lev. 19:15 above acknowledges this as well), but society is rightly incensed when this occurs. The opposite is less likely to draw the ire of many because it admittedly sounds compassionate, but it is equally wrong according to the Bible. The point is simply that a Justice ought to seek justice, not to refashion society based on his idea of fairness. Justice must be blind to qualify as such. If it checks the pocket-book before rendering a decision, chances are something other than justice has been meted out.
To read the President’s official remarks, click here
