Empathy should have no role in judging appeals

I'm sorry if my words implied that most Supreme Court cases are close decisions, so I'll clear that up. The sentence in question states, "As reflected in the close decisions, 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices usually wind up on the "liberal" side and 4 usually wind up on the "conservative" side." I was referring to the close decisions when I used the word "usually". I did not mean that most cases are close if that's how you took it. Much of your argument is based on something that's not really there. I never said most Supreme Court cases are close. The only other sentence that could possibly imply that would be this one: "This observation gives heavy support to the claim that most cases rarely involve a clear right or wrong answer because the Supreme Court is often split." In that one, I just meant the Supreme Court is often split. It has happened many times over the years, allowing me to use the word "often". Also, Pro is misrepresenting my argument. My rationale for why not all decisions could be decided from the basis of law was not just because they were close. The Constitution contains broad language that is not specific enough for each case to use as its sole basis. I stated that several times and made it pretty clear. Not only does Pro misrepresent my argument in that way, but Pro also states, "and wrong in suggesting that empathy is needed to resolve the cases that are close". I never once said that empathy should be used to resolve all cases that are close. There was no contradiction in that statement. I explained why a judge should use empathy. Being a factor deciding an outcome and deciding an outcome are two different things. I said, "Empathy is not meant to decide the outcome of a case." I did not say empathy could not be a factor in deciding the outcome. Pro is attacking a straw man argument. I never said empathy could not be a factor in a decision. It just should not be the only factor in a decision, and it should compliment and inform the judge's approach. Pro stated, "The sole function of the Supreme Court is to determine if a lower court did not follow the law, including the Constitution." This is not true. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states. Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution states, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." Pro proceeds to give examples of how to decide cases solely by law, other than just using the Constitution. Reliance upon a precedent does not make the precedent correct. Option C comes into direct contradiction with this entire argument. A broader interpretation does not help with basing decisions on the law. Rather, its proponents base their rationale on the Founding Fathers' intent: that the Constitution be broad and "living" to accommodate change over time. This is not helping your argument because it's not entirely based in law, which goes against your rigid assertion earlier. The concept of the Living Constitution branches out into different interpretations, which don't strictly follow the law. The options Pro provided still leave room for topics that haven't been covered. The options also ignore that the precedent could be wrong. As we saw with Brown v. Board, the precedent was wrong. Reliance on the precedent can often unfairly affect the oral arguments, in that the precedent is assumed to be correct, and it can excuse the Supreme Court from more thought on the law in too many cases. There are still cases of first impression, and the precedent isn't always right. These make cases fall outside of the options he provided. I think Pro mistakenly quoted the part about English law, since English law obviously has no legal standing in our judicial system. Pro's next argument is based on a false premise. It is unfair to assume that parents will be outraged that their legislature has allowed such a thing and march towards the Capitol. I assume it is hyperbole. Pro makes unfair assumptions in the actions of the citizens of Arizona. The assumptions that it will create change are unfair because it has been five years since the incident, yet no big change in regards to searches of students has come about in that time period. The magnitude of the ruling of the Supreme Court will set a standard for schools all across the country, helping prevent such searches in other states if they rule in Savana's favor, and may lead to the Arizona state legislature restricting searches in other ways. Assuming the legislature will reform searches in schools by themselves is unfair and unsubstantiated. Pro then references a fundamental error in my argument, which isn't much of an error at all. Pro brings up Griswold v. Connecticut, and says the laws in question would have inevitably been overturned. This fails to consider how long it would take before the law was repealed. There is no way of knowing how long it would take before the law was repealed. This is not a fundamental error at all, because I can't assume the legislatures will take away every unjust law by themselves. It is irrational to assume popular demand will always have the same effect of the Supreme Court's ruling, if not more. Empathy is important because it helps the judge not only see the societal implications of his or her ruling, but it also helps him or her see the societal implications of the law in question. I will quote from Brown v. Board: "We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws….In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone….A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn." The empathy in that decision is clear. Chief Justice Warren clearly emphasized with the feelings of young African-Americans around the country. Empathy was instrumental in the decision to integrate schools and strike down the unconstitutional "separate, but equal" ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. This case embodies how empathy should be used by a justice. Through the identification of the feelings of young African-Americans, the Chief Justice saw the inherent inequality that came with segregation. The law is not black and white, as Pro would like it to be. The Constitution still contains broad language, and many parts are open to personal interpretation. Empathy should play an important role in judge's approach to each decision. The judge should use empathy to see the societal implication of the law in question. The judge should also use empathy to see the societal implication of his or her ruling. As I have shown, empathy can be important in judging laws' constitutionality. Brown v. Board successfully used the language of the Constitution and the value of empathy to decide that the "separate, but equal" ruling was unconstitutional and that segregation was inherently unequal. Empathy helps see each law in action. If we are to honor the Constitution, then empathy should be used to uphold the words of our Constitution. Those words were held up in Brown v. Board with empathy playing a huge role in the decision.