Empathy should have no role in judging appeals

I have explained how empathy should be used. Empathy can effectively be used in interpreting the law. As was shown in Brown v. Board, it sometimes takes empathy to correctly interpret the law. I showed the relevant parts of the decision. They clearly showed how empathy was used to show the inferior feelings African-Americans felt as a result of a segregated education. Empathy should be used when applicable. It should be used to inform and compliment a judge's decision. It plays an important role in interpreting not only the societal effects of a law, but the societal effects of the decision. I have already explained this, so it's kind of late to act as if I haven't said what role it should have. Studying the societal effects of a law, and studying the societal effects of a decision will ultimately render a better decision. This was shown in Brown v. Board. Now, Pro originally wrote, "We should want judges who reach decisions solely based upon the law, not feelings." He now proposes the "living Constitution" theory as an option. This comes into direct contradiction with his earlier statement. The concept of a living Constitution can be described in many ways, but it is not described as founded solely in law. It is founded more on interpretations and opinion than actual law. Pro proceeds to use a straw man argument in saying I just want the judge's personal opinion to come into play. I never said that, and your definition of empathy does not say that. A judge's personal feelings are not the same at all as the identification with others' thoughts, feelings, and states. I am not going to dignify Pro's argument that the decision will be based on the judge's feelings. His definition of empathy does not back this up. In case you forgot, he defined empathy as "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person." This is not the same as what he describes. A huge problem is that much of Pro's argument has been based on nothing. He has used words like "imply" to attack my argument because I haven't actually said what he writes. He uses "seems to assume" in this round to act as if I feel the judge will always feel the way I do. This is not true. I know several issues that judges will not agree with me on, based on their decisions in the past. I don't argue that the court should feel sorry for Savana Redding. Pro made a huge mistake in that and really hurts the legitimacy of his argument. I said the court should empathize with her and the school. Empathy is not the same as sympathy. It's just important to see the court see themselves in the same situation to see if their rights are violated. If we don't have the courts using every situation to back up our rights possible, our rights will not mean much at all. Pro's argument in this aspect is based on terrible reasoning and falsehoods. "But if a justice happened to empathize with the school administration trying to keep order in an unruly school, a notion that empathy should play a role allows any decision dictated by the jurist's feelings." Apparently, you forgot when I wrote this: "However, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to also empathize with the school and think about the security of a school." As I have shown, it is sometimes necessary to use empathy to see if someone's rights have been violated. The point of pointing out that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction was to show a false premise in your argument. No, my implication is not that judging according to law is rarely adequate. If you've read my responses in this argument, my statements have been that judging according to law is not always adequate. I also never said empathy ought to be the tipping point. Empathy can be the tipping point, though. The fact is Pro's assumption that the Arizona State Legislature would act in favor of regulation of school searches is baseless. They have not made any progress in the five years since Savana Redding was searched. It is unfair to assume the legislatures will act where the Supreme Court does not. As Pro has shown in Round 3, his argument is based largely on a lack of understanding of the word "empathy". In the first round he wrote, "Empathy is "the intellectual identification of the thoughts, feelings, or state of another person."" He has proceeded to confusing empathy with feelings. Empathy is not the same as sympathy. Empathy is not the same as feelings. Much of his argument is based on this faulty premise. "Con claims that the Brown v. Board of Education was decided based upon empathy, but Con offers no evidence in support of that view." I most certainly did. You can choose to ignore that evidence, but I definitely did. Here it is again: "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." If you read the decision, the inherent inequality of segregation was based on the inferiority African-Americans felt as a result of their segregation. My argument is completely backed up by this sentence: "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" Chief Justice Warren empathized with the feelings of young African-Americans, as made apparent by that quote. The decision says "a feeling of inferiority". That is using empathy effectively along with the law. Also, I did not say Pro thought the law was black and white. I said you would like it to be. That is made apparent by your language. Also, the options you provided are not founded solely in law. The "Living Constitution" theory is not founded solely in law. Judicial precedent can sometimes be faulty. Pro failed to refute my argument regarding Brown v. Board of Education. I showed specific language from the decision that shows empathy was used to strike down segregation. It was effectively used alongside the law. As I have stated over and over again, the Constitution is not always clear. It contains broad language. We sometimes need to use empathy to see if others have to deal with injustice. This has been proven in this argument. Empathy should be continued to be used to recognize the societal implications of laws. Laws can sometimes treat certain people unfairly, violating the Equal Protection Clause. But this unfairness cannot always be seen from an objective standpoint. Sometimes it does take the intellectual identification with their feelings and thoughts. Empathy should also be used in seeing the societal implications of a decision. As we've seen, Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional because of the inherently unequal segregation policy it allowed. This was not overturned until empathy was used to overturn it. Had empathy been used in Plessy v. Ferguson, we hopefully could have progressed a lot faster than we actually did. I hope that empathy will continue to be used when the law is not enough and to back up the law.