Empathy, Race and Upbringing" are important attributes for a Supreme Court Justice Nominee

I thank you, sherlockmethod, for accepting the challenge and your integrity. I hope that you find my opinions to be thoughtful, educational, and my own. Notwithstanding any agreements or disagreements I may have with any of the pundits you mention. I will accept both definitions of 'empathy' for this debate. I see no difference between the two, however. Wikapedia's only qualification is that empathy could could be felt as compassion or for cruel behavior. I would suppose one could have sympathy for cruel behavior. Would that sympathy be the result of empathy? My opponent asks us to examine a case, presumably given weight for it's author is Justice Scalia. We are asked to focus on Scalia's admission that the Mendenhall test, in regards to 'show of authority', is an objective one, and also with the test's holding that the "words or actions" of the arresting officer are subject to "a reasonable person['s]" interpretation. Therefore, in absence of a Constitutional definition of a "reasonable person", "the Justices must rely on previous opinions and must place themselves in the shoes of both Hodari and the officers so as to evaluate the totality of the circumstances"; and become "reasonable" people? Surly we must presume that a person being considered for the High Court is a reasonable person, regardless of "previous decisions" or their ability to have empathy for a particular set of circumstances. Therefore, empathy is not a qualification. A "reasonable person" is expected. The 'empathy' in our context is qualified by race and upbringing, which is surfaced by the 'sales pitch' for the latest nomination to the bench. My opponent claims that, although Scalia may never have stepped foot in Oakland, CA, he and a majority had sufficient racial diversity to come to a reasonable judgement. >>>>>"When evaluating the totality of the circumstances in relation to a reasonable person, different racial makeups[sic] and backgrounds can provide alternate views of the circumstances and a more reasoned judgment will result concerning the Constitutional principle, just like it did here"<<<<< If it takes "different racial makeups[sic] and backgrounds" for a "reasonable" judgement to be produced, than there is no consistent perception of a "reasonable person". If there is no natural perception of reasonable, than a defendant's destiny is left to a crap shoot. A vie for 5 of 9 justices to see things as they do and to determine that they are reasonable and acted reasonably. The defendants destiny is left to whatever the makeup of the court is at the period in time in which his case was heard. This is what is suppose to take place at the local level. In every State, a defendant has the right to make that case to a jury of his peers and they are to determine, in totality, if the State made their case. CA v. Hordari was found on what the defendant should have reasonably thought and what constitutes a seizure of a person. The defendant was trying to deny a jury the ability to examine and contemplate the evidence which was obtained during that event . The defendant asked the Supreme Court to agree with him that the aforementioned Mendenhall test afforded him the "reasonable" assumption that he was under arrest(personal seizure) at the time he tried to dispose of his narcotic, and that the seizure was unreasonable, as the State of CA admitted it would have been if he was actually detained. The Court found that the seizure did not take place, based on J. Whites opinion in Florida V. Royer, because there was no "show of authority" to constitute a reasonable person to assume they are not "free to disregard the police and go about their business"(J. Scalia, CA v. Hodari). In other words, because the officer did not yet physically restrain, or declare to the defendant that he was under arrest, it is not reasonable for him to assume he was. It is our concept of law in which our founding was based that leads a reasonable person to conclude that gathering around a car alone does not lawfully subject one to personal seizure. Yet, in a high crime area, were such an activity does warrant some suspicion, officers certainly may approach the situation. No evidence could be produced to suggest that it requires a diversity in race and upbringing to come to the appropriate conclusion. In fact, only knowledge and the will to adhere to our laws and principles are required. The Justices who agreed with this opinion did not need to wear the shoes of this defendant in order to determine that he could not reasonably believe he was being detained. They only had to determine if the officers actions conveyed a message to a reasonable person that they were under arrest. There is no room on the Court for someone who believes that it may be "...impossible in all and even most cases" to "transcend...personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on reason of law" (Judge S. Sotomayer, A Latina's Voice Heard, speech, 2002). In other words, her background may lead her to different conclusion based on her "sympathies and and prejudices". She acknowledges that there will be some "differences" in her judging because of her "gender and...[her] Latina heritage". The perceptions of reasonableness are to be hashed out in the legislatures, by the people, and as locally as possible. It is the courts duty to adhere to those principles the people set forth in law. Not to those principles which a judge may hold personally. Integrity is an important attribute for a Supreme Court Justice nominee.