Empathy should have no role in judging appeals

My argument is going to primarily focus on your claim that we should want judge who reach decisions solely based upon the law, not feelings. About 10,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States each year. The Supreme Court only hears 100 cases on average per year, or this has been the case recently. "Formal written opinions are delivered in 80 to 90 cases" ( http://www.supremecourtus.gov... ). I think it's abundantly clear that it's very difficult for a case to make it to the Supreme Court. Most of the cases that make it to the Supreme Court rarely involve a clear right or wrong answer. Many rulings are complex. Some have little basis in law. Some have a lot of basis in law. But it's obvious that the Constitution does not address every issue that comes to the Supreme Court. The Constitution also includes phrases, which will be interpreted differently by different people, like "due process of law", "just compensation", "cruel and unusual punishment", or "equal protection of the law", just to give a few examples. These phrases are not explicitly defined. As you and I both know, Marbury v. Madison set the precedent for judicial review. As a result, the Supreme Court has reviewed many laws over the years and ruled over their constitutionality. Over the years, there have been many close decisions. Just last year, D.C. v. Heller was decided 5-4. Boumediene v. Bush was decided 5-4. I can go on with other close decisions. 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. Justices should be impartial, but this does not mean they do not bring views to the court. 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. Their interpretations differ. The interpretation of the broad language in the Constitution reflects the values of the judges, as there isn't always a definitive right and wrong. The language "cruel and unusual punishment" is very broad and hurts your argument. There is no standard for "cruel and unusual punishment". There's no specific description of what makes up cruel or unusual punishment in our laws or in our Constitution. The decisions in Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Hope v. Pelzer (2002), Trop v. Dulles (1958), Ford v. Wainwright (1986), and Atkins v. Virginia (2002) were not based upon "the law" as you state. They were based on judge's interpretations of those laws. There is no law that defines what constitutes as "cruel and unusual punishment". That is left up to judge's opinions and values. Now this is not my argument for empathy yet. This is my argument to refute your assertion that all decisions should be based solely upon the law. That's idealist and it's also impossible. There is rarely a clear right and wrong side in a lawsuit that goes before the Supreme Court. There are varying interpretations to laws. There is unclear and broad language in our Constitution and laws. Too much empathy can distort decisions and doesn't belong in every case. But it is very important in many cases. Empathy just has to be used carefully in decisions. The fact that many decisions cannot be reached solely based on laws and are often based on interpretation brings other values into consideration. Justices' experiences and values will effect their interpretations and application of different laws. In advocating for empathy, I will use the argument that has consistently been used in this debate. A case before the Supreme Court this year involves a former student of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona. Her name is Savana Redding. In 2003, she was taken out of class by the vice principal. The vice principal had found prescription-strength ibuprofen on one of Savana's classmates earlier in the day. The classmate blamed Redding for them. Redding claimed she didn't know anything about the bills and hadn't seen them. She was ordered to strip to her underwear and bra in front of an administrative assistant and the school nurse. She was also ordered to pull her bra and panties away from her body. The search produced absolutely nothing. No other students suspected of involvement were ordered to this search. There is no black and white decision in this case. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the 9th Circuit Court's ruling that the search was unconstitutional. When reviewing the case, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to empathize with Savana and think what it would be like to be stripped to her bra and underwear. However, I certainly want the justices of the Supreme Court to also empathize with the school and think about the security of a school. Justices influence each other. Having justices who empathize with both sides will influence other justices and improve the discourse. Again, there is no clear right and wrong in this case. The word "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment puts this decision up to personal interpretation. It's quite clear that one can't rule solely based on the law in this case. The word "unreasonable" asks for individual thought. It asks for careful consideration. I can go more in depth in the following rounds. But I just think the claim that empathy should play no role in judging is ridiculous. I find it very hard to imagine wanting a judge without empathy. I ask you not to confuse emotion with empathy as the Republicans have been doing. That is far too basic and frankly retards the debate. In closing, I'll make it clear. Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy is merely identifying with the thoughts, feelings, and state of another person, as you stated. Empathy is looking at the world through the shoes of another person. It is important when considering the person who was cruelly or unjustly punished. It is important when considering the person who was refused a fair trial. It is important when considering the rights of someone who has been oppressed for over 200 years. It is important when considering the person who was unjustly searched. Not only is it important to emphasize those, but it's important to emphasize with the defendants, as there should always be a balance. Much of the Constitution contains broad language. That language is not explicitly defined. When cases involving that language are brought to the Supreme Court, they do not always have a clear right and wrong answer. These decisions require the personal interpretation of each justice, the personal interpretation that has been shaped by their values and opinions. One of those values can certainly be and should be empathy with others. Empathy is not meant to decide the outcome of a case. Rather, empathy should complement and inform the judge's approach in a decision. Impartiality and empathy can coexist on the Supreme Court.