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

Definitions: Empathy - . http://www.merriam-webster.com... In addition, I do like the wikipedia entry on this one. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent may choose not to accept a wiki, but the write up is good. Race - . http://en.wikipedia.org...(classification_of_human_beings) Race has different meanings, but now the term is mostly used in respect to humans. Charles Darwin mentioned race, but also spoke of a race of cabbage. Race in the sense of turn of the century science was closer to species than how it is used today. When I use race, it will be in the modern day context of humans. I really don't want to play too much with definitions, but I do want to be clear that empathy and sympathy are not the same. Contention 1 Empathy is an important attribute in an appellate judge. Most humans have the capacity to empathize; the exceptions find themselves on a list with other sociopaths. I do not think my opponent means judges should be sociopaths and, unfortunately, some liberals have taken this path to attack the proposition. . http://open.salon.com... I see no need to resort to this nonsense so I will make the case by examining empathy in relation to some aspect of the appellate court system. I chose a case that best exemplifies the need for empathy, written by Justice Scalia, and I do not recall anyone referring to him as empathic so he will serve as a great example. CALIFORNIA v. HODARI D. , 499 U. S. 621 (1991) . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... I urge my opponent to read the entire opinion, but this case concerned a young man who ran from some plain clothes police, with police insignias on their clothes. The youth threw a bag of cocaine out, while running. The Constitutional issue was whether the demand for him to stop was a "seizure" in regards to the 4th Amendment. The SCOTUS was deciding this issue only, not his guilt, and they never spoke to him, but Justice Scalia stated in the majority opinion concerning the Mendenhall test: It says that a person has been seized "only if," not that he has been seized "whenever"; it states a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for seizure - or, more precisely, for seizure effected through a "show of authority. " Mendenhall establishes that the test for existence of a "show of authority" is AN OBJECTIVE ONE: not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer's words and actions would have conveyed that to A REASONABLE PERSON. (Emphasis Mine) Why is this important? Simple, we have an objective test viewed from the standard of a reasonable person. What does the Constitution define as a reasonable person – the document does not provide a definition, 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. In other words – empathy is needed, and these objective tests make empathy necessary and important for appellate judges. Contention 2/3 Race and upbringing (referred to as background from here forward) cannot be separated, and both are important considerations, as race and background play a key role when a judge must apply objective considerations. In the same opinion, Justice Scalia stated very early that "Late one evening in April, 1988, Officers Brian McColgin and Jerry Pertoso were on patrol in a high-crime area of Oakland, California. " Why is this important? Why is the fact the area was a "high-crime area" relevant to a Constitutional issue? Because of the totality of the circumstances, the "high-crime area" was necessary to Scalia and the majority. Do I really need to show the racial break down of a "high-crime area" in Oakland, CA to know it had a high minority population, a low income population? No, and the court did not either; they all knew this fact. When evaluating the totality of the circumstances in relation to a reasonable person, different racial makeups 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, as Hodari found no relief, but the dissent held strong ground for future cases that arose later. The Court and the citizens of the United States will be better served if the best possible view is proffered from a diverse court. Yes, race and background are important, as the SCOTUS needs diversity to posit the most accurate formulations of Constitutional principles to all Americans. Con's Contentions Con focused on Sotomayor, a selection to replace Justice Stevens. My opponent provided one example to support his contention that Sotomayor is the "antithesis of impartiality". I ask voters to read the full context of the statement. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and World Net Daily use a one line quote to call her a racist. Here is the full speech and a great write up on the subject. . http://blogs.abcnews.com... . http://abcnews.go.com... Evaluate the totality of the circumstances after reading all of it. Think about empathy, race and background. Even if Sotomayor is the most racist judge in the history of America (she is not, and will make a good SCOTUS Justice), empathy, race and background are important aspects of appellate judges and this is the Pro position, I need not support Sotomayor in any capacity, but I can. If my opponent persists on this issue with Sotomayor, I will use Robert Bork as a counter example. Please don't make me do that.