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

This season is a busy one for me and I have not been able to participate on this sight lately. I had to, well, I suppose, 'pick a fight' when these current affairs began to unfold. My opponent has made this debate enjoyable and worth while for both participant and observer. This debate has, as all good debates do, fleshed out the philosophies behind the positions. The "certain primary truths, or first principles, in which all subsequent reasoning must depend". [1] This is what I wish to focus on since I believe it is those differences that lead us to different views in this debate. However I would like to clear up our understanding of the case presented by my opponent for I may wish to continue it as an example when challenging my opponents philosophy. My opponent stated he believes that in the the case CA v. Hodari D. , ". .. arrest was not the issue, seizure was the main point". The case was about the arrest, or the personal seizure of Terry Hadori D. , not the seizure of the cocaine. It is exactly what J. Stevens was focused on in his dissent; "It is equally clear, however, that, if the officer had succeeded in touching respondent before he dropped the rock - [499 U. S. 621, 631] even if he did not subdue him - an arrest would have occurred. " ". .. the distinction between an arrest and an attempted arrest. " ". .. the facts of this case do not describe an actual arrest, but rather, an unlawful attempt to take a presumptively innocent person into custody. " The question for the court was whether or not the defendant was in custody, assuming the custody would have been unlawful, when Terry produced "the rock". The court found that the action that took place before the unloading of the contraband did not, under common law, amount to an arrest. Therefore, assuming the police just wanted to say hello, Terry incriminated himself, then he was arrested. To the issue; I would like to focus on two statements my opponent made; 1) "I never stated a diverse court was needed for a reasonable judgment to result, but a diverse court can produce a more reasoned opinion. " and 2) "I can find no evidence to suggest that an understanding of the "concept of law in which our founding was based" could lead a reasonable person to conclude this situation was or was not a seizure in view of the shifting opinions within the framework of the 4th amendment. " The first statement is a reiteration of an old urban legend. i. e. diversity = better. Not in just some instances, but in all aspects. We are told to take this as truth while existing in the absence of any real proof. I hold my opponents statement as evidence, " a diverse court can produce a more reasoned opinion", I ask, how? It may be one thing to say that a small group of people, all from different races and background, may come to a different conclusion than one of similar people. But better? How? I think the answer presents itself in his second statement. ". .. .in view of THE shifting opinions within the framework of the 4th amendment. "(emphasis mine) What is THE shifting opinion? Who determines the direction of the shift? Who tells us where that shift has left us? I know one thing. My opinion has not shifted at all on the 4th amendment and my opinion is based on the founding position. If CA v. Hodari D. were instead the US v. Hodari D. , and the situation actually fell under the authorities granted to the federal government, I believe the majority opinion would have been based on sound common law. The dissent was trying to expand on poor precedence. J. Stevens claimed that an officer given chase amounts to an attempted arrest, which amounts to arrest. This goes beyond common sense. Your not under arrest until an officer tells you "your under arrest". I don't believe different backgrounds would lead to different conclusions. A disdain for law enforcement may. "In its decision, the Court assumes, without acknowledging, that a police officer may now fire his weapon at an innocent citizen and not implicate the Fourth Amendment - as long as he misses his target. "(J. Stevens, Ca V. Hodari D. , dissenting opinion) And his background is the norm for Supreme Court justices. So let us say that the makeup of the court at the time was different. And let say the majority signed on with J. Stevens. My opponent says of the two opinions, ". .. both are constitutionally sound. " So he would accept either answer as the truth? Only if he believes that the law set by The People conforms to the judgement of unelected servants. I believe the Law is superior to them. Therefore, a thorough understanding of our history, philosophy and law, coupled with the integrity to set aside personal opinions in favor of the intention of the people. The supreme court, nor the opinions of it's occupiers, were endowed with the burden to be the barometer of the people's intentions. One place, where diversity makes sense, is the legislature. The Congress is there to represent the people while the government performs the duties bestowed upon it. The legislature's most basic purpose is to make law. Yet, they cannot make a law that expands beyond the boundaries laid upon them. It is the Supreme Courts duty to "check" that. "Check" that with constitution, not their own conscience. In closing, I would like switch gears to an example that I believe negates my opponent's con position. Justice Clarence Thomas. He come from the most humble of backgrounds. He is a black person of African descent who grew up in the south in very tough times for people like him. We should assume, if we follow my opponents philosophy, that his presence is a representation of diversity. Yet, we are told to believe his opinions are not representative of his particular constituency(for lack of a better word). Is he not doing his job? Does the court require another black man, with opinions more in line with what we are told black people want. Do we find nine people with the most diverse opinions possible and let them hash it out? Would that produce the best outcome? This is not how we want our courts to operate. We want them to be fair and honest, and to uphold the law. We do not want them assuming their life experiences are superior to the people.