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

I do find your argument to be thoughtful, educational, and your own. As for the pundits I listed, I will not attribute their nonsense with your articulate response. I see no need to lie; my distain for these pundits is high, but I do not attribute any of that distain towards you or your argument. Your response is a welcome relief from the rhetorical nonsense they spew. I can name as many liberal pundits I hold in a similar state. Having read my opponent's response, I still maintain the pro position concerning the resolution, and will rebut the Con position in full. 1)Definitions – my opponent seems fine with the definitions listed and I agree that empathy may result in sympathy, but so long as my opponent does not equate one with the other, we are fine. Too often I see these terms used in an interchangeable format. My opponent did not do this in his response, so I see no need to address this further. 2)My opponent states, "Surly [sic] 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. " And "[E]mpathy is not a qualification. A "reasonable person" is expected. " I agree with my opponent in the respect that Justices are assumed to be reasonable people, but I must make clear that empathy is needed to determine whether another acted as a reasonable person within the given circumstances. The Justices must determine reasonableness in the full context of the situation. I can see no way to divorce empathy from these considerations. Empathy is needed and is important when choosing a member of the SCOTUS or any appellate court. 3)My opponent states, "The 'empathy' in our context is qualified by race and upbringing. " Agreed. 4)My opponent states, "If it takes "different racial makeups [sic] (error in original) and ‘backgrounds' for a ‘reasonable' judgement [sic] to be produced, than there is no consistent perception of a ‘reasonable person. '" My opponent hit the nail on the head in one respect - we do not have a consistent definition for a "reasonable person" in the law, hence the need for empathy. I never stated a diverse court was needed for a reasonable judgment to result, but a diverse court can produce a more reasoned opinion. 5)My opponent goes further and equates the makeup of the court given a set of facts at a given time, is little more than a crap shoot. I will not go that far, death penalty attorneys will, but I will not. The court is bound by the framework of the Constitution and, in this case, the framework of the 4th Amendment. Hodari is a great case because both the majority and the dissenting opinion fit within the framework of the 4th Amendment. Two conflicting results and both are constitutionally sound. Because the makeup of the court can produce opposing opinions, each within the 4th Amendment framework, empathy, qualified by race and upbringing, is important as race and upbringing affect reasoned legal opinions when dealing with objective standards. 6)As for my opponent's contentions concerning the makeup of juries and that local courts are better equipped to deal with the matter of what a reasonable person may be within the local community, I need to reiterate the point that juries do not make a judgment in reference to the constitutionality of evidence presented, and the test used by the SCOTUS would never fall into the hands of a jury. Juries determine facts and guilt. The appellate system is left with those facts, but objective standards do not end with assimilation of the facts in reference to guilt. I see no reason to accept one should have a jury of his peers judge facts and guilt, while not recognizing an appellate system can benefit from having equal diversity among learned judges of different race and background. 7)My opponent stated, in what I consider eloquent fashion, this: "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 [sic] 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 [sic] actions conveyed a message to a reasonable person that they were under arrest. " As well written and reasoned as this contention may be, I must respectfully disagree. I would love to debate my opponent on the holding of Hodari D and the reason for the holding as he read the case well, but the case did not center on the officers' suspicion, as the trial court concluded if the officers had probable cause to stop Hodari the drugs would be admissible. No one doubted the officers were permitted to approach the vehicle, and arrest was not the issue, seizure was the main point. I agree no reasonable person should conclude he is under arrest once told to stop in most circumstances, but that was not the crux of this case. 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. 8)My opponent states, "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. I agree. I have made no contention to the contrary.