"Empathy" is a 7-Letter Word

Last week, when laying out his long list of considerations for picking a Supreme Court nominee, President Obama listed "empathy" as an important quality befitting a justice. Of course, he was attacked ad nauseam for having such a ridiculous notion. To them, "empathy" meant "doing whatever the gay, minority, hippie guy in your court wants regardless of what the merits of the case," thus confusing "empathy" with "sympathy" as anyone with a limited understanding of English may. (At this point, they'd be wise to adopt the advice they always give to immigrants: "if you're going to live in America, learn the language.") On the other hand, I assume that to Barack Obama, "empathy" falls somewhere along the lines of "ability to multi-task" and "works well with others" in the Supreme Court help-wanted ad.

More than that, though, I wonder when "empathy" became a negative attribute, one to be mocked or flat-out feared. Then today, as I was reading through the morning news, it occurred to me that empathy is my modus operandi. My first instinct when hearing something or learning something is to try and identify with the people involved; to understand how and why they do or feel what they do. I may not agree or support, but I try to understand.

But for that reason, I often don't feel an important cognitive distinction between things that affect me personally and things that affect others. Injustice is injustice. That, I think, is where it's importance lies as an hallmark of a great Supreme Court Justice. The law may at times be abstract, but it is a construct of human creation, humans who by our nature (and by the things we choose to care about enough to make into laws) are emotional and adaptable. The Supreme Court especially needs judges who can interpret the law, defining the intent and spirit as much as the literal definitions. In order to do this, it helps to not only know the law, but to understand the arguments against that law, arguments that often rely on how it personally affects citizen's lives. If they can't understand where people are coming from, how can they understand why it matters, or whether the law is just?

If the Constitution is the framework for our entire judicial system and the laws within it, and it tries to codify so much that is philosophical such as natural rights and equality, then isn't the ability to empathize with your fellow human beings as equals an essential quality for the highest court in the land? I think there is an important distinction to be made between so-called "activists" who twist the law to their own opinions, and those with "empathy" who are willing to re-examine the law when faced with different or changing circumstances.