the empathy debate and umpires

[dano]

Here's the deal (point not mine, just re-packaged from a radio interview):

If justices are "umpires" then we must acknowledge that different umpires
have different strike zones (well-known phenomenon in baseball -- the point
is that they should be consistent regardless of the batter or pitcher).

Different justices also have different "strike zones" in their judgments,
inevitably. Otherwise (as was pointed out in today's hearing) a machine
could do it.
__________

So, to elaborate on this point:

These differences are directly related to empathy: different justices have
different amounts of empathy for different segments of society. Everyone
has empathy for *someone*. The question is how broadly your empathy ranges
beyond your immediate "clan" or "tribe" -- or else, how far does your
"tribe" reach, itself?

"We are all 'us'" -- this is the widest-ranging empathy.

In particular, it is important for judges and justices to be able to have
empathy for out-groups as well as in-groups in society, in order for
justice to be done in the broadest sense.

When progressives talk about "empathy" what we mean is "wide-ranging
empathy for all, especially including out-groups."

So bottom line, one possible reply to the "no-empathy in judicial
deliberations" value is to reject that frame outright: all human judicial
decisions in practice must rely upon empathy to guide them, but how wide
does the empathy range, and to what groups does it apply.

Progressive politics has been about a long, slow effort to expand the reach
of empathy to all human beings (and perhaps beyond), in our system of
public governance.

I suspect that what Sotomayor meant in her controversial statement is that
members of out-groups may have more experience being excluded by the
in-groups, and therefore their reach of empathy may be wider than members
of the in-groups who have not personally experienced exclusion -- they can
empathize with other out-groups as well, and in fact they can empathize
with in-groups as well. (Then they can concentrate on other importanrt
aspects of the issues such as power imbalances, etc.)

Wide range of empathy does not imply preference for the out-group, but
rather equity of all groups. Conservatives try to spin it as preference
rather than the truth which is to get *beyond* preference (for the
in-group) to inclusion of all.

Conservatives are the ones whose narrowness of empathy distorts their
judgments out of balance. Progressives are all about removing that
distortion, not replacing the old distortion with a new one, but rather
finding real balance by broadening the empathy to include all.

[EdwinRutsch]

justices are umpires

Thanks for the comments dano.. questioning the umpire metaphor is
brilliant.

If the supreme court is like 9 umpires, I can see that in a video
clip. 9 umpires in robes sit behind the catcher in a baseball game.
the pitcher throws the ball and 5 justices say 'ball!' and 4 say,
'strike!'.

hmmmm what are the lawyers in this metaphor? the coach's?

actually, before the judges call the pitch, the 2 coaches would come
out and would argue their case.?
"it's a ball", "no it's a strike.". "it's a ball", "no it's a
strike.".

but then you'd need rows of judges in front of the supreme court to
represent the lower courts.
the call would then have to work it's way though the layers of judges
(umpires) until it reached the supreme umpires.

this is definitely something to play around with here.

[EdwinRutsch]

justices are umpires

Thanks for the comments dano.. questioning the umpire metaphor is
brilliant.

If the supreme court is like 9 umpires, I can see that in a video
clip. 9 umpires in robes sit behind the catcher in a baseball game.
the pitcher throws the ball and 5 justices say 'ball!' and 4 say,
'strike!'.

hmmmm what are the lawyers in this metaphor? the coach's?

actually, before the judges call the pitch, the 2 coaches would come
out and would argue their case.?
"it's a ball", "no it's a strike.". "it's a ball", "no it's a
strike.".

but then you'd need rows of judges in front of the supreme court to
represent the lower courts.
the call would then have to work it's way though the layers of judges
(umpires) until it reached the supreme umpires.

this is definitely something to play around with here.




On Jul 13, 11:25 pm, dano <r...@munb.com> wrote: