Response: I am a nominee and not a selector of nominees. It is the prerogative of the President to nominate the federal judges of his choosing, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and to employ the criteria he determines are appropriate in making those decisions.

Response: I have not personally lived all of the experiences the President described in the selected quote. I have, however, had diverse, sometimes opposing, experiences that deepen my understanding of the varying perspectives that litigants bring to court. For instance, while I have represented criminal defendants and alleged gang members, I have been the victim of gang violence and other crimes. While I have a developmentally disabled child and cared for my wheelchair-bound mother towards the end of her life, I have managed the family business and understand the financial burden of complying with disability access codes.

Response: Empathy should not drive the outcome of the judge’s decision-making. Empathy can, however, make the judge sensitive to the litigants. Understanding the human needs and interests which underlie each case can serve as an important reminder that every case is important and can and will impact human lives. Empathy can also help insure that the judge treats all the parties with dignity and respect.

Response: It is never proper for judges to indulge their own subjective sense of empathy in determining what the law means. With respect to my own experience, I have ruled in favor of parties who were unsympathetic but nonetheless had the law and facts on their side. Likewise, I have detained individuals who appeared earnest but nonetheless posed a risk of flight or danger to community and thus had to be held without bail. I have mediated numerous individual cases where I believe the settlement did not properly reflect the value of the case (both too high and too low), but felt constrained in my role as a neutral.