Senate Debate on Empathy
=====================================
2009-05-05 - Senate - Mitch McConnell - President seemed to stress empathy above a judge role
2009-05-0510:04:46End10:08:41Length00:03:55
McConnell,
Mitch [R-KY]
http://74.125.95.132/custom?q=cache:FDoczTqwhzEJ:www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/%3Fq%3Dnode/77531%26id%3D8987005+mcconnell+empathy&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
McConnell,
Mitch [R-KY]
Begin2009-05-0510:04:46End10:08:41Length00:03:55
Mr. MCCONNELL.
Mr. President, Justice Souter's decision last week to retire from the Supreme
Court presents us with an opportunity to prepare for an important debate about
the role of the courts and the meaning of the Constitution. Of all the Senate's
duties, few have come to enliven our civic life as much as the consideration of
a Supreme Court nominee.
Justice Souter never made a secret of the fact that he prefers New Hampshire to
Washington, and the fact that he has served so long in spite of that preference
speaks of a deep commitment to public service. As Justice Souter returns to New
Hampshire, we thank him for his many years of dedicated service.
Now attention turns to the President's eventual nominee.
Republicans are hopeful that President Obama will choose someone with the same
qualities that have always characterized a good judge: superb legal ability,
personal integrity, sound temperament, and, above all, an evenhanded reading of
the law.
These are the qualities Americans have always looked for in their judges. Any
judge who has them can fulfill his or her judicial oath to ``administer justice
without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' And
these are the qualities that we should expect of any nominee to the highest
court in the land.
Over the years, there has been a growing tendency among some on the left to pick
or promote judges based on policy and political preferences, and President
Obama's past statements on judicial appointments strongly suggest that he shares
this view.
As a candidate for President, he said
that his criteria for a judicial nominee would be someone who would empathize
with particular parties or particular groups. This viewpoint was evident again
last week when, in describing a good nominee, the President seemed to stress
empathy
over and above a judge's role of applying the law without prejudice.
The problem with this philosophy is that
it arises out of the misguided notion that the courts are simply an extension of
the legislative branch rather [Page: S5088]
than a check on it. Americans do not want judges to view any group or individual
who walks into the courtroom as being more equal than any other group or
individual. They expect someone who will apply the law equally to everyone, so
everyone has a fair shake.
Americans expect, and should receive, equal treatment whether they are in small
claims court or the Supreme Court. And any judge who pushes for an outcome based
on their own personal opinion of what is fair undermines that basic trust
Americans have always had and should always expect in an American court of law.
The President is free to nominate whomever he likes. But picking judges based on
his or her perceived sympathy for certain groups or individuals undermines the
faith Americans have in our judicial system. So throughout this nomination
process, the impartiality of judges is a principle that all of us should
strongly defend.
In a nation of laws, the question is not whether a judge will be on the side of
one group or another. It is not ``whose side,'' the judge is ``on,'' as a senior
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee framed the issue during another debate over
a Supreme Court nominee. The issue is whether he or she will apply the law
evenhandedly.
Once the President chooses his nominee, Senate Republicans will work to ensure
the Senate can conduct a thorough review of their record, and a full and fair
debate over his or her qualifications for the job. This is a responsibility we
take seriously, and one that the American people expect us to carry out with the
utmost deliberation.
END