Quote of the Day: RNC Chair Michael Steele On Empathy
Our political Quote of the Day comes from the deliciously-quotable RNC Chair Michael Steele, who while guest hosting a conservative talk show managed to turn the desire for empathy into some kind of weak, wussy, negative:
Good morning y’all, we’re back in the house. We’re talking a little bit of Constitution and a little bit Supreme Court. And a whole lot of saving America’s judicial system and saving our rights as citizens and not having empathetic judges decide cases, but rather judges who are actually understanding the rule of law and what the Constitution and those laws are all about. And how to apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts. And adjudicate my case. I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.
No comment (Steele’s last word says it all..).
3 Responses to “Quote of the Day: RNC Chair Michael Steele On Empathy”
But Joe, it reflects the philosophy of the modern GOP so well.
Good for Steele.
Remember that symbol of Lady Justice blindfolded with scales and a sword?
Well Empathy is taking off that blindfold, throwing away those scales and just hacking away with a sword based on bias. Judges should uphold the rule of law, not engage in empathy, thats a job for the legislative branches that write the laws. I don't think judges should be influenced by feeling sorry for people except in discretionary sentencing. Placing empathy over the rule of law is something worthy of the strongest criticism.
Leonidas, I don't think anyone has suggested placing empathy over the rule of law. At the same time, it's important to remember that, as that old adage goes, “justice without mercy [i.e., empathy] is tyranny”. On the other hand, mercy/empathy without justice is weakness – it condones crime. The two elements must both be carefully considered, imo. Takes a wise justice with experience, insight and understanding to be able to do that.
If all supreme court justices had to do was simply apply the rule of law with no understanding of what the case was all about, with no understanding or respect for the intricacies of individual cases as the law applies – any old fool could do the job. And as a result — a lot of decisions might end up being purely punitive (as your man Steele seems to be saying) – which is not what the application of law is entirely about.