President Obama is keen on choosing a Supreme Court justice who possesses the quality of "imagination," a senior administration official said yesterday.
To Obama, that means someone who can see beyond the legal formalism that characterizes most
court decisions and deliberations.
The official said that this is what Obama meant by "empathy" -- a capacity to relate to real world experiences, a capacity to bring, when relevant, non-legal perspectives into the court.
And
someone -- importantly -- who can help tell a new story about justice and civil
rights and the law to the American people, the official said.
Another senior official said that, for Obama, 95% of his decision-making would be based on the quality of the pick's jurisprudence and career, but that that final five percent -- the intangibles -- would be quite important.
Obama has interviewed at least two potential picks so far, meeting with Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Judge Diane Wood. Obama knows these two women well -- and, indeed, has pre-existing friendships with most every name on the leaked short list of names.
Some Democratic strategists close to the White House believe that Obama has already made up his mind, but White House officials said yesterday that he had not -- or, at least, he had not told anyone if he had.
So who does this extended definition of empathy implicate?
« The Southern Party | Main | Top Ten iPhone Apps For Washington Insiders »
May 22 2009, 10:00 am







In general, I would argue that the empathy requirement would not only implicate nearly all humans (psychopaths excepted) but also possibly other members of Kingdom Animalia. Besides, almost any dictionary definition of empathy probably either implies or directly states "imagination" as being part of it.
Sorry for being flippant; I just don't find this path a particularly illuminating one. But if you know of anyone currently on the Supreme Court who has no empathy, I'd find that highly illuminating!
That said, as persons, we often find ourselves more adept at empathizing with certain individual and groups of organisms over others (depending on shared experiences and other characteristics). Maybe a more probing question would be, "Which organisms do you want your Supreme Court Justice to be able to empathize with most easily?". Of course, no one would answer that because they would sound stupid.