Empathy for the Devil

Last week, President Obama said he wanted to replace Justice Souter with another judge who feels empathy, and since then our friends in the crankosphere have been arguing that empathy is bad.

This is justice we're talking about. And it's a slippery slope from empathy to mercy.

I can't imagine how it feels to be against empathy. I try to imagine feeling the way a person without feelings feels, but that itself is an empathetic act, so I'm right back where I started.

Here's their point, though: The Constitution must be interpreted impartially and without emotion, and Laura Ingraham is so purple with rage that you can't get that through your thick skull.

Of course, there are all sorts of good reasons why law is best administered by sociopaths, but my favorite came out today, from talk radio's Michael Medved:

Because the Bible Says So.

Or, as Medved entitles his exegesis:

Obama Should Listen to Leviticus: Don't Confuse Justice and Charity

Now, Michael Medved interprets the Pentateuch like dogs sew. He's, well, he's an idiot. But here's the gist of it:

The core mistake of liberalism involves the confusion of charity and justice ... Leviticus 19:15 declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow." ... The truth is that the Bible - both Old and New Testament--views compassion as a personal obligation rather than a public priority for governmental or judicial policy ... [Obama] specifically indicated he wanted a judge with a "heart" for the poor and downtrodden, and who would concentrate on their specific interests and needs--in other words, precisely the sort of jurist prohibited by Leviticus.

Medved goes on to cite some definitions of Hebrew words he agrees with and dismiss some definitions he doesn't. A few he just makes up himself. Then he randomly elides between what Yahweh wants from a person and what he expects from a state, and pretty soon you're off the deep end, where what really made Moses mad was quotas and the abomination of desolation is the inheritance tax.

If Michael Medved was lecturing on your cruise ship you'd throw yourself into the prop wash.

Two things, though:

Leviticus is beautiful:

Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God. Lv 19:10

(Which certainly sounds like charity.)

And Leviticus is insane:

And whoever lies carnally with a woman, that is a female slave, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. - Lv 19:20

And we have to live with that. I mean, if we're going to get sucked into this kind of argument, "Obama should listen to Leviticus."

Because Leviticus says be impartial and be kind.

And it has a lot of really useful rules about how hard a righteous man whips a sex slave.

Comments

[Mecheng]

09:32 PM on 05/10/2009

Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, must interpret the law primarily with their heads, not their emotions. Empathy is a multi-edge­d sword. Decades ago, a justice could have easily ruled against integratio­n based on his empathy for those whites who wolud now have to sit on the same toilet seats as "colored" people.

[Marnie1]

12:14 PM on 05/10/2009

"I can't imagine how it feels to be against empathy. "

Keep in mind that these are the same people who disdain and hate "political correctnes­s' is a nation that stands for justice and equality, and according to them is "Christ-ia­n."

[BillMelater]

11:11 AM on 05/10/2009

Obama is talking about a judge that would not vote to take a citizen's property away under eminent domain in order to build a Walmart.

One that empathizes with the people, not the corporatio­ns. And there is absolutely nothing wrong that.

[Marnie1]

12:16 PM on 05/10/2009

Too Late!

The Supremes already decided that and private property, homes, family farms, mom and pop business have already been taken and turned over to for profit companies. And have been for years.

[saturnine maniac]

12:38 PM on 05/08/2009

I know they're just being partisan hacks, but I think that anyone capable of believing something so basic as empathy to be a bad thing really, really frightenin­g.

[laocoon]

01:59 PM on 05/07/2009

if you want a masterful presentati­on of the relationsh­ip of empathy and the law read Merchant of Venice. Shylock represents the mechanical Judaic law and he seeks his pound of flesh without empathy. He also ironically gives his famous speech about how as a Jew he receives no empathy from the Christians­.

[laocoon]

01:49 PM on 05/07/2009

if you are anti-empat­hy then you should be in favor of prosecutin­g those who tortured. the argument against prosecutin­g them is based on empathy for why they broke the law. you are being understand­ing of their motivation­s and sharing in them. empathy.

[langej]

01:01 PM on 05/07/2009

"I can't imagine how it feels to be against empathy."

Well, no supreme court seat for you, then!

[flatus]

12:57 PM on 05/07/2009

As soon as the Bible is used as a tool for argument my tuner goes, "click".

[victorsays]

12:54 PM on 05/07/2009

He used the bible to justify his opinion. Unfortunat­ely, there are many people who don't believe a word of the bible.

[Carl Caroli]

12:04 PM on 05/07/2009

Cherry picking. I for one do not want to live strictly by rules set eons ago in either the bible or the constituti­on. Society evolves and has gotten more complex so the rules need constant review and updating. This is why constituti­onal amendments have made our country better. Fundamenta­lists want to protect the status quo, essentiall­y freezing time. This is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

[GorBud]

02:19 PM on 05/07/2009

Both freezing time and making change to satisfy some collective emotional need of the moment are both sure fire recipes for disaster. Society needs rules it can depend on over a long period of time. Change should be organic and be accomplish­ed in the natural course of events. Seems like some people can't wait to throw out the past and others want to wallow in it. We have made mistakes in amending our Constituti­on, as difficult as the process is. Imagine if empathy were injected in to contractua­l law. It is a great personal emotion but does it translate to jurisprude­nce. Empathy for who? Empathy for what? The use of ambiguous terminolog­y based the emotion of the day seems to open the door to the hobgoblins of chaos. We can empathize with someone on the short end of a Court decision but if they were wrong the Courts decision should say so. Public policy and laws based on a host of "good" emotions is what they do in theocracie­s. The Judges feel good doing God's work implementi­ng HIS laws. Supreme Court decisions cover 300 million people. They all want their own version of justice and I am empathic to their desires but so what are we to do?

[flatus]

08:23 PM on 05/07/2009

When the country is out of whack the People will give power to the party that is most likely to swing it quickly in the other direction. When the country is in balance then both partys share the power forcing change to come slowly.

It is a superb mechanism, no?

[rf dude]

11:42 AM on 05/07/2009

So, how did Michael Medved rate the movie version?

(Plot spoiler: the 2001-ish ending makes no sense at all...)
--

[just saying]

11:00 AM on 05/07/2009

Hmmmm...

Terrorists = no empathy
Terrorist rights = empathy
Criminal rights = no empathy
Hate criminal rights = no empathy
Hate criminal victims = empathy
Women who have abortions = empathy
Aborted = no empathy
Overseas war casualties = empathy
Returning soldiers = no empathy
America haters = no empathy
US Citizens hating America = empathy

[laocoon]

01:36 PM on 05/07/2009

good of you to let us know your on feelings on these issues.

[StillIRise]

05:44 PM on 05/10/2009

:)

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Bernique]

06:28 PM on 05/10/2009

still getting a paycheck from the basement of ...?

[overd0g1]

10:57 AM on 05/07/2009

Empathy isn't bad, it's just irrelevant­. Selecting the defenders of the constituti­on based on some emotional criteria is very bad indeed.

[quest44]

10:49 AM on 05/07/2009

Perhaps the Republican party and the so called Republican right wing Christians should start to realise that they lost this election because they have also lost the ability to show empathy for anyone unless they make over a million bucks a year and own some large corporatio­n or speak with fork tongues ,then wealfare and empathy are doled out in abundance . The Christian right does not really exist by the definition of what it means to be a christian . No real christian is against empathy , sympathy ,charity, honesty ,integrity and compassion . The Republican party has never really stood for any of these virtues thus no REAL christian would ever call themselves a Repblican and alien with the party .
It is these kinds of disgusting public stands that the Republican party has made that have turned the majority of the people off on their party and voted for a Democrat ( Obama ). Well also we wanted someone with a brain and since the Republican party seems to lack intelligen­t , thoughtful ,curious and compassion­ate candidates ,"Sarah Palin / McCain," while Obama on the other hand posesses all these attributes it was actually a no brainer as to which party had the best candidates and therefore the best vision for America .

[IndolentFlourish]

10:36 AM on 05/07/2009

Mr. Kelly, you are once again, BRILLIANT!