Empathy = Showing sympathy or understanding the feelings of others.

Republicans say it is a codeword for gay rights or some social or activist agenda?

But what can possibly be wrong with showing empathy, even if you are a Supreme Court Justice? Shouldn't you have the capacity to understand how your decisions will affect other people in our society? It does not seem like a negative for a judge to have sympathy for others? Otherwise, we end up with judges and folks that make decisions such as "it is OK to torture if we get the results we want". Empathy should be a part of the decision process, in my opinion.

....another's shoes.

Either way if it's coming from the right-wing, it's Orwellian.

Employing emotion in decisions would lead to very bad outcomes, depending on who is the object of that empathy.

You could say that utilizing the Death Penalty is simply showing empathy to the families of victims. You could argue that it's okay to torture because we have empathy with all those who've been scarred by war or have been victims of terrorism and don't want it to happen again. There's a reason justice is blind. It's supposed to serve society as a whole and that's why emotion has no place in the courtroom.

'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.'

And I'm not defending the man AT ALL.

There are always going to be issues with the actual law, but once emotion becomes part of the process, who's to say where that empathy should be placed? That's my problem with it.

There are christians all over the country who live in absolute anguish because we are a nation of baby killers. Should we empathize and take into account this gut-wrenching moral agony people live with when deciding whether women are inherently entitled to choice or not?

You can empathize without agreeing let alone, without acting on that understanding.

Unless I read it wrong.

all your experience to bear on a decision? You can know (because that's what empathy is, knowing on a different channel) that Andrea Yates was psychotic at the moment she was drowning those children without agreeing that she was right to do it. Empathy isn't sympathy, it's not agreement.

This portion here -

'It does not seem like a negative for a judge to have sympathy for others? Otherwise, we end up with judges and folks that make decisions such as "it is OK to torture if we get the results we want". Empathy should be a part of the decision process, in my opinion."

I'm taking away from it the suggestion that Judges should take into account their own sensibilities. Especially if we're talking about Supreme Court Justices, I would be terribly worried about where their sympathies lie. It's bad enough as it is, with people hoping for either progressive or conservative appointments depending on their political leanings, because there will always be some small seepage of the Judge's personal beliefs into his/her decisions. The less the better though. It's all fine when we're floating in liberal judges, but not so great when the opposite is true.

the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

empathy is the ability to feel..and because one has that abililty to feel and be in touch with ones own feelings, then one is able to put themselves in the place of the other and to then do unto the other as you would want to be done to ..in any situation. A person without empathy might decide not to steal your money, but that persons decision is based on not wanting to be caught or punished. A person with empathy will not steal your money because they know how horrid it would feel to the person (they know how it would feel to themselves) and for that reason the person with empathy cannot steal another persons money. That is empathy.

i.e. "Look at those expensive sneakers they're wearing!" "Oh, but they can afford a cell phone," etc

I more or less stopped visiting another forum after several posters there, many of whom would be considered "liberal" by some of their other stated views, went on a tirade against the homeless as being a bunch of loser, druggie scam artists.

In my estimation, one's state of homelessness isn't so much about TRYING and HOPING to find fault w/that person as a means of explaining or justifying their circumstance, it's about overlooking the nuts n bolts - that's often comprised of the same, universal problems most of us experience to one degree or another - and empathizing with how difficult life must be for that person ... as opposed to seeking reasons to bolster prejudice and hatred.

Even the way my own husband talks about the homeless people who come to his library freaks me out somewhat. And then last Saturday I went out with some high school friends and they talked about walking through a park where there were some homeless people in the same dehumanizing manner.

Why do humans do that?

In high school we went on a trip to Washington D.C. and we were hanging out somewhere and I gave a homeless guy some money. Someone else said that I didn't have to give that much, that he'd probably use it for drugs or alcohol. My instinctive reaction was "So? If I was homeless I'd probably want to get high and forget about my problems for a while too."

we judge them to have failed, because if they are victims of circumstance or fate, that means WE are just as vulnerable.

Homelessness can happen to anyone. And circumstances can compound the situation an make getting out of the situation extremely difficult. That's pretty scary to most people, and that fear is not easy to sit with, which makes us angry. That anger is uncomfortable.
We can't explain why homelessness is such a difficult situation to get out of, and that scares and angers us even more, so we blame the person who is homeless, because if they are 'at fault' or 'just tried hard enough' they'd be fine, and we can feel a little less threatened.

In other words "We,would simply: "get a job"- "never let that happen to us"- "never be an addict/alcoholic"-"not be lazy assholes"- "not live off the govt" etc. etc..--". And we distance ourselves from the threat they pose to our own sense of security.

Imo and experience :shrug:

Didn't work. Go figure. :shrug:

power and control trip. In their view, the last thing a justice should have or show is empathy. They don't want a judge to bring his experience to bear, they want him to make decisions based on their twisted interpretation of good Christian values.

who are deprived their civil rights because of stupid bigots