What Do Sonia Sotomayor, John Roberts and Mr. Spock Have in Common?
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor has sparked an interesting public discussion on the place of empathy in the justice system. As usual, there are people lining up on the left and the right to argue for or against empathy playing a role in forming the opinions of a judge.
When people are engaged in a debate on a word, I think it's usually a good idea to first look up the definition of that word. Here's how Dictionary.com defines empathy:
"the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
Burt Solomon, in an insightful piece in the Washington Post, points out that the life experience of Supreme Court justices has always influenced their opinions. He provides a number of interesting historical examples which are summarized by this observation from the late Justice Felix Frankfurter:
"The words of the Constitution are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life."
Just as her experience of growing up poor in a Bronx project shaped the perspective of Judge Sotomayor, the experience of growing up as the son of a corporate executive has shaped the perspective of Chief Justice John Roberts. They both have empathy or "intellectual identification" with others; it's just that their empathy is informed by different life experiences. As Solomon points out in his article, you can see their different experiences at play in their opinions. I'd argue that neither perspective is good or bad, they just are.
And that brings me to a point about all leaders whether or not they find themselves on the U.S. Supreme Court. We bring our life experience, our empathy, our intellectual identification with us. Our decisions and actions are influenced by the unique life experience and perspective we bring to the leadership role. Let's not kid ourselves that they're not. The best we and our followers can hope for is that we as leaders recognize this. When we recognize that we're never truly objective, we stand a much better chance of listening to and paying attention to all of the stakeholders in a given situation.
So as I was thinking about this post, I tried to come up with a leader who actually could be truly objective. The best I could do was Mr. Spock. But, as you'll know if you've seen the new Star Trek movie, not even Spock makes decisions based purely on objective logic. That darn human part of his heritage keeps getting in the way. As it is with Spock, so it is with us. Live long and prosper.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.
I agree!
Deb Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1:33 PMOf course she's biased (oops, empathetic), or racist! Look who is pushing her nomination, Mr. Token Black American himself. When a judge has about 60% of their decisions reversed on appeal, it's time to look elsewhere...
ChristmasTree Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:02 PMGranted that nobody parks their humanity at the door when they enter the office. The point is that the Federalist clearly indicates that when the judicial power of the government is coupled either with legislative or executive power, the judiciary moves from being the weakest branch of government to the strongest. Further, the checks and balances designed into the Constitution for the judiciary were designed with the uncoupled state in mind. The huge amount of effort dedicated to controlling the court indicates that at the very least some entities want it to operate in a coupled state (i.e. exerting legislative influence), or that it is already operating that way. In either case the checks and balances that were adequate at one time are adequate no longer. To put anyone on the court who in any way prefers a judiciary coupled to legislative power is just further harm added to what has already been done. This is the issue that questioning of Sotomayor should focus on.
arclight Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:58 AMI agree her comment are what that are. But if a white male nominated judge had made those same comments, no matter what the context, he would have already withdrawn. Our society does allow for a white man to stand up and say he proud to be a white man. It however allows Blacks, Browns, Yellows and any other color to have an awareness campaign and be proud. Until we reach past this barrier where a nominee, no matter who it is, is just glad that they were given the chance to make this far and be proud to be human, we are just cultivating this kind of controversy. I from a poor family and grew up that way. I have better myself and I am proud to be a human and share that with all of humanity.
Not Again Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:24 AMI agree her comment are what that are. But if a white male nominated judge had made those same comments, no matter what the context, he would have already withdrawn. Our society does allow for a white man to stand up and say he proud to be a white man. It however allows Blacks, Browns, Yellows and any other color to have an awareness campaign and be proud. Until we reach past this barrier where a nominee, no matter who it is, is just glad that they were given the chance to make this far and be proud to be human, we are just cultivating this kind of controversy. I from a poor family and grew up that way. I have better myself and I am proud to be a human and share that with all of humanity.
Not Again Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:27 AMThe differences between Sotomayor and Chief Justice Roberts include Sotomayor's maternalistic and racist views, as well as her cavalier attitude toward policymaking from the bench. Perhaps these perspectives were shaped by her upbringing too, but they are surely not neutral beliefs and should be weighed in any evaluation of her fitness.
Ron Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:33 AMThere is a vast difference between acknowledging and embracing that our past may color our opinions. What made our country unique is the twin ideals of no one being above the law and justice being blind. When those two pillars of our society are taken away, we're left with some sort of social cronyism at best or at worst the despotism of well-intentioned individuals attempting to "set things right". Legislate in the Congress, adjudicate from the bench. It's an idea whose time has not passed by.
Fred Farmer Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:10 AMMr. Eblin, I believe you missed the 'boat' on both issues. That the empathy of the Justices are based on life learning experiences in making legal decisions or the intellect of leaders in being truly objective.
Victor V. Soto Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 9:43 AMThe U.S. Constitution is very finite in its meaning if read at face value does not leave room for much argument or baseless interpretations. The problem with contemporary Justices is that that they have ignored the basic content of the Constitution in their decisions and apply, as you noted, life experiences and render decisions that are not based on the issues of the case. I really don't want Justices showing sympathy to my case, simply because of my background; likewise I don't want their nominations to be based on aspects that don't have anything to do with the law.
The same logic applies to those of us in leadership positions. Our decisions must be totally based on the needs of the organization, not based on my likes and dislikes. On hiring, I should not be guided by the life trials of the applicant or if the applicant can talk to me in Spanish or other irrelevant notion.
I would like to see the Justices selection process to be a faceless selection - Base it on the result of their work or their decisions. Likewise, our leadership decisions should also be faceless. It should be mandated by what we have been entrusted to accomplish as an organization. Discrimination continues to be a problem in our society because many leaders add the empathy element to their decision process to ultimately leads to greater discrimination .
Thank you Mr. Eblin
What a ridiculous premise that the constitution is vague and therefore justices can bring their life experiences to bear as to its meaning. If ever I heard more drivel I don't know where.
dan ketter Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 12:52 PMAsk a 10 year old what any passage to the constitution says and they can tell you. It very specific and more to the point what ever is not enumerated to the Fed Gov't is left u8p to the states. So keep your nose out of my business
Mr Eblin is right. Everyone brings their Gestalt to what they do, Supreme Court Justices no exception. If you listen to the conservatives, they want "justice" especially when it lines some fat cat capitalist's pocket. If Solomon were a modern day conservative (the ones whining about empathy) the poor kid surely would have been sliced in two -- end of discussion on the appropriateness of empathy in the courts. However put Dickie, Donnie, or Dummy in the light of Justice and they first claim the law doesn't apply to them due to executive (they really mean godlike) privilege. If that doesn't work then they'll claim whatever was the infraction they committed was not their fault. If that doesn't work, they'll whine for mercy, not justice. Guess they too bring their Gestalt to what they do. After all Donnie and Dickie are crooks left over from the Nixon whitehouse. That said, one doesn't have to resort to whining and arguing about empathy to make a decision about the appropriatness of Justice Sotomayer for the Supreme Court. Nobody who has a sixty percent reversal rate would ever be re-elected to the circuit court. So far you've been right on the mark, Mr President, but what were you thinking with Justice Sotomayer's nomination?
Truth and Justice Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009 7:43 PMHer public statement that appellate judges make the law and the same racist sexist remark documented on two occasions mark the nominee as unfit for jury duty or continued service on any bench, much less the Supreme Court. President G.H.W. Bush took a chance nominating her to her first position and she has proved him wrong. Her losing record of decisions appealed to SCOTUS reflects her lack of understanding of the Constitution. Justice Frankfurter's quote was to justify his own documented irregularities and seems silly to use to here to attempt to bolster Mr. Eblin's position. The people make the law through their elected representatives, not some appointee from the bench who has demonstrably let the blindfold of Justice slip far too often.
JBF Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 10:14 PMI am sorry but we need to stop this right here. I am from the Bronx too and just a couple of years older than Ms. Sotomayor. I know where Ms. Sotomayor spent her early years and I know where she spent her teen years and I know the HS she went to. Ms. Sotomayor was not poor. She was no worse than lower middle class and probably slightly above that. So can we please stop that nonsense.
Ms. Sotomayor's problem stems from the fact that she thinks her ethnicity and gender make her better, not different, but better and therein lies the trouble.
Michael Fortunato Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:03 AM