OBAMA’S FLAWED THEORY OF SYNONYMITY
Empathy = Wisdom
An ardent believer in the above equation, Obama has selected Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court. Problem is, the application of empathy in lieu of wisdom resulted in a miscarriage of justice in the New Haven, Connecticut Ricci v. DeStefano case. Sotomayor, along with two colleagues from New York’s 2nd District Court of Appeals, empathized with black firefighters who failed to pass an examination required for promotion and stripped those who did pass of their successful accomplishment – along with their eligibility for promotion based upon that success. That decision unjustly denied the plaintiffs in this case (1) the fruit of their labor, and (2) the opportunity for advancement predicated upon that labor. This ruling is a textbook example of how justice is skewed or abandoned altogether when empathy is permitted to supersede law and the civil liberties it contains.
Interestingly, the 2nd District Court seems somewhat selective in its application of the law. Noteworthy are remarks from Jon O. Newman, a senior judge serving on that court. Newman described Sotomayor’s appointment as the culmination of “the American dream of sheer talent triumphing and being rewarded.” (TV Show inspired a career, Associated Press). Glowing rhetoric, to be sure; however, the talent of Ricci et al did not triumph nor was it rewarded. Hence, their ‘American dream’, based on the Newman definition, was in fact denied by this very same court.
Wisdom (sagacity) is defined by Webster as “penetrating intelligence, keen perception, and sound judgment.” Empathy, on the other hand, is “the projection of one’s own personality into the personality of another in order to understand him better”. Apples and oranges. Obama’s theory is FALSE.
Consider the wisdom of Solomon, King of Israel, recorded in the first Book of Kings, Chapter 3:
‘Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. One of them said, “My lord, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she was there with me. The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us. During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. The next morning, I got up to nurse my son – and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.” The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.” But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours, the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.
The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead’, while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’ “ Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.” The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two.”
Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”
This deliberation was exclusive of empathy, enabling Solomon to rightly arrive at the truth which, in this case, preserved the life of a child. There is no more stellar model of justice than this: Non-prejudicial deliberation coupled with principled action resulting in truth. This is the standard to which the Supreme Court and its Justices are duty-bound to subscribe. Sotomayor’s overt race and gender bias, emotionally-generated and now a matter of public record, speaks to her inability to provide impartial adjudication, the right to which is guaranteed to all citizens, including Frank Ricci, in Amendment VI, US Constitution. Consequently, it becomes incumbent upon the Senate to reaffirm that right by denying this nominee’s advancement to the Supreme Court.
