In his statement on the retirement of Justice Souter the president included these perfectly predictable sentiments:
I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.
Once again he is confusing the public about what it is that judges do. The making of laws, which is a legislative function, is all about “the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.” Federal judges decide what those laws mean and whether they conflict with the Constitution. If we want gurus on how we make our living we should appoint economists to the high court, not judges who are spectacularly ill-equipped and untrained to make pronouncements on that topic. Courts are mandated to divine the meaning of our laws and Constitution.
And then of course we get the “empathy” appeal. Again, a perfectly reasonable quality to look for in legislators and even presidents, but not judges. How do we know how empathic they are? (More charitable giving than Joe Biden?) And who gets that sort of empathy — the unborn or the mother, the property owner or the state, the child rapist or his victim, the business or the employee? You see, empathy is a code word for favoring criminal defendants, plaintiffs, labor and other groups which happen to match up with the liberal policy agenda. It’s a peculiar sort of empathy, otherwise known as bias for litigants based on their identity rather than the merit of their claims.
Legal conservatives have their work cut out for them. No, they likely won’t defeat the nominee sporting a portfolio of empathy and brimming with ideas about how we can make a living. They don’t have the votes in the Senate. The real task is to remind the public that the foundation of our democracy rests not in investing judges with the power to search the landscape for empathy recipients, but to ensure that policy decisions are made by the elected branches of government within the parameters of the Constitution.
“It’s a federal issue”? Is he running for dogcatcher? Isn’t it well past time that we outfit these clowns–and both parties abound in them–in suits of tar & feathers? Is there enough disdain in all of Virginia for a man who’d dare utter a line like that?
Unsustainable compensation packages are not the only problems that result from unionization. It’s extremely difficult for potential job applicants to get a fair shot at applying for many union jobs, particularly in blue-collar fields. You pretty much have to know someone on the inside. Also, unions can have pretty corrosive effects on work place atmosphere. For example, if one employee sexually harasses another, the union will get involved by defending the harasser, and may act punitively against the (union) worker filing the complaint.
A particularly tragic situation occurred when unions became involved in dealing with sexual predators working with developmentally disabled persons. Many states have historically been involved in sheltering “mentally retarded” and other vulnerable individuals in state institutions. The residents of these institutions were subject to sexual predators of the most horrific sort. Since many of these institutions were unionized, the unions became the defenders of the predators against their victims. The Catholic Church had nothing on unions when it came to shuffling abusers and predators among vulnerable populations.
There’s also the threat of breaking people’s legs if they don’t comply with the interpretation of union perogatives put forth by some not-so-bright-nor-ethical union members. Yeah, this stuff actually does happen in real life.
Another problem with unions is that many of them are partisan organizations–they fund the democratic party from mandatory employee contributions.
I recently attempted to penetrate a union bureaucracy to apply for a job that I knew existed, but which the union reps would not disclose to me. (Someone working for the company told me they were hiring, and gave me the address of the relevant union as the appropriate place to get started on the application process.) There was a large sign on the wall behind the union rep that said, “WHEN UNIONS VOTE DEMOCRATS WIN.” Well, suppose I don’t want the money taken from my paycheck to fund the abortion party, what recourse do I have? In the real world of union hard ball, none.
Another problem is that Union’s are forced to pit groups of employees against one another, and to the degree it continues its impacts to the business are lethal. Automatically groups of people are against and suspicious of one another hindering the business’ effectiveness. In days past they had a place as an employee had no where else to go for protection from a terrible boss. But the governments have pretty much eliminated that problem now. Union’s have been replaced in some respect.
Thank heavens companies like Wal-Mart have resisted unionization. Instead of paying exorbitant fees for medical insurance, they simply instruct their employees on how to apply for Medicaid — and pass the savings on to us!