Marriage equality decision was not just an intellectual exercise

[joeybee12]

“Poor Joshua!”

So wrote Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in dissent in 1989. A 4-year-old Wisconsin boy, Joshua suffered severe injuries from his father’s beatings. Though state social services officials knew he was in danger, they did nothing. When Joshua’s guardian later claimed their inaction violated his constitutional right of liberty, the court ruled in favor of the negligent officials.

Blackmun’s response offered rare honesty. The question of whether the officials’ failure to act violated Joshua’s rights was “open.” The court’s prior rulings could be interpreted “broadly or narrowly depending upon how one chooses to read them.” Both sides had reasonable arguments. “Faced with the choice, I would adopt a ‘sympathetic’ reading, one which comports with dictates of fundamental justice and recognizes that compassion need not be exiled from the province of judging.” The court had retreated “into a sterile formalism” that blinded it to “the facts of the case.”

Blackmun left the court two decades ago, but his dissent in Joshua’s case remains a powerful defense of emotion in judging. Some cases demand a judge act not as a “dispassionate oracle of the law,” but with a bit of soulfulness as well. Some cases require empathy to guide the intellect.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/01/marriage-equality-decision-was-not-just-intellectual-exercise/Z6JHUumT6js2A2aaUEip4M/story.html

A very good read and analysis, IMHO

[elleng]

1. Very good.

Too damn bad they didn't use it in the death penalty drug decision. AWFUL!