For the past couple weeks we’ve been hearing a lot about “empathy.” That’s one of the characteristics President Barack Obama said he wanted in the next Supreme Court justice.

He believes that his nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, possesses such a quality thanks to her hardscrabble upbringing in the South Bronx. In introducing her to the nation May 27, Obama said that she understood daily challenges that face most Americans, especially those who are poor.

“It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live,” Obama said. “Along the way [Sotomayor has] faced down barriers, overcome the odds, lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago.”

During the last two weeks, Sotomayor has been making her rounds on Capitol Hill visiting senators who will vote on her nomination sometime this year. Her hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee will commence July 13.

As she makes her way toward what will likely be Senate confirmation, I’ll be watching to see how this “empathy” theme plays out. For now, it looks as if it’s one of those areas where the business world is a step ahead of some people in the political world, who are criticizing “empathy” as a code word for judicial activism.

I can understand wariness about judges who legislate from the bench. We depend on judges to uphold the law objectively. They ensure that the United States sets the best example in the world of a society that prospers under the rule of law.

But the background a judge brings to his or her role inevitably will influence how he or she rules on a case. It seems that the more backgrounds represented on the Supreme Court the better.

People who promote corporate diversity tend to make the same business case. A group of people with varying backgrounds and perspectives will make a better decision about a product or business strategy than a group of people who are alike.

This is especially true when it comes to finding new markets, according to Carl Brooks, president and CEO of the Executive Leadership Council. 

“The new markets are obviously the global markets, but the other increasingly attractive market is the emerging domestic markets, which are populated by African Americans, Hispanics, females, Asian Americans,” Brooks said in an interview earlier this year. “To the extent you can ensure that you understand their needs, their desires, you have a greater opportunity to be able to have products and services which satisfy these groups.”

Tiane Mitchell Gordon, senior vice president for diversity and inclusion at AOL, calls diversity a strategic imperative. Law firms have gotten that message in part because they want to be as diverse as the corporate law departments with whom they work.

These companies and law firms are seeking “empathy” with their consumers and clients. They want to better understand and serve their markets. Everyone is familiar with the social justice arguments for diversity in hiring. But there’s also a strong business—or profit—case to be made.

In the same way, it stands to reason that a more diverse Supreme Court also would strengthen its ability to deliver justice.

But that doesn’t mean I’m comfortable with the following Sotomayor statement, which she has repeated in several speeches: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Republicans should press Sotomayor on this assertion. Make her explain why her background automatically renders her decisions more valid than those made by someone like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

Both Sotomayor and Roberts have been praised as having brilliant legal minds. A Supreme Court on which they both serve is likely to be stronger than one that didn’t include either of them.