Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Should a judge without empathy be nominated and approved?
"Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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 at 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. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
On Empathy vs. Law...I have a question.
Why need it be framed in an adverserial statement? One....or the other.
Why can't you have both? Are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
I also notice that the author takes only a brief portion of Obama's statement to base his judgement on.
Obama's entire quote:
"Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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 at 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. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
i'll take a stab at it
as with getting a jury of your peers, for fairness of your fate....or to be empathetic in your circumstances...
he did not say sympathetic, thank god!
sc justices have been picked on the single issue of whether they would support or reject roe v wade/abortion
they have been picked for being a man of color....c thomas
they have been picked for being female....
they have been picked for being pro business/pro corporation....
they have been picked for being federalists....
why not someone on the team that is empathetic of the average guy?
this is a political pick, made by our presidents, and our founders were well aware of such....
Please allow me to remind you, as I pointed out in the earlier thread, that in the case of Roberts, Obama was tasked with voting 'yea' or 'nay' on his confirmation. Upon careful review of Roberts' record, Obama orated that he was impressed BUT based solely on HIS impression of 1% of Roberts' rulings (that 1% didn't display the appropriate empathy in HIS opinion), Obama could not bring himself to vote in favor of his appointment. 1% overrides 99%? How fucked is that? And we're supposed to accept EMPATHY as a sound reason for appointment? Sheesh....
On Empathy vs. Law...I have a question.
Why need it be framed in an adverserial statement? One....or the other.
Why can't you have both? Are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
I also notice that the author takes only a brief portion of Obama's statement to base his judgement on.
Obama's entire quote:
"Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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 at 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. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
On Empathy vs. Law...I have a question.
Why need it be framed in an adverserial statement? One....or the other.
Why can't you have both? Are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
I also notice that the author takes only a brief portion of Obama's statement to base his judgement on.
Obama's entire quote:
"Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; 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 at 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. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
thanks for enlightening us on what he ACTUALLY said, in context. appreciate it!
On Empathy vs. Law...I have a question.
Why need it be framed in an adverserial statement? One....or the other.
Why can't you have both? Are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
I also notice that the author takes only a brief portion of Obama's statement to base his judgement on.
Obama's entire quote:
thanks for enlightening us on what he ACTUALLY said, in context. appreciate it!
Welcome
What I find really interesting is that the righwing pundits select one sentence out of the entire quote and use it to define Obama's set of judicial qualifications for a nominee. They totally ignore the rest of it.
What is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable start for an answer is the recognition that our Constitution represents the rules of the game. A Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only namely; he is a referee. There is nothing complicated about this. A referee's job, whether he is a football referee or a Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and make sure that they are evenly applied without bias. Do we want referees to allow empathy to influence their decisions?
