Two judges on empathy

[Skull Pilot]

Tell ya skullpilot, the thing that truly impresses me about Sonia Sotomayor is she is a judge and not a mini mogul. I looked at the firefighter case a little. That is the one case that many seem to be up in arms over, "Latino woman disses white men in a reverse discrimination case".

Considering the fact that the city is not bound by one single solitary rule seems to be where the problem began. That old adage, "You can't sue city hall" runs pretty true in most cases. Even if a court has an inclination that you have a lawsuit against their government entities you can and may be very much SOL.

I personally did not find anything that she did wrong in her opinion of that case. Is there another case we should be looking at that would show she is not fit for the Supreme Court?

where did I ever say she was not fit?

You didn't. It was not my intent to say you were either. Asking if there is anything other cases one should look at to form an opinion?

I didn't realize this was a discussion of sotomayors cases. I though it was a philosophical discussion on the role empathy should play in legal rulings

 

[Annie]

the race, creed or gender of a candidate for any position should NOT be a consideration.

the contradiction here is that everyone wants equal rights but then they want special treatment because they are latino, Black, gay, lesbian etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

We are speaking with forked toungues

In as much as I can agree with you I can say that more often than not women have been overlooked for higher positions. I can tell you I never asked for a hand out only a level playing field. I have not gotten that through the years. Who is at fault for not insuring that we all do get that level playing field? I sure would not deny someone for standing up and saying, "I know it was not easy as I have been there. You have my empathy".

I can agree with what you say also, but the discrimination itself, whether real or imagined, whether personal or an 'at large' issue doesn't connect with 'being able to render a better decision' than those that were 'not' discriminated against, as a group.

 

[RodISHI]

the race, creed or gender of a candidate for any position should NOT be a consideration.

the contradiction here is that everyone wants equal rights but then they want special treatment because they are latino, Black, gay, lesbian etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

We are speaking with forked toungues

In as much as I can agree with you I can say that more often than not women have been overlooked for higher positions. I can tell you I never asked for a hand out only a level playing field. I have not gotten that through the years. Who is at fault for not insuring that we all do get that level playing field? I sure would not deny someone for standing up and saying, "I know it was not easy as I have been there. You have my empathy".

I can agree with what you say also, but the discrimination itself, whether real or imagined, whether personal or an 'at large' issue doesn't connect with 'being able to render a better decision' than those that were 'not' discriminated against, as a group.

True.

I do know we all have said stupid stuff at one point or another that could be taken out of context. That is where the rulings that have been made will have to speak for any judge that is looking at going into a higher position. If at one point in an entirely different setting I said "Dang men are stupid" it could be that is perceived at a later date that I hated men. Even though there would be no truth in that assumption. In that one needs to look at the entire setting in which a statement was made don't you think?