Two judges on empathy

[midcan5]

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." Judge Sonia Sotomayor

"I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame. But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person." Samuel Alito

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." Judge Sonia Sotomayor

"I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame. But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person." Samuel Alito

Which is it? Alito is a hack or he is a good Judge, can not have it both ways when it suits your agenda.

 

[RodISHI]

Just because we do not all look alike or talk alike we could miss what great people have to offer if we are not willing to look beyond the gender or ethnic backgrounds.

 

[midcan5]

Which is it? Alito is a hack or he is a good Judge, can not have it both ways when it suits your agenda.

Neither in my opinion, but if empathy and life experiences count in one case they should count in all. And if quotations can be taken out of context we need to be fair and show what the candidate really said.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So in otherwords, you don't actually have a point in posting this...

Color me SHOCKED!

 

[RodISHI]

I'm glad MC posted the full quotes. Too much cherry picking going on.

I was taken care of by a wonderful Latino woman when I was a child. Call me biased. She said some things others may take as discriminatory if taken out of context looking back but her heart was as pure as they come. She was the first licensed movie producer in the state of California. She was also a star in the Latino world. She was good friends with Bob Hope. He used to come see her often. In my eyes I did not see a Latino woman, I saw a beautiful woman with a heart that few can match.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

 

[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".

 

[Skull Pilot]

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".

interpretation of the law and empathy are antithetical.

empathy is for jurors not for judges

 

[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".

interpretation of the law and empathy are antithetical.

empathy is for jurors not for judges

Judges manage to twist and circumvent laws on a regular basis to fit within the politic agenda that they represent. If you had ever had your filings accepted by a Supreme Court justice and then had your filings dismissed by a lower appeals court who was willing to circumvent their own court rules. You'd possibly look at the whole matter differently and say, "I want a judge that has empathy".

I'll take the judge with empathy.

 

[Nik]

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".

interpretation of the law and empathy are antithetical.

empathy is for jurors not for judges

Well then, you hate Clarence Thomas as well? Bush I said he was quite empathetic.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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".

interpretation of the law and empathy are antithetical.

empathy is for jurors not for judges

Well then, you hate Clarence Thomas as well? Bush I said he was quite empathetic.

What's with the assumption that I "hate" anyone.

And what's with the assumption that I give a fucking rat's ass what Bush thought about a judge?

If you're going to respond to me, at least think before you type. or are you really so emotionally invested in Obama's pick as to vilify people who may believe that the law and its interpretation should not be swayed by emotion?

 

[Nik]

interpretation of the law and empathy are antithetical.

empathy is for jurors not for judges

Well then, you hate Clarence Thomas as well? Bush I said he was quite empathetic.

What's with the assumption that I "hate" anyone.

And what's with the assumption that I give a fucking rat's ass what Bush thought about a judge?

Considering pretty much the only justification for calling Sotomayor emotional/empathetic is what Obama said, I think you should care about what Bush said. Well, only if you value consistency, which you clearly don't.

If you're going to respond to me, at least think before you type. or are you really so emotionally invested in Obama's pick as to vilify people who may believe that the law and its interpretation should not be swayed by emotion?

Vilify people? Thats a weighty, and strange charge. But regardless, empathy (which is NOT emotion) is an important thing for a justice to have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well then, you hate Clarence Thomas as well? Bush I said he was quite empathetic.

What's with the assumption that I "hate" anyone.

And what's with the assumption that I give a fucking rat's ass what Bush thought about a judge?

Considering pretty much the only justification for calling Sotomayor emotional/empathetic is what Obama said, I think you should care about what Bush said. Well, only if you value consistency, which you clearly don't.

If you're going to respond to me, at least think before you type. or are you really so emotionally invested in Obama's pick as to vilify people who may believe that the law and its interpretation should not be swayed by emotion?

Vilify people? Thats a weighty, and strange charge. But regardless, empathy (which is NOT emotion) is an important thing for a justice to have.

The law is not empathy based.

Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

or

The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

Identifying with someone has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law.

And pinning the hate monger moniker on people who happen to have a different opinion
that your own is a form of vilification.

And I am more consistent in my logic than those who cannot think beyond their own political paradigms

 

[Nik]

What's with the assumption that I "hate" anyone.

And what's with the assumption that I give a fucking rat's ass what Bush thought about a judge?

Considering pretty much the only justification for calling Sotomayor emotional/empathetic is what Obama said, I think you should care about what Bush said. Well, only if you value consistency, which you clearly don't.

If you're going to respond to me, at least think before you type. or are you really so emotionally invested in Obama's pick as to vilify people who may believe that the law and its interpretation should not be swayed by emotion?

Vilify people? Thats a weighty, and strange charge. But regardless, empathy (which is NOT emotion) is an important thing for a justice to have.

The law is not empathy based.

Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

or

The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

Identifying with someone has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law.

And pinning the hate monger moniker on people who happen to have a different opinion
that your own is a form of vilification.

And I am more consistent in my logic than those who cannot think beyond their own political paradigms

Actually identifying with someone DOES have to do with the constitutionality of a law. Some laws are constitutional or not, not based on what they attempt to do, but on the actual effects of the law. If you can't understand (i.e. empathize) with the effects of the law on the individuals who are effected, then you can't understand the constitutionality of the law.

And you are exactly as consistent in your logic as one who cannot think beyond their own political paradigms

 

[Skull Pilot]

Considering pretty much the only justification for calling Sotomayor emotional/empathetic is what Obama said, I think you should care about what Bush said. Well, only if you value consistency, which you clearly don't.



Vilify people? Thats a weighty, and strange charge. But regardless, empathy (which is NOT emotion) is an important thing for a justice to have.

The law is not empathy based.

Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

or

The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

Identifying with someone has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law.

And pinning the hate monger moniker on people who happen to have a different opinion
that your own is a form of vilification.

And I am more consistent in my logic than those who cannot think beyond their own political paradigms

Actually identifying with someone DOES have to do with the constitutionality of a law. Some laws are constitutional or not, not based on what they attempt to do, but on the actual effects of the law. If you can't understand (i.e. empathize) with the effects of the law on the individuals who are effected, then you can't understand the constitutionality of the law.

And you are exactly as consistent in your logic as one who cannot think beyond their own political paradigms

you have no idea what my political philosophy is.

the effect of a law has nothing to do with empathy. a law violates one's civil rights as laid out in the constitution or it doesn't. The feelings of those affected by the law are irrelevant.

And empathizing and understanding are not the same thing. see definition.

Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

The thoughts, attitudes or feelings of a person have nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law.

 

[RodISHI]

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?

 

[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?

 

[editec]

I am damned sure that all of us must look at life, and make decisions about that life, from the perspective that our background gives us.

None of us have any choice in that matter.

Who does not approach each moment of our lives evaluating those moments from the perspective of who we are and what we know as a result of our lives to date?

Suggesting that our personal backgrounds light give us a superior perspective may not be very politic, but every one of us thinks that is true, anyway.

 

[RodISHI]

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?