Repubs to block Obama's Justic nominee

[darkdog]

It would appear that you have a very distorted defininition for both empathy and mitigating factors, not to mention fairness.

Of course the Supreme Court Justices determine such based on their own interpretations of the law. That is what they are on the bench to do...interpret and apply law. If interpretation was not a huge factor in a Supreme Court Justice's duties, it would not matter a hill of beans who was sitting the bench or what their political affiliation was.

Justices who interpret the law in good faith putting aside their personal preferences can come to differing conclusions, regardless of their political persuasions. That's not the issue. I want a justice who's willing to make a decision she personally disagrees with and thinks is unfair, even if that means having to rule against the side she has more empathy for.

 

[Bramus]

..

"Republicans say that Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice is completely unacceptable and they will let us know why as soon as they know who it is."

lol

 

[Hear Again]

I enjoyed the quote netrox posted so much that I added it to my list of favorite quotations.

 

[jillio]

Justices who interpret the law in good faith putting aside their personal preferences can come to differing conclusions, regardless of their political persuasions. That's not the issue. I want a justice who's willing to make a decision she personally disagrees with and thinks is unfair, even if that means having to rule against the side she has more empathy for.

I don't want any justice making a decision she or he believes to be "unfair'. In order for a decision to be "just" it needs to be equitable, which translates to fairness. We have enough injustice in the lower courts. We certainly don't need it in the highest court in the land. It is time for Lady Justice to put the blindfold back on.

 

[Hear Again]

As far as empathy and judges are concerned, having empathy does not mean one fails to consider all of the facts of the case. One does not necessarily have to exclude the other.

 

[jillio]

As far as empathy and judges are concerned, having empathy does not mean one fails to consider all of the facts of the case. One does not necessarily have to exclude the other.

Exactly. Empathy in no way translates to bias, nor to approval. One can empathize with another's position, and still know the position is wrong.

 

[darkdog]

I don't want any justice making a decision she or he believes to be "unfair'. In order for a decision to be "just" it needs to be equitable, which translates to fairness.It is time for Lady Justice to put the blindfold back on.

And that's judicial activism. Suppose a law passes with 60% of the public supporting it as fair and the other 40% opposing it is unfair. There's a good chance a Supreme Court justice may fall in the 40%, but it's still the law of the land and it's still her job to uphold the law of the land. Why should her one moral opinion override the 60% of the voting public who supported the bill (or rather, whose representatives in Congress voted for it)? To encourage such behavior is to encourage a judicial fiat to undermine our constitutional republic.

This isn't to say unfair laws are acceptable. The question is, with hugely diverse opinions on fairness, who gets to decide what's unfair? An elected legislature or a few unelected judges presuming to know better?

It is time for Lady Justice to put the blindfold back on.

Agreed.

 

[jillio]

And that's judicial activism. Suppose a law passes with 60% of the public supporting it as fair and the other 40% opposing it is unfair. There's a good chance a Supreme Court justice may fall in the 40%, but it's still the law of the land and it's still her job to uphold the law of the land. Why should her one moral opinion override the 60% of the voting public who supported the bill (or rather, whose representatives in Congress voted for it)? To encourage such behavior is to encourage a judicial fiat to undermine our constitutional republic.

This isn't to say unfair laws are acceptable. The question is, with hugely diverse opinions on fairness, who gets to decide what's unfair? An elected legislature or a few unelected judges presuming to know better?


Agreed.

Read any laws lately? None of them are black and white. All require interpretation. And just because 60% of the voting public supports a particular law, does not mean there is a viable legal foundation for that law, nor that it does not violate laws already in existence.

 

[darkdog]

Exactly. Empathy in no way translates to bias, nor to approval. One can empathize with another's position, and still know the position is wrong.

I would hope so, but is that what Obama really meant? If so, why make it a criteria for Supreme Court justices if it's not supposed to affect their decisions? He might as well make donating to the Salvation Army and stopping to help stranded motorists as his qualification. Good traits for a person to have, but a non sequitur when talking about qualifications for a Supreme Court justice.

 

[jillio]

I would hope so, but is that what Obama really meant? If so, why make it a criteria for Supreme Court justices if it's not supposed to affect their decisions? He might as well make donating to the Salvation Army and stopping to help stranded motorists as his qualification. Good traits for a person to have, but a non sequitur when talking about qualifications for a Supreme Court justice.

Well, I don't know about you, but I find empathy to be a quality I prefer in all people, and especially those that hold life and death decisions in their hands. It does not create bias...it simply makes the Justices able to relate to people. Relating to others is a desirable human quality. Lack of empathy is the primary feature of a sociopath. I would prefer not to have a sociopath sitting the bench.

 

[Hear Again]

I would hope so, but is that what Obama really meant? If so, why make it a criteria for Supreme Court justices if it's not supposed to affect their decisions? He might as well make donating to the Salvation Army and stopping to help stranded motorists as his qualification. Good traits for a person to have, but a non sequitur when talking about qualifications for a Supreme Court justice.

A Supreme Court Justice who is unable to view all facts while also considering
other factors that may influence the actions of the one being judged is not practicing fair "justice."

 

[darkdog]

Read any laws lately? None of them are black and white. All require interpretation. And just because 60% of the voting public supports a particular law, does not mean there is a viable legal foundation for that law, nor that it does not violate laws already in existence.

So are you saying judges should only overturn laws when they're unconstitutional or contradict previous laws?

 

[jillio]

So are you saying judges should only overturn laws when they're unconstitutional or contradict previous laws?

Where exactly did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

 

[darkdog]

Well, I don't know about you, but I find empathy to be a quality I prefer in all people, and especially those that hold life and death decisions in their hands. It does not create bias...it simply makes the Justices able to relate to people. Relating to others is a desirable human quality. Lack of empathy is the primary feature of a sociopath. I would prefer not to have a sociopath sitting the bench.

Nowhere do I argue for a justice with a mental disorder. The reason I'm concerned is because he listed specific groups: young teenaged moms, the poor, African-Americans, gays, disabled people, and old people. Again, if a nominee personally empathizes with these groups over everyone else, I don't really care as long as that empathy doesn't affect her decisions. The fact that Obama emphasizes this as a criteria would indicate he does want the selective empathy to be a factor.

 

[jillio]

Nowhere do I argue for a justice with a mental disorder. The reason I'm concerned is because he listed specific groups: young teenaged moms, the poor, African-Americans, gays, disabled people, and old people. Again, if a nominee personally empathizes with these groups over everyone else, I don't really care as long as that empathy doesn't affect her decisions. The fact that Obama emphasizes this as a criteria would indicate he does want the selective empathy to be a factor.

Ever hear of examples?

And you are confusing emapthy with sympathy. They are not the same thing at all.

If you don't want a justice with a mental disorder, then you are going to have to accept one that is able to feel and exhibit empathy.

Selective empathy? Are you trying to coin a new term? Never heard of this concept.

 

[darkdog]

Where exactly did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

You went from saying a judge should overturn a law he deems unfair to saying that a law might not have "a viable legal foundation" or it might "violate laws already in existence." It appeared that you changed the locus of your point, so I asked.

 

[darkdog]

Ever hear of examples?

And you are confusing emapthy with sympathy. They are not the same thing at all.

If you don't want a justice with a mental disorder, then you are going to have to accept one that is able to feel and exhibit empathy.

Selective empathy? Are you trying to coin a new term? Never heard of this concept.

So you're saying selective empathy doesn't exist. That's good to know. So when Obama wants a candidate with empathy for "young teenaged moms, the poor, African-Americans, gays, disabled people, and old people", he really meant empathy for everyone because if it's not for everyone, then it's not empathy by definition. Why didn't he just say so? That would have made this so much easier!

 

[jillio]

You went from saying a judge should overturn a law he deems unfair to saying that a law might not have "a viable legal foundation" or it might "violate laws already in existence." It appeared that you changed the locus of your point, so I asked.

You might want to go back and re-read. No where did I say that a "judge should overturn a law he deems unfair." Do not attribute words nor quotes to me that I never made. It is a very weak ploy used in an attempt strengthen your own position. However, it destroys credibility.

 

[jillio]

So you're saying selective empathy doesn't exist. That's good to know. So when Obama wants a candidate with empathy for "young teenaged moms, the poor, African-Americans, gays, disabled people, and old people", he really meant empathy for everyone because if it's not for everyone, then it's not empathy by definition. Why didn't he just say so? That would have made this so much easier!

Like I said before, ever hear of examples? And you are incorrect that empathy not felt without constraint is not empathy by definition.

What exactly is wrong with having empathy for the plight of the above named groups that were used as examples? Seems you think empathy is something that should be dictated based on what value you place on the group the individual belongs to. That is a direct contradiction to the concept of empathy.

Perhaps he didn't say "everyone" because he functions under the principle that Americans are intelligent enough to understand communication in context. His bad, I guess.:roll:

 

[darkdog]

Your exact quote:

I don't want any justice making a decision she or he believes to be "unfair'.

Many of the decisions a Supreme Court justice makes involves deciding whether or not to overturn a law.

Since we're giving each other rhetorical advice- don't deny saying something you said on an internet forum and then excoriate someone for saying you said it. That may work in verbal communication, but with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, it's disastrous to your credibility.