Repubs to block Obama's Justic nominee

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
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:
Click to expand...
I think people should have empathy for everyone. It's a great trait to have. I just noticed that he picked out a bunch of groups that are considered downtrodden. If he really meant everyone, he didn't make that very clear and he managed to confuse plenty of intelligent people. Maybe he was just tired from campaigning. It happens.
 
darkdog,

Could you include the name of the person you are quoting? (See post #40) This would make it easier to know who you are responding to. Thanks!
 
I think Bill Maher said it best:

"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."
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom from Bill Maher :giggle:

Not said by the Republican party, for those who missed it.


A justice is seated to do one thing
"Hear cases and apply the US Constiutution and US Laws"
not foreign laws or courts, not emotional empathies, not personal biases.
 
ASLGAL said:
A justice is seated to do one thing
"Hear cases and apply the US Constiutution and US Laws"
not foreign laws or courts, not emotional empathies, not personal biases.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to separate any degree of empathy a Supreme Court Justice feels (if any) from the job at hand. As has already been stated, one does not necessarily exclude the other.
 
ASLGAL said:
Words of wisdom from Bill Maher :giggle:

Not said by the Republican party, for those who missed it.
Click to expand...

It also wasn't said by the Democratic party. Those words were said by an individual. Your point?
 
netrox said:
oh wait.. we don't even know who Obama will nominate! I think Bill Maher said it best:

"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."
Click to expand...
Which Republicans said that, when and where?
 
Geeze! Here we go again. It truly amazes me how some people find a way to bringRoe V Wade into every single discussion.:roll:

Back on topic, here.
 
jillio said:
Geeze! Here we go again. It truly amazes me how some people find a way to bringRoe V Wade into every single discussion.:roll:

Back on topic, here.
Click to expand...
I don't want to discuss Roe v. Wade. That just happened to be the link that provided the quotation. Since you insist, and it is an AD rule, that we provide sources, I did so.

Can we just focus on the quotation itself?

"As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun said, 'Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.'"
 
Reba said:
I don't want to discuss Roe v. Wade. That just happened to be the link that provided the quotation. Since you insist, and it is an AD rule, that we provide sources, I did so.

Can we just focus on the quotation itself?

"As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun said, 'Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.'"
Click to expand...

You couldn't find any other quote from a Supreme Court Justice that didn't include a reference to Roe v Wade?
 
jillio said:
You couldn't find any other quote from a Supreme Court Justice that didn't include a reference to Roe v Wade?
Click to expand...
Take it up with Justice Blackmun.
 
darkdog said:
Your exact quote:

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.
Click to expand...

And my statement stands. Never denied saying that. What I denied saying was your many and numerous attempted interpretations of what I was saying.
Overturning a law is not inherently fair nor unfair. And laws are rarely overturned. The way the law was applied is what gets overturned, and that is based on legalities, not a sense of fairness.
 
darkdog said:
I think people should have empathy for everyone. It's a great trait to have. I just noticed that he picked out a bunch of groups that are considered downtrodden. If he really meant everyone, he didn't make that very clear and he managed to confuse plenty of intelligent people. Maybe he was just tired from campaigning. It happens.
Click to expand...

It was clear to me. What examples would you have used? The privileged caucasion, 2 parent home, wealthy CEO?

If you think people should have empathy for everyone, exactly why is it you are having such a fit over a Supreme Court Justice having empathy?
 
jillio said:
And my statement stands. Never denied saying that. What I denied saying was your many and numerous attempted interpretations of what I was saying.
Click to expand...
Darkdog's "many and numerous attempted interpretations" of what jillio was saying:

1. "...a judge should overturn a law he deems unfair..."

The end

Just to be extra clear, I was applying your standard to a type of decision justices do face- judicial review. That's a reasonable conclusion. Actually, it's the only reasonable conclusion, unless I'm somehow supposed to infer that you meant judges should never make a decision she or he believes to be unfair except when it comes to judicial review.

jillio said:
The way the law was applied is what gets overturned...
Click to expand...
But then you don't seem aware of judicial review. Maybe that's causing this misunderstanding. Some of the biggest cases in American history involved the Supreme Court striking down laws entirely. Not just saying "you can't apply the law this way" but saying "this law is void and you cannot enforce it and you cannot write new ones that do what this one does."

So let me figure out what your position is. The Supreme Court justice now has to decide whether to overturn or uphold a law that is constitutional but, in her view, unfair. She has two options:

a. Say something like "I think this law is uncommonly silly and I would vote against it if I were in the legislature, but I believe it's constitutional, so I vote to uphold it."

b. Play verbal judo and twist the meaning of the constitution and/or the law itself to justify overturning it on constitutional grounds.

Which would you prefer she do?
 
jillio said:
It was clear to me. What examples would you have used? The privileged caucasion, 2 parent home, wealthy CEO?
Click to expand...
By your logic, if those were the examples a politician used, I should take that to mean everyone. Would you really be buying it if I were sitting here saying "No, clearly he meant everyone. Any intelligent person can see that"? If you're saying no, then you can see where I'm coming from. If you're saying yes, then I guess you're an elitist.

If he wanted to make it clear he meant everyone, he could have said something like "the empathy to recognize the difficulties all Americans face- old and young, black, brown, and white, gay and straight, single parents and married parents."

jillio said:
If you think people should have empathy for everyone, exactly why is it you are having such a fit over a Supreme Court Justice having empathy?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of good qualities one should have. That doesn't mean they should all be mentioned specifically as criteria for a Supreme Court justice. "When I pick a Supreme Court candidate, I want someone that is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a cannibal. I will have no cannibals on my court!" I know that sounds crazy, but it's not too different from saying "I want someone who is smart, knows the law, and definitely is not a sociopath. The Supreme Court has no room for sociopaths!" As you said, a person without empathy is a sociopath.

So why am I concerned he would pick this one positive trait to emphasize? Because it could mean two things. It could mean that he wants a justice who will bias her decisions towards the downtrodden groups he mentioned. That would not be blind justice. The other is that he wants someone who will be able to see how the ramifications of his decisions affect various groups and factor that into his decision making. That is outside the judge's role in interpreting the law. That's the job of the legislature.

That and the fact that he said the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" leaves me with little hope that we won't get a judicial legislator.
 
It also wasn't said by the Democratic party. Those words were said by an individual. Your point?
Click to expand...

I didn't have to make a point Hear Again, it was immediately made by all who grabbed the quote and started Republican bashing by assuming it was a Republican quoted and running with the barbs and gigs - :giggle:

Again, I do not care which political party a justice is chosen from as long as they can adhere to what their job is, and that is:
A justice is seated to do one thing
"Hear cases and apply the US Constiutution and US Laws"
not foreign laws or courts, not emotional empathies, not personal biases, not political biases.
 
jillio said:
He didn't post the link containing a reference to Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...
No, he made the statement as part of the decision of that case. It pertains to how justices are supposed to make their decisions for all cases. So?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top