world

Obama: New Justice will combine 'empathy and understanding'

54 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

"empathy and understanding" - in other words, a justice that will toe the line of the political left and ignore those pesky words in the Constitution and the law books. At least Souter's retirement won't turn the court to the Left much more than it is now - he evolved into a typical down the line liberal judge. Whoever Obama nominates, you can expect that person to care more about the law in Europe than the Constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the enlightened right want a reality-challenged justice who cold-hearted and out of touch?

Well, no real surprise there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A lovely gift for Obama from a Supreme. His first Court pick! Could we be looking at Justice William Jefferson Clinton?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dems turn to have their nominee Borked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"he will seek left-wing judicial activists"

I hope not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: ""empathy and understanding" - in other words, a justice that will toe the line of the political left and ignore those pesky words in the Constitution and the law books."

You mean like GWB when he called the constitution something like a 'worn out piece of paper'? I doubt anyone could possibly trample on as many rights as your last president and his party, so don't worry your pretty little head about this incoming judge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Souter, 69, was named to the court in 1990 by the first President Bush, a Republican. But on abortion as well as other issues, the New Hampshire native quickly proved himself to be less than the strong conservative the GOP had expected....As word of Souter’s retirement spread, conservative groups seemed to be laying the groundwork for a fight.

If Obama's choice is to be castigated by one poster for not following the "pesky words" of the constitution, it strikes me as very strange how a response mentioning the words of Article 1, Section 2 (to wit, "three fifths" of anyone who is not a "free person") of that very same constitution needs to be removed. Words, by the way, which reveal how deeply flawed and incomplete the document has been from its very inception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you name even one instance during the Bush era when someone had their civil rights denied them?

No, you can't.

I can.

"Due Process of the Law" - Guantanamo Bay

Plus some sketchy instances:

Valery Plame

Firing of attorneys

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Compassionate liberalism? But compassionate conservatism was doing soooo well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Due Process of the Law" - Guantanamo Bay

Sorry, I know "progressives" disagree but the Bill of Rights does not apply to non-uniformed foreign combatants captured on a battlefiled.

Valery Plame

She has filed suit after suit. It's her party in power now and still no sign of 'victory'. But she was useful to "liberals" for a while there.

Firing of attorneys

Happens in every administration.

Try again?

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He could always just nominate a hispanic woman and keep both groups happy.

Or, God forbid, he could pick the best person for the job regardless (gasp) of gender orethncity. That would be more in line with his rhetoric about there being only a UNITED States of America...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would find nothing more amusing then to have Obama appoint someone with all the proper cred, who then turned out to be a closet conservative, the same way Souter was a closet liberal. That would be such irony.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DS

His first Court pick! Could we be looking at Justice William Jefferson Clinton?

The Supreme Court suspended former President Clinton for five years from the Arkansas State Bar back in 2001 and I don't believe he's ever sought reinstatement. I don't believe he's joined any other state bar either. I'm not a legal expert by any means but I don't think he's elligible. Anyone know for sure?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shouldn't we find out who it's going to be before forming an opinion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib- You mean wait until the facts are all out there and THEN form an informed opinion? Blasphemy I say! We all know Obama is evil and everything he does tainted. OK, sarcasm off. Your head asplode!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Shouldn't we find out who it's going to be before forming an opinion?"

Don't be silly, there's two radical agenda's to push on JT.... :D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"empathy and understanding" is a euphemism for "political activist". Wait and see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't believe he's joined any other state bar either. I'm not a legal expert by any means but I don't think he's elligible. Anyone know for sure?

Article 3 of the constitution makes no provisions for the requirements of a supreme court justice. They are not even required to be citizens of the US (as opposed to Congressmen and the President/Vice-President). Bill Clinton is therefore eligible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would find nothing more amusing then to have Obama appoint someone with all the proper cred, who then turned out to be a closet conservative, the same way Souter was a closet liberal.

Highly unlikely. As Souter has proven, it is far easier for ignorant people to overlook intelligence than it is for intelligent people to overlook ignorance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

Highly unlikely. As Souter has proven, it is far easier for ignorant people to overlook intelligence than it is for intelligent people to overlook ignorance.

And as I posted on the other Souter thread, Souter has proven that power corrupts.

Remember? You tried to claim he had "independence", when the truth is that he slid to the left during his time among The Nine.

DS:

Or, God forbid, he could pick the best person for the job regardless (gasp) of gender or ethncity. That would be more in line with his rhetoric about there being only a UNITED States of America...

Ah, but he's already dismissed many of his own previous promises as "campaign rhetoric". Besides, the racists (those who count, pick and judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character) must have their superficial sense of diversity satisfied, and they're in charge now.

Actually, the only thing guaranteed is that the nominee will follow the pattern Obama set when he sought out friends, associates and pastors during his life: America blamers from the far-left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You tried to claim [Souter] had "independence", when the truth is that he slid to the left during his time among The Nine.

I guess that means that a justice will need to vote with Thomas and Scalia better than 90% of the time to be considered an "independent" by a hard-line conservative.

Also, conservatives seem to be proud of the fact of being able to cite no examples when Scalia or Thomas ever acted with empathy or understanding. A judge without those qualities is about as far away from Solomon the wise as one can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits

Okay, he's elligible alright only because as you said there are no written requirements for elligibility. I did however look through the list of current and previous supreme court justices and couldn't find any in recent history who wasn't practicing or serving as a judge at the time of nomination. I actually would love to see Clinton nominated though just so the Senate Judiciary Committee can chew him up and spit him out at his confirmation hearings. He may have been a former president but he's damaged goods; it'll be a cold day in hell when the Senate confirms an individual that was previously impeached AND whose license to practice law was suspended by no other than the Supreme Court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan2:

Yes, there are no justices in recent history who weren't judges at the time of appointment. Farther back, there have been those who weren't judges but, for example, law professors.

I don't think Bill Clinton would ever be seriously considered for the position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

I guess that means that a justice will need to vote with Thomas and Scalia better than 90% of the time to be considered an "independent" by a hard-line conservative.

No, but you have an interesting definition for "independence". It's obvious he changed while on the S.C.

Also, conservatives seem to be proud of the fact of being able to cite no examples when Scalia or Thomas ever acted with empathy or understanding. A judge without those qualities is about as far away from Solomon the wise as one can get.

Sorry, I didn't realize those were required qualifications for the S.C. Unless Obama meant understanding of the law. Then yes, understanding is an important qualification for a member of the highest court in the land. And there are plenty of examples of Scalia and Thomas demonstrating an understanding of the law.

By "empathy", did Obama mean "pity"? That's what leftists usually mean when they say empathy and sympathy, just as they usually mean "acceptance" when they say "tolerance". Do you think Obama wants a S.C. justice who is empathatic of someone like Heller, in Heller v DC, who just wants to protect his home as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? Going by behavioral patterns, I suspect Obama wants a S.C. justice who is more empathatic of the person who wants to break into Heller's home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, but you have an interesting definition for "independence". It's obvious [Souter] changed while on the S.C.

Yes, it's called "learning and growing." I understand why conservatives are so opposed to that. When Souter was appointed, he was then the sitting Attorney General for the very independently-minded state of New "Live-Free-or-Die" Hampshire. He was sold to Republicans as a slam-dunk conservative -- in short, someone who would always adhere to the party ideology. Ah, but learning and growing are always a threat to that mindset.

Empathy and understanding are not required qualifications for the SC. It is just so interesting to me that conservatives appear to be particularly proud of misguided mercilessness. Lord knows we seen so much of it from them.

And there are plenty of examples of Scalia and Thomas demonstrating an understanding of the law.

That is just an opinion, and one that many will totally disagree with. The law has a letter, and a spirit which underlies the letter. (A spirit that can't be fully grasped by trying to muddle through the minds of men long dead, and who are no longer around to debate the fine points.) A saying that has stuck with me over the years goes as follows: "There are two types of people who never contribute much of anything good: Those who can't follow directions and those who can do nothing else." Scalia and Thomas fall into the latter category. They may produce an academic understanding of some aspects of the law, just as the scribes and Pharisees did, but they miss the entire boat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He was sold to Republicans as a slam-dunk conservative -- in short, someone who would always adhere to the party ideology.

Believe it or not, theres a difference between conservative, and party ideology. He was sold as a conservative, not a party line idealogue. If he had been the latter, he would never have been appointed, much less confirmed. A conservative though, someone who adheres to, and uses the constitution as the basis for law, now that person would have been confirmed. Despite Teddy Kennedys avowed opposition. The funny thing is, if Scalia had been nominated before Bork, both would have been on the bench, and the court would be much more conservative. Scalia as the first Italian-American Justice couldn't have been stopped. D'amato wouldn't have permitted it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If he had been the latter, he would never have been appointed, much less confirmed.

Therein lies the conceit of both conservatives and Democrats who fancy themselves as liberals.

In Souter's case, then-Senator Rudman's endorsements of him put the risks all on the Democrat's side. Indeed, in his first few years, Souter voted with hardline conservatives on the Court more than 80% of the time.

At first glance, no Democrat could have hoped or predicted that Souter would have come so far against the tide that swept him to the highest court in the land. On the other hand, there is always hope that someone will gain enough intelligence and wisdom to see through the gross error of hardline conservatism. It happened to Barry Goldwater, and it certainly happened with David Souter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Souter's case, then-Senator Rudman's endorsements of him put the risks all on the Democrat's side. Indeed, in his first few years, Souter voted with hardline conservatives on the Court more than 80% of the time.

Er, where did you find that statistic, because I can pretty much say for certainty, its not true. Though Souters positions have changed over time, from the very beginning, he was quite obviously a liberal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Er, where did you find that statistic, because I can pretty much say for certainty, its not true.

The problem with your certainty is that you obviously have not done any research to support it.

Go back and look at the Supreme Court decisions from 1990-1993 -- Souter's first years on the court. By mid-1992, Souter had racked up enough decisions to put him squarely on the center-conservative side of a conservative Court. This is prior to the Clinton appointees of Breyer and Ginsberg.

As the supporting link will show, Souter came out on the majority side in 100 out of 108 decisions. He dissented with the most conservative members (Thomas and Rehnquist) around 20 times and dissented with the most liberal members (Blackmun and Stevens) over 30 times.

I fully understand that agreeing with conservatives on more issues than he did with liberals means that Souter is on the far left ("obviously a liberal") according to conservative diatribe, but there you have it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/03/news/souter-anchoring-the-court-s-new-center.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What that article was saying, was that he agreed with the majority in most of the cases. 8 dissents. Compared to Justice Thomas 23 dissents. Note the difference here. Back when the court was much more liberal, he agreed with it most of the time. You call this moderate? You suggest he was conservative? I would beg to differ. To me it in fact suggests the opposite. Early on he agreed most with O'Conner and Kennedy. While you are right that it was later he began moving to the left, even early on you could tell he was a lib, not a moderate or conservative. And far from the strict constructionist he claimed to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What that article was saying, was that he agreed with the majority in most of the cases. 8 dissents.

Yes, a majority that consisted of: White, a JFK appointee; Stevens, a Ford (R) appointee; Blackmun, a Nixon (R) appointee; Rehnquist, another Nixon appointee; O'Connor, a Reagan appointee; Scalia, a Reagan appointee; Kennedy, a Reagan appointee; and finally Thomas, a Bush appointee who joined the Court in 1991 to replace Thurgood Marshall.

Nevertheless, in the first three years, Souter dissented with those considered the "liberal" members of the Court more than he did the conservatives. With all those Republican appointees, that is saying a lot.

And far from the strict constructionist he claimed to be.

LOL!! Souter never claimed to be a strict constructionist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

Yes, it's called "learning and growing." I understand why conservatives are so opposed to that.

We're not opposed to learning and growing. But we don't define it as being manipulated by totalitarian college professors, as you basically did on another thread.

Learning and growing are things people do while they're young. Especially in that time after they leave college and get a job in the private sector for the first time, and realize why their socialist professors never leave the protective bubble of their campuses. Learning and growing is not what happens when a middle-aged person comes into great power, such as a national political office and a Supreme Court seat. That's called corruption.

Souter didn't learn anything, other than he had power without accountability. He certain forgot about the rights of property owners when the chance to increase tax bases came up.

That is just an opinion, and one that many will totally disagree with.

But what you post is pure, indisputable fact? I bet you have no trouble convincing yourself.

Say, got any examples of Scalia and Thmoas's "misguided mercilessness"? Care to address my questions about empathy and the right of Americans to defend themselves? Or do you wish to just keep slinging your baseless attacks on conservatives?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Learning and growing are things people do while they're young.

Yes, learning and growing appears to stop for conservatives when they reach the age of 12 or 13.

Souter didn't learn anything

Spoken by someone who admits to having stopped learning years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, learning and growing appears to stop for conservatives when they reach the age of 12 or 13.

Spoken by someone who admits to having stopped learning years ago.

So you can't address my questions, and are just going to rely on personal attacks for your base of arguments. Fine. I don't have to live with you, you do.

I never stopped learning, I just started out with a good base of common sense. That's how I can present arguments that "educated" folks with inflated egos but no substance can't address.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Learning and growing are things people do while they're young.

The day you stop learning and growing is the day you start to die. 'I have nothing more to learn' is nothing to brag about; it's an admission of atrophy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! Souter never claimed to be a strict constructionist.

You're right. He never came out and claimed this position, however the responses he gave to the Senate in his confirmation hearings indicated that this was indeed his position. Seriously, go back and look it up. Regarding those serving on the Bench at the time. There is no reason to point out who appointed whom. The most liberal members of the court at the time were people appointed by Republicans, not Dems. It wasn't until Bork that the SC became such a polarized issue.

Yes, learning and growing appears to stop for conservatives when they reach the age of 12 or 13.

Actually the opposite of that is normally true. Many conservatives were once liberals. Then they got out of college and started working, and were confronted with reality, and made some discoveries about themselves and the world and their viewpoints changed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Say, got any examples of Scalia and Thmoas's "misguided mercilessness"?

Since misguided merciless is the opposite to empathy and understanding, it relates to the topic. I would invite you to examine any of the SCOTUS decisions with 7-2 margins where Thomas and Scalia are the dissenters -- their views often go beyond the pale of staunch conservatives like Rehnquist, Alito and Roberts. One such decision is given in the following link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/21/opinion/courtwatch/main3958407.shtml

Care to address my questions about empathy and the right of Americans to defend themselves?... Going by behavioral patterns, I suspect Obama wants a S.C. justice who is more empathatic of the person who wants to break into Heller's home.

I do not see how this pertains to the topic. What you appear to want to do is to define "empathy" according to your own narrow terms, via a gun control issue. This is disingenuous. Nobody would deny a person's right to defend themselves if their life is truly being threatened. But since breaking and entering is not a crime that warrants the death penalty, I also believe that a society based on understanding and wisdom would want to be careful about allowing a citizen to act as judge, jury and executioner solely to protect personal property.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many conservatives were once liberals. Then they got out of college and started working, and were confronted with reality, and made some discoveries about themselves and the world and their viewpoints changed.

Yes, it takes a great deal of guts and wisdom to face reality with empathy and understanding. Especially when much of the reality we confront is the result of so much mindless self-centeredness. And so, some decide to take the fork in the road where they harden themselves, which only ends up feeding the beast.

Souter's words at his confirmation are worth recalling: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right."

Note that his first worry is about the life of human beings, and not some arrogant attempt to believe he is channeling the mind of a founding father in interpreting the law. President Obama would do very well to find another David Souter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

I do not see how this pertains to the topic. What you appear to want to do is to define "empathy" according to your own narrow terms, via a gun control issue. This is disingenuous.

Says the person who brought up inventions and developments by private sector companies in other countries.

Nobody would deny a person's right to defend themselves if their life is truly being threatened.

Actually, the governments of Washington D.C. and Chicago do exactly that.

But since breaking and entering is not a crime that warrants the death penalty, I also believe that a society based on understanding and wisdom would want to be careful about allowing a citizen to act as judge, jury and executioner solely to protect personal property.

Since the citizen in that situation does not have the luxury of an investigation and thorough trial before deciding the proper level of self-defense, yes, the citizen has the right to assume the worst and defend themselves accordingly. Especially since someone broke into their home while they were there.

It's not just home defense either. If someone sneaks up behind someone else in a grocery store parking lot and puts a strap around their neck, the person being attacked doesn't have the luxury of sorting out what the attacker wants before they run out of air. That scenario happened to me several years ago, and I escaped with my wallet, car, groceries and life because I was armed. And like the vast majority of the 70,000+ similar incidents that happen every year in America, I didn't have to fire my gun. Just dropped my groceries and pulled it out of the holster and stuck it in the attacker's ribs. He dropped his strap and took off running.

It's not just robberies either. Many owners and carriers of guns are women. Especially vital are those who are going through a nasty divorce and have a restraining order against their estranged husband. Those R.O.'s can't work, and are often ignored. The police can't protect them. The gun control advocates never take those women into consideration, never have empathy for them. Their hoplophobia is more important to them than the rights of those women, or anyone else in danger.

So you see, gun control may seem a "narrow" issue to you, but it was one of the vital issues to the Founding Fathers. It is, after all, the 2nd Amendment, not the 58th. It is also a vital issue to American citizens. Will Obama's nominee have empathy for the citizen who wants to keep the life and property they've worked for, or will they have empathy for the person who wants to take it away? As I said before, the pattern of behavior for a far-leftist like Obama and those who whisper in his ear does not bode well for the law-abiding citizen.

Remember Stevens' dissent on Heller? For all his education, he couldn't wrap his mind around the long-ago established fact that the Founding Fathers wanted American citizens to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical goverment.

"Narrow" issue? Hardly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Says the person who brought up inventions and developments by private sector companies in other countries.

My memory must be failing me. In regards to this topic, I do recall bringing up and endorsing the worthy idea of looking to and learning from legal proceedings of the other advanced democracies.

You see, gun control may seem a "narrow" issue to you, but it was one of the vital issues to the Founding Fathers.

I didn't say it was a narrow issue. I said that applying it to empathy tends to narrow what empathy is all about.

Conservatives, it seems, always want to take what appears to be the easy an dirty way out of things. "Just lower taxes and everything else will work itself out." "Just arm everyone and give them the right of carrying out deadly force against others, according to their own judgment of a situation, and things will be much better."

The job of building a decent society is much tougher than that. Judges with the qualities of empathy and understanding know this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Learning and growing are things people do while they're young

then we can expect nothing more from you than this mister whitehawk? all is clear now. prune your buds, trim your mind

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Conservatives, it seems, always want to take what appears to be the easy an dirty way out of things. "Just lower taxes and everything else will work itself out."

Ah, the real difference between conservatives and liberals tends to be one of pragmatism. Liberals see a person suffering, and want to act to relieve that suffering. Conservatives look at that person suffering and say, ya know, maybe they're suffering for a reason, and even if they aren't, how are we going to pay for the help they need to end their suffering? Somehow this pragmatism is considered by folks like yabits as evil. Its not. Conservatives don't mind helping others. We have just as much empathy for people as anyone. We just realize that there are limited resources, and that someone has to pay for it. Who is harmed by relieving their suffering? When one person is given something, another person is denied it.

Thats the primary difference between conservative empathy and liberal empathy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits.....

Why not judges who follow the Constitution? If you don't like the Constitution, then get enough people in enough states to amend it rather than leave it to the whims of activist judges. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of an issue, not the fairness of it. But, if you are determined to maintain your POV, remember that it can work both ways when conservatives get their opportunity to control government again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liberals see a person suffering, and want to act to relieve that suffering. Conservatives look at that person suffering and say, ya know, maybe they're suffering for a reason, and even if they aren't, how are we going to pay for the help they need to end their suffering?

The scenario the Molenir is accurately describing takes empathy and understanding back at least 2,000 years to Christ's story of the Good Samaritan. Those who passed by the person in dire need at the side of the road stopped and tried to figure out how much it would cost them to help the person out, as well as rationalizing (without knowing the facts) as to how that person came to be in that condition. The good Samaritan simply took direct action to do the right thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not judges who follow the Constitution?

Because wisdom, empathy, and understanding does not originate with the Constitution. The founding fathers did not spend a lot of time quibbling over "Locke said this," or "Voltaire says that." In essense, because they didn't have a constitution with "original intent" to force upon themselves, their minds were free to reach their own conclusions.

The Court's worst decisions -- Plessy, Korematsu, et. al. -- have come about as a result of where "constitutionality" trumped basic understanding.

As to conservatives stiking back once again: Yes, ignorance does spring eternal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Court's worst decisions -- Plessy, Korematsu, et. al. -- have come about as a result of where "constitutionality" trumped basic understanding.

Uh, yeah. But one of the examples you mention (Korematsu) "came about" in response to the executive decision made by the "Liberal" hero FDR.

Plessy's case was taken up during the presidency of the Democrat Grover Cleveland...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The scenario the Molenir is accurately describing takes empathy and understanding back at least 2,000 years to Christ's story of the Good Samaritan.

Oh so now you're ok with Christianity and religion? In the other thread you were just condemning Catholics as hypocrites. That said, what christ gave was a parable, and quite frankly the 2 simply don't apply. Rendering immediate emergency aid is different then say, paying for housing for a family thats out of work. No one doubts that the family needs aid, but the question is, is it the governments role to provide that aid, and who ultimately pays for it. And finally if you give them aid, are you creating a cycle and a culture of dependency? These are all questions that conservatives ask, which libs prefer to ignore.

People act on a microeconomic scale, government should be acting on a macroeconomic scale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

My memory must be failing me. In regards to this topic

Same topic, just on the other Souter thread. You suggested that the matter wasn't importing laws, but ideas. But Ginsberg has indeed suggested using laws from other countries as precedent, and Souter has expressed his agreement with her.

I didn't say it was a narrow issue. I said that applying it to empathy tends to narrow what empathy is all about.

It's an example of empathy those on the left (like yourself) never consider. You want to limit what empathy "is all about", and I've pulled you out of your bubble and expanded your mind.

You think empathy is all about feeling pity for your perceived "underdog". You only think of empathy in the terms of "social justice", but never in the terms of true justice. And that's where a real judge comes in. It's not the place for a left-wing activist overflowing with pity and guilt.

You're attempting to redefine empathy and place it out of the reach of conservatives, pushing a myth that is based on nothing more than the prejudice of the leftist mindset. If you're going to debate the merits of empathy in a S.C. justice, you should start from a base of genuine knowledge, not blind hatred.

Conservatives, it seems, always want to take what appears to be the easy an dirty way out of things. "Just lower taxes and everything else will work itself out." "Just arm everyone and give them the right of carrying out deadly force against others, according to their own judgment of a situation, and things will be much better."

Nobody, not even the most right-wing extremist on the DHS watch list (and it's not me; I checked) would suggest "arming everyone" whether they want to or not. But even the most moderate leftist/liberal/Democrat is in favor of increasing gun control. If allowing people to arm themselves for self-defense is "the easy and dirty way out", what's your way? Removing guns from criminals? America already has the laws to do that. But even if the money needed to enforce these laws was made available (instead of being spent on buying votes), it would still be impossible. It's impossible in every country on the planet.

A judge worthy of the S.C. bench would have a proper understanding of the real world and know where his empathy would be appropriate. As I said before, I don't expect Obama to pick someone up to the job, but rather an agenda-driven activist, overflowing with their definition of empathy and understanding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But one of the examples you mention (Korematsu) "came about" in response to the executive decision made by the "Liberal" hero FDR.

Oh, no question about it. There are plenty of Republican fingerprints on that decision, as well the Plessy one. Most of the judges involved in the case were Republican appointees, and the key influencer was the Republican governor of California and 1948 Republican VP nominee, Earl Warren.

As for Plessy, only 7 out of the 9 sitting justices in the case were appointed by a Democrat -- and very conservative one at that. The rest were Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction on my previous post: Only 2 of the 9 justices in the Plessy case were Democratic appointees. the rest were Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You suggested that the matter wasn't importing laws, but ideas. But Ginsberg has indeed suggested using laws from other countries as precedent, and Souter has expressed his agreement with her.

Yes, if someone reads a legal opinion from a case in another democratic society and finds that it has merit, I see no problem in citing it in the formation of an opinion here. Ideas transcend boundaries. Our own constitution can point to many foreign sources as influences.

You think empathy is all about feeling pity for your perceived "underdog". You only think of empathy in the terms of "social justice", but never in the terms of true justice.

I don't have the arrogance to presume what "true justice" is. Only that the attempt to understand and act with empathy can point us in that direction. The problem with many conservatives is that they think they know what is best for everyone. I make no such claim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As to conservatives stiking back once again: Yes, ignorance does spring eternal.

Quite the liberal wit, aren't you? I think you should hope they do or your liberal agenda will be short by a few trillion dollars. How long do you think free-minded capitalism will support the "New" America? Perhaps Obama should hurry up and close the borders before too much money and talent flees his infant Utopia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps Obama should hurry up and close the borders before too much money and talent flees his infant Utopia.

Fleeing to where? Iceland? Russia? "Old" Europe? Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Question, everywhere else is the same way, trying and of course failing to create that so-called utopia. Canada with its and England with their failing health care system that Obama wants so desperately to implement here. Taxes that are through the roof. Unfortunately, there isn't really anywhere to go to escape this kind of crap. Everywhere else is either a horrible country, IE Russia and China, or has a horrible economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites