Comments (13) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   tracht47 said, 6 months ago

   Must be Limbaugh and Cheney.

2. 

   danielsangeo said, 6 months ago

   “Yes, let’s let our feelings dictate what is justice instead of facts.”

   ….when are you going to decide to join what could possibly be the begining of an approach the concepts of a rational thought?

   Can you please show me whom is suggesting that we should let “feelings dictate what is justice instead of facts”?

3. 

   Simon_Jester said, 6 months ago

   And Stewie can say that coz he never bases his posts on his feelings rather than the facts.

   Wellllll, not more than five times per hour anyway.

4. 

   TheGreatSatan said, 6 months ago

   The law isn’t supposed to be followed by how you FEEL it should be or what you think is FAIR to some group of people. It’s supposed to be followed BLINDLY without any deviations just because a loud vocal group of people want it to be otherwise. If you change the law’s interpretation case by case you no longer have order.

   I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than this tripe.

5. 

   danielsangeo said, 6 months ago

   “The law isn’t supposed to be followed by how you FEEL it should be or what you think is FAIR to some group of people. It’s supposed to be followed BLINDLY without any deviations just because a loud vocal group of people want it to be otherwise. If you change the law’s interpretation case by case you no longer have order.

   I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than this tripe.”

   So, you admit that you don’t know what a judicial system is. It isn’t about BLINDLY following abstract legal theory, keeping one’s eyes closed to any possible extenuating circumstance. Only extremely poor judges say “The law says this, so there’s nothing you can do about it.”

   Excellent judges look at the law and interpret what that law means.

   I know the right LOVES to jump on words, take them out of context, distort their meaning and then attack that distortion, and that’s all that’s happening here. Obama is NOT looking for someone who simply ‘feels’ for the persons in the courtroom, and I think those on the right know that. They just want a chance to bloviate, finger point and say, “See? Obama don’t know what he’s doing!”

   Bull.

   “Empathy” is about knowing how the real world is and how the law interrelates with it.

   Without this “empathy” that the right is deriding, then the judges are simply robots and they are no longer a check and balance.

   …which is probably what they want.

6. 

   churchillwasright said, 6 months ago

   The SCOTUS is not there to show empathy one way or another; they should be deciding whether the law was applied equally, and if it is constitutional. If the law isn’t “touchy-feely” enough, it is CONGRESS’S job to rewrite it, not the supreme court.

7. 

   motivemagus said, 6 months ago

   Can I ask just what the heck is wrong with empathy? This is NOT, repeat NOT making decisions based on how you feel. That would be sympathy, not empathy.
   Being aware of the impact of your decisions on human beings and fellow Americans is empathy. Had the Supreme Court had this in the past, we might have squelched slavery much sooner, to take but one example.
   As danielsangeo rightly points out, the job of a judge is to interpret. Otherwise we wouldn’t need judges. Duh! How they interpret is exceedingly important. Empathy is one trait that is invariably found among great leaders - why shouldn’t the Supreme Court have it?

8. 

   lalas said, 6 months ago

   MM – great way to prove that the wingnuts here understand neither.

9. 

   TheGreatSatan said, 6 months ago

   Unfortunately for all of you, empathy is not something a judge should have when applying the law to a case. There is a reason that statue of justice has a blindfold on it afterall.

   This is a slippery slope. Once you start trying to see how the person feels and why they feel that way, then you’ll be basing justice on the group the person belongs too, not the individual.

   What’s to stop a judge feeling “empathy” for a minority in a robbery case? He could very well say that since the minority is oppressed or feels like he is oppressed he could never afford the things he stole and therefore we shouldn’t be too hard on him. If you think that’s too far fetched then explain why Obama said the following:

   “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

   Does the law change for you if you are gay? black? old? Absolutely not, if you break the law you should be punished no matter who you are. There should be no special consideration for race, gender, or sexual orientation because anything else would be INJUSTICE for people not of those groups.

10. 

    fennec said, 6 months ago

    Errmm…TGS, that’s why we have the concept of extenuating circumstances, which basically requires empathy. (Please note MM’s excellent definitions of empathy vs. sympathy.) It allows for understanding of variable circumstances that cannot be covered completely in any law code.

11. 

    TheGreatSatan said, 6 months ago

    I read his definition of what empathy is versus sympathy and my point still stands. If you have empathy for a person because he belongs to a certain group then eventually they get special treatment.

    That is neither just nor fair. That is not what our constitution says.

12. 

    motivemagus said, 6 months ago

    TGS - you misunderstood me. I did not say empathy for a group, though I can see where you might interpret that from my reference to the Supreme Court. Understanding how a decision affects individuals – all individuals – is an act of empathy, too.
    You’re pushing for absolute morality by “blind” following of the law, but you cannot legislate morality, and laws are not the same as morals. Furthermore, a great deal of law is grappling with overlapping issues. I remember taking the LSAT, and much of it was providing two laws and a situation, and deciding if one or both laws applied, and did one apply more than another. When all else is equal – and it often is – empathy makes sense.

13. 

    TheGreatSatan said, 6 months ago

    “TGS - you misunderstood me. I did not say empathy for a group, though I can see where you might interpret that from my reference to the Supreme Court. Understanding how a decision affects individuals – all individuals – is an act of empathy, too”

    I didn’t misunderstand you as much as you have misunderstood Obama. He clearly states that judges should have empathy for people of minority status. That cannot mean anything else other than ruling differently because a person is of one of those groups. READ his words, it’s all right there.

    That is not justice it’s preference. This NEW idea that the law has to be ruled by empathy instead of equality is a spit in the face of the founding fathers who fought and died for the exact opposite.