May 5, 2009

"Deciphering Obama’s Supreme Court 'empathy' remark..."

"... Does the next justice have to be a woman?... The sex offender case that may trip up a frontrunner ... Ann to Obama: Appoint a strong liberal!... Is Obama trying to wriggle out of closing Gitmo?... Emily announces Double X, a women’s site that’s for men, too."

It's the new Bloggingheads, with me and Slate's Emily Bazelon.

84 comments:

Diamondhead said...

Sure, he should nominate an ideological fellow traveller. By nominating a hard-core leftist, though, he runs the risks of exposing his centrism as a delicately constructed fraud.

EDH said...

Doesn't empathy imply a predilection toward a form of prejudicial bias in favor of one party before the court based upon the justice's own self-identification?

At what point does "empathy" merit recusal?

Pogo said...

What we need, what we have always needed, is a deeply feeling Supreme Court justice who feels things deeply.

Sofa King said...

Perhaps this should be the theme song for the nomination process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHnZS8mAKGM

Bissage said...

The world is a funny, funny place.

For example, if you do a Google image search for “empathic breasts,” you get this, this and this.

Far out!

Bissage said...

P.S. Nice hair band!1!!!1!!!!

rhhardin said...

I'd settle for a Supreme Court justice with an intuition for consequences.

rhhardin said...

The feelings express happiness, make one smile. Analysis of the feelings expresses happiness, all personality aside; makes one smile. The former uplift the soul, dependent upon space, upon duration, up the conception of humanity considered as itself, in its celebrated constituents! The latter uplifts the soul, independently of duration and space, up to the conception of humanity considered in its highest expression, the will! The former are concerned with vices and virtues; the latter only with virtues. Feelings do not know their marching order. The analysis of feelings teaches how to reveal it, increases the strength of the feelings. With the former, all is uncertainty. They are the expression of happiness, grief, two extremes. With the latter, all is certainty. It is the expression of that happiness which results at a given moment from knowing how to restrain oneself in the midst of good or evil passions. It uses its calm to render the description of the passions down to a principle which flows through the pages: the non-existence of evil. The feelings weep when they must, as when they need not. Analysis of the feelings does not weep. It possesses a latent sensibility which catches one off guard, prevails over miseries, teaches how to dispense with a guide, provides a combat weapon. The feelings, sign of weakness, are not feeling! The analysis of feeling, sign of strength, generates the most magnificent feelings I know. The writer who is taken in by feelings must not be placed on a par with the writer who is taken in neither by feelings nor himself. Youth intends sentimental lucubrations. Maturity begins to reason without confusion. He was only feeling, he thinks. He used to let his sensations wander: now he gives them a pilot. If I liken humanity to a woman, I shall not expatiate upon her youth's being on the wane and the approach of her middle-age. Her mind changes for the better. Her ideal of poetry will change. Tragedies, poems, elegies will no longer take precedence. The coolness of the maxim shall prevail!

Lautreamont

rhhardin said...

How about Supreme Court indulgences.

You could finance them out of the Justice Department budget.

Empathy would get a certain amount of money to spend.

Sofa King said...

If you want empathy, you need an empath. The perfect nominee?

Dennis said...

How about Congress just pass a law that when Dems appoint a judge we go to 8A laws requiring types such as in government contracting?

Trooper York said...

You must realize that President Obama won the election fair and square and he is certainly entitled, no he is honor bound to select a nominee who reflects his views.
He should get someone who is comfortable killing a baby even if it survived a botched abortion, someone who believes that any earnings above a subsidence level should be confiscated by the government to be distributed a permanent victim class who grievances exist in perpetuity and can never be ameliorated. Just to be fair you see.

The Republicans should simply have the nominee put his or her views on record and if they so choose vote against them with all the fairness and respect and deference that Senator Chuck Schumer offered to the nominees of the previous Republican Administration.

They can do nothing less. Enjoy.

rhhardin said...

I'd ask for examples of cold legal reasoning - the kind men like to do? - and empathy-containing legal reasoning.

I'm wondering if empathy comes up as a call for making legal reasoning more interesting to women.

Darcy said...

Ok, that was brilliant, Trooper.

traditionalguy said...

"No white men need apply!"has become the new mantra that directs Capt. Obama's ship of state. We better also be sure to become pacifists in this world we once lived in safely thanks to white men willingly sacrificing for their formerly fair and equal Republic.

mariner said...

Bissage:

For example, if you do a Google image search for “empathic breasts,” you get this, this and this.

I don't know how empathic those are, but they sure are nice!

Christy said...

So, the concept of "Justice is Blind" is dead in these enlightened times?

Michael Hasenstab said...

Lawyers are over-represented on the Supreme Court.

Obama should appoint a common citizen who has empathy. A regular guy, maybe, say, a shopkeeper from Brooklyn.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

rhhardin said...

Limbaugh sucks today.

traditionalguy said...

(S)empathy is a code word for a demand to help out people oppressed by laws applying equally to them. Congress has punted on the unpopularity of giving special people superior treatment. After all, what congress person in his/her right mind will risk leaving the DC wealth creator borrowing/taxing machine for his friends and family to help out the victims of equal treatment under the laws. That is the job of appointed philosopher-kings who never stand for elections.

rhhardin said...

Men abstract from situations, omit details, until they can make a decision. If it goes wrong, they unabstract back in what seems to have made it go wrong. They don't unabstract more than they have to.

Women add complexity until it's interesting.

Both have an interest in connectedness to the world, but in the man's case it's not through a model of emotions being the connection of the abstract to the world; it's through an abstraction not working. Fiddling with the level of abstraction is a work of joy for men.

The more abstract you can make it and still have it work, the more certainty get out of it. At last, in this corner of life, something will be decided once and for all!

Then the guy can go on to the next problem.

Empathy is more a woman's explanation of why there's so much detail in her model of the world, and it expects to change case to case. It loves redeciding.

Cedarford said...

traditionalguy said...
"No white men need apply!"has become the new mantra that directs Capt. Obama's ship of state.
.

The funny thing is that "hispanics" like Sotomayor and the blond one out in California, not to mention folks like Bill Richardson or Ken Salazar are as white as "pasty-skinned" Republicans.

The present hysterically incorrect "racial/ethnic" classification system was created by two liberal Jewish lawyers Nixon hired to establish the new rules of the EEO and for limited affirmative action in government contracts. And to establish metrics to track "post-Civil Rights Act progress" in addressing the societal progress of the Negro, other races of Mankind in achieving equal opportunity and also equal opportunities for women.

We all know what happened with their idea of affirmative action. It was used as a tool. Given to the purveyors of identity politics to spread it everywhere, by force, by imposition of official and sly unofficial quotas the courts then thoroughly meddled in. Without The People ever voting on it..


Less commentary has been made on the lawyer's creation of identity politics "categories" - done in complete disregard for anthropological facts or common sense. Despite being schlock science and a complet construct - they became 'facts on the ground' simply because they dovetailed so well with liberal identity politics.

Pacific Islander only covers some Pacific islands. Hawaii, yes, but only for "original stock arriving there 1300 years ago", not other peoples. Australian aborigines, yes. But the orginal stock of the Philippines, Japan, all of Indonesian islands - are excluded as "Asians".
Native Americans were defined as "native peoples" of the US and Canada, except 'Pacific Islander' Aleutians, who are genetically common to other Athabascan populations in Canada, Siberia, and Alaska. Those 100% native Americans or heavily native American in ancestry south of the Border were designated to be hispanics. (Leading to the comical situation of "certified Native Americans" of 95% or more black or white ancestry given the right to casinos, whose toilets are cleaned by "non-native American" hispanics of 100% Mayan blood coming from Guatemala.
But Hispanics from Spain or Portugal now in America are designated as all-white only, "European Americans" for hiring and university selection. But any white who had white ancestors from some family member living in what was once Mexico that was taken over by the US or instantly "hispanicized" by being born in Latin America or any "hispanic island in the Carribean".
So not only pure whites were deemed by the two EEO lawyers as hispanaic, but any black born "south of the Border" - except in Belize or "non-hispanic" Carribean Islands like Jamaica, the Bahamas..
That becomes treasured by diversity
mavens.
Not only is she a she! But Louisa de Herdandez-Plotkin is also black, and hispanic, and gay and has a learning disability! She is our TV networks 1st "Five-Fer!! lawyer-pundit. Her empathy for oppressed peoples is inherent in her blood and her life!"

MadisonMan said...

I feel empathy for Dom DeLuise's family.

Here's one of his many great scenes. Rest In Peace, Giant.

Sofa King said...

Not empathy. Fempathy.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

Now that we have Beauregard Jefferson Sessions III from Alabama as the lead republican on the judiciary I feel much better.

He hates the blacks so we should be in good shape.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

I would like a hot Supreme Court Justice who had big tits and didn't wear anything under his or her robe and we could see her or his bustline.

Also, when they sit, if they hike up their robe and you can see their Brazillian that would be a plus.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

Or is it Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III...from Alabama.

Either way I will call him Jeffy Weffy.

He is definitely not hot.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

You know Jeffy Weffy has been to a lynching before.

TituslovesUandU2 said...

Jeffy Weffy definitely owns a white robe and noose too.

Ann Althouse said...

"Both have an interest in connectedness to the world, but in the man's case it's not through a model of emotions being the connection of the abstract to the world; it's through an abstraction not working. Fiddling with the level of abstraction is a work of joy for men. The more abstract you can make it and still have it work, the more certainty get out of it. At last, in this corner of life, something will be decided once and for all!"

You really need to read the Supreme Court case that is most about levels of abstraction: Michael H v. Gerald D. You'll find it comes out just about exactly the opposite of what you are predicting. The liberal Justice Brennan uses abstraction to get to the most empathetic conclusion, while Justice Scalia insists on the lowest level of abstraction and denies the asserted right.

I'm genuinely interested in how you would reframe what you said in light of those 2 opinions at the link.

TituslovesUandU2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

I always thought Bowers v. Hardwick was a pretty low level of abstraction

Joseph Hovsep said...

I don't think the lack of public discussion about the overrepresentation of Catholics on the bench is that problematic. I've long thought it was an interesting novelty, but I think Americans increasingly just don't see a salient difference between Catholics and Protestants like they did a generation ago. I'd say the two more interesting implications of this are (1) the underrepresentation of Evangelicals and (2) the fact that the five Catholics on the bench are all conservative Republicans which is not representative of the general Catholic population and really unrepresentative of the Catholic population of a generation ago.

Daryl said...

All Supreme Court opinions should begin with the words:

"We feel that . . ." or "We deeply feel that . . ."

Or, for dissents (couldn't there be a more empathetic words for it than "dissent"):

"While I feel the same feelings as the majority, I respectfully also feel that . . ."

Daryl said...

All you need to know about Barack Obama's ideas on jurisprudence is shown in his disgusting attack on the Roberts Court over the Lilly Ledbetter ruling.

Obama's attack on Roberts was based on a flat-out lie--that Lilly Ledbetter did not know about the discrimination at the time, even though she testified in her deposition that she DID know about it at the time.

He has no respect for any American institutions. He has no respect for the judiciary or the rule of law. He wants to appoint someone who feels the same way. He wants to appoint judges who will rubber stamp his plans to seize large parts of the private sector.

rhhardin said...

I'm genuinely interested in how you would reframe what you said in light of those 2 opinions at the link.

The legal language is a little hard to get interested in, but so far as I follow it, Scalia seems to have abstracted right away to the essence, stripping away things we don't need to know, howsoever interesting they might be in a soap opera episode.

My impression of Brennan is that he abstracts a lot more but in a motivated way to get to the result he wants. Stipping out the baby with the bathwater, and then descending with his conclusion.

There's an intuition about what an abstraction ``working'' means that seems to be missing in Brennan.

Maybe we could agree on the need for a poetics of legal reasoning.

There's some pretty sparse poetics that will serve as a model to keep the old Emotion away.

I have not put the effort into reading the opinion that I should have. Remembering the names of the players took a lot out of me. Point to a sentence or so where I have gone badly wrong though.

Richard Dolan said...

At one level, the 'empathy' criterion is just a way of saying that O is looking for a grounded, sensible person. Empathy is not a judicial philosophy, even less is it an approach to constitutional adjudiciation. Used in that way, it's just an aspect of a healthy personality.

In the blogginghead piece, Ann says that decisionmaking is informed by a person's emotions, an observation that strikes me as a truism. Decisionmaking in any area involving public policy issues always calls upon the life experiences of the decisionmaker, and involves all aspects of the decisionmaker's personality and intellect. How could it otherwise?

What bothers me about the "empathy" stuff is that it sounds like so much else that O has to say -- anodyne at one level, but the kind of calm unobjectionable stuff that he's used to put people at their ease when they should most be on their guard. Those who suspect that it's just O-speak for 'result oriented' have reason to be concerned.

In all events, we'll soon know who he has in mind, and all of the blather about "empathy" and the like will become instantly irrelevant.

rhhardin said...

Brennan of course is not a woman, just a liberal.

Maguro said...

(2) the fact that the five Catholics on the bench are all conservative Republicans which is not representative of the general Catholic population and really unrepresentative of the Catholic population of a generation ago.

OK, interesting but so what? There's no rule that says a Catholic Supreme Court justice has "represent" the views of the general Catholic population. Scalia was appointed interpret the constitution, not serve as some kind of empathetic conduit to the Italian Catholic community.

rhhardin said...

Long ago (and still, though more ironically) I was interested in computers processing natural language. Computers are the perfect test of philosophy.

You think you know how things work? Now you can't get away with smugness - let's see you implement it on a computer.

The computer takes the place of cold reasoning, which Ann wants to add emotion to to make up for what it always somehow winds up missing. It fills a gap in a theory, which it then adapts to fill exactly. It's theoretical putty when it's anywhere near a theory.

But cold reasoning as it's actually done is not what the computer does at all, and does not lack anything. So the putty isn't needed and doesn't come up.

Instead you lack sympathy and go with the law. If the people want to change it, change the law, is your out, and the one designed into the system. The thought is there to remind you of your job.

Empathy in the Obama sense seems to say forget the job a little.

Empathy in the Althouse sense seems to say that the computer won't work - but reserving the right to say that so-and-so is an empathyless reasoner if she wants.

The frustrated computer person's way of putting the problem isn't that the computer lacks feeling or empathy, but ``We don't even know what questions to ask.''

That could lead to Wittgenstein or Cavell or Derrida. The ordinary is harder to notice than it seems.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Maguro--I agree, its not an important or disturbing fact. Just an interesting anomaly, which probably has something to do with Republicans needing to appoint reliable anti-abortion judges.

rhhardin said...

Cavell, on The Marquise of O, an interesting line on fatherhood

``She accepts him back because he has answered her summons (acknowledges his fatherhood to the world -- otherwise he is no father).''

In connection with that opinion, that the father is the one Scalia says.

traditionalguy said...

Michael H v. Gerald D is a great connundrum solved by the law once 140+ years ago. The wise Scalia could see no reason to feel empathy with the attempted thief of a Father's feelings of love. The law tried then and again now to create a protection for the Responsable Father, whohad been dumped on by the rest of the Adults in Heat, but was still willing to accept the traditional role of a Father to a very Legitimate child. Hurray for the Law! You still cannot cut the child in two in California, no matter who wants his feelings to come first.

AJ Lynch said...

Mad Man:

If you like his movies, try to get "Fatso".

Little known but I thought it was hilarious.

Cedarford said...

Joseph Hovsep said...
I don't think the lack of public discussion about the overrepresentation of Catholics on the bench is that problematic. I've long thought it was an interesting novelty, but I think Americans increasingly just don't see a salient difference between Catholics and Protestants like they did a generation ago. I'd say the two more interesting implications of this are (1) the underrepresentation of Evangelicals and (2) the fact that the five Catholics on the bench are all conservative Republicans which is not representative of the general Catholic population and really unrepresentative of the Catholic population of a generation ago.
I think it is inherent in the structure of a very small group, ostensibly picked on merit and the right politics of the two political parties where the people at least had some say in selecting - you cannot achieve "balance" based on religion or ethnic/racial identity.

Not with 9 people with lifetime jobs so turnover is glacial..

Would 6 Catholics be too much, even if 4 were conservative-to-moderatem 1 was moderate, one was a screaming liberal?
Maybe.
Would 33% of the Court being Jewish, all who had their careers in the DC-Boston power corridor be too much, especially if all were transnational progressives wanting US to become 2nd to International Law?
Most probably.
Is the lack of an atheist or agnostic a problem?
Perhaps. But about the only way you would get better balance is to court-pack until you had 60 or so Scotus Justices so all groups would "have" their person on the bench..

My hope is we recognize the folly of trying to make SCOTUS a perfect distillation of equitable identity politics..Pick the ones that best reflect the elected President's and confirming Senate body's judicial philosophy as much as can be, that they are competent.
And we go away from "lifetime" stays to 12-year terms. Eventually after the existing ones are weeded out by death or retirement - we'd roughly have 3 new appointments every Presidential term unless early death changed that..and a replacement could just serve out the 12-year term...
And no more "Oh no! Young Clarence Thomas may mean it will be 40 years before another black joins the Court.....

Leland said...

Perhaps the "empathy" remark goes with Senator Reid's desire for someone with "real life experiences", which according to the Senate Majority Leader means life long politicians, as Judges apparently don't have real life experiences.

That's interesting to me. If someone asked me who had more experience with people of at levels of society, I'd say it would be judge sitting on a bench rather than a Senator or Governor. It seems empathy in the case of the President and Senator Reid means someone who has populist support. That's a pretty safe bet for them.

fred said...

Why not wait till Obama actually suggests (puts forth) a name instead of all the badmouthing in advance? After all, for those of The Pizza Party (new GOP), there will be lots of condemnation no matter who he names if the candidate gets accepted. Obama's big mistake? not to have Oren
Hatch appoint the nominee for him. That perhaps would make the Pizza Party faction happy.

Darcy said...

That was so cute, fred. Mmmm...pizza.

AlphaLiberal said...

Really. Obama hasn't even named a pick and the right wing is organizing opposition.

The slam on Sotomayer is pretty low brow, too.

Trooper York said...

Alpha Liberal is exactly right. We should treat the Presidents pick with all the kindness and professional respect that was accorded past Republican choices such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. They deserve nothing less.

Trooper York said...

Hey maybe he can pick the guy who wants to ban mothers day. That should send the florist industry into a tailspin and the govenment can take it over. Sweet.

AlphaLiberal said...

Trooper, they were opposed AFTER they were picked.

Before vs after. Hope I don't need to elaborate on the difference.

Bob said...

Alpha, the right has learned some lessons from the left. The screaming has begun that it will be a leftwing zealot. Why? Because we all "know" when a Republican Prez gets a pick the only choice is a rightwing zealot.

Bob said...

Cedarford, I liked your post and the idea of stopping this lifetime on the bench nonsense. By why not elect our Supreme Court justices to a single 12 year term? Elect 3 every Presidential election. There has been such a strong trend towards popular election for Senators, why not this?

1jpb said...

Trooper,

a permanent victim class who grievances exist in perpetuity and can never be amelioratedSounds like the victims of the vast left wing, media, socialist gov conspiracy (aka most Althouse commenters).

Trooper York said...

Sure Alpha. All the crap that you lefties threw against the wall about Alberto Gonzalez when he was rumored to be a pick happened after he was selected. You know all that opposition research that only began when Roberts and Alito was named and not a minute before. You know just like that.

I think the President has every right to pick someone who embodies all of his most cherished beliefs. You know someone who wants to coddle terrorists and handcuff the police. Who knows that the constable always has erred. Who will facilitate placing two hundred years of American legal precedent into the dustbin of history so we can conform to the dictates of an over riding international law made manifest in Brussels and the Hague. Who never saw a baby he wasn't happy to let die up to the very moment of birth and beyond. Someone who realizes that child molesters are really misunderstood and should be healed not punished. That too many so called criminals are incarcerated just because they were convicted of some piddling crime when we didn't strike at the root cause of their dysfunction which is the fault of a society that values comity and achievement over the sensuality of the sociopathic lifestyle celebrated in the thug life. Someone who knows that justice requires a fundamental redistribution of wealth due to past misdeeds of prior generations. After all it is only fair.

The loyal opposition must approach this hearing with the sense of fairness that guided Harkin and Durkin and Reid. Approach the nomination with the same open mind and degree of fair play that they so often exhibited when weighing the achievements and jurisprudence of someone nominated by the other party.

It’s the right thing to do.

1jpb said...

Let's have some honest non-politicized justice related activities. Conservatives don't politicize these things, the evil baby killers (as Trooper refers to them) are the problem.

Why can't we follow the lead of the saintly conservatives. You know like in Bush v Gore, or the scholarly torture memos, or the impeachment of WJC for lying about sex w/ an intern, or having political indoctrination/strategy meetings during the work day w/ staff at the J Dep, or the J Dep firing un-Bushies then come up w/ all sorts of changing, contradicting, and disproved reasons for the firings, or the J Dep screening for the appropriate conservative "buzz words" for applicants rather than focusing on qualifications which resulted in "serious, significant, and systemic" political hiring of lesser folks and passing on better folks (IG report).

But, blowhard D Senators that nobody cares about are the real problem. The death of our nation will be blowhard D Senators that nobody cares about, how can we possibly struggle on w/ blowhard D Senators that nobody cares about?

Minzo said...

"He should get someone who is comfortable killing a baby even if it survived a botched abortion, someone who believes that any earnings above a subsidence level should be confiscated by the government to be distributed a permanent victim class who grievances exist in perpetuity and can never be ameliorated. Just to be fair you see."

"No white men need apply!"has become the new mantra that directs Capt. Obama's ship of state."

Is this really what passes for reasoned debate here? You are the same people who condemn the left for using abusive and hyperbolic language and then do precisely the same thing. You sneer at the likes of Daily Kos but you have a lot more in common with their commenters than you realize. Calling Bush a war criminal is beyond the pale and evil, but calling Obama a racist and a baby-killer is just fine apparently.

Trooper York said...

We like our ganders saucy.
It's time for the other foot to wear the shoe. Enjoy.

NKVD said...

It's not beyond the pale if it is true.

And Obama is a war criminal, too.

Minzo said...

Well at least you're honest, Ill give you that!

Minzo said...

"It's not beyond the pale if it is true."

Well anyone can say that cant they? What you think of as true in that sense is just as true for the lefties when they use the same language. My point is, its hypocritical to get outraged at the left for doing what many are doing here-obviously the same applies the other way round.
Out of curiousity, how is Obama a war criminal too?

Trooper York said...

I didn't call him a war criminal. I just hope he stands behind what he believes and nominates a card carrying lefty who thinks the way that he does. He earned that right by winning the election. He owes it to the electorate to use it.

"Well at least you're honest, Ill give you that!"

I hope the President is too! I think he is in fact true to his beliefs. God bless him, I sure he can find someone who thinks just the way he does.

Minzo said...

Trooper York- it was NKVD below you who called Obama a war criminal so that particular question was addressed to him.

hdhouse said...

Trooper York said...
"He should get someone who is comfortable killing a baby even if it survived a botched abortion, someone who believes that any earnings above a subsidence level should be confiscated by the government to be distributed a permanent victim class who grievances exist in perpetuity and can never be ameliorated."

Pathetic response Trooper. I don't expect more of you but I don't expect this little.

Why so much hate? Are you typical?
If so this country has more problems than anyone should have to deal with.

Why do you assign attributes to Obama that you know are just scripted Hannity/Savage talking points? What are YOUR views...not what you are prompted to say or what shows up in the conservative weekly reader.

He will choose someone he is comfortable with as it is his job to do it and we elected him to do it as well...that means the MAJORITY elected him and they gave him the vote of support and confidence.

I once thought you to have an open mind. That one however seems shut like a steel trap.

Ya'betcha...

Bob said...

Have we declared war against Pakistan? Because we have been bombing them without their permission and without a legal mandate. I read this war crime charges made repeatedly against the previous administration and during the Viet Nam war.

I, BTW, don't believe that makes him a war criminal. Just this has been the previous threshold for his supporters.

Bob said...

hdhouse - So much hate? Shouldn't that question be directed to Jeremy? Much more rage there.

rhhardin said...

Maybe Chrysler gives a clue what empathy meant.

Namely the end justifies the means.

1jpb said...

rhhardin,

I guess we won't be hearing about Obambi for a while.

Maybe John Hulsman can do a followup to relate BHO as an individual to "The Godfather."

On the other hand, the undeniable fact that these supposedly harshly threatened folks didn't acquiesce, and now they've taken to attacking BHO does contradict the idea that BHO is a powerful manipulator/enforcer. Of course if these attackers end up swimming w/ cement shoes, we will need to reassess.

Minzo said...

On a lighter note, here is Colbert's take on the issue:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/colbert-cracks-obama-code-empathy-me

AJ Lynch said...

Who was it that answered "that's above my pay grade" when asked when life begins?

Whoever it was, the response suggests he places very little value on a fetus.

Minzo said...

Are we starting an Obama-hates-babies meme for real? Thats the second or third comment to turn Obama into some kind of baby-hating monster. The question if I remember correctly was 'when does human life begin'? Obama's response was unwise because it sounded flippant, but not giving a definitive answer to that question certainly doesnt suggest he 'places very little value on a fetus.' Thats pretty low...

Maguro said...

On the other hand, the undeniable fact that these supposedly harshly threatened folks didn't acquiesce, and now they've taken to attacking BHO does contradict the idea that BHO is a powerful manipulator/enforcer.

Ah, but Perella Weinberg *did* acquiesce, along of course with the TARP banks. The fact that the strong-arming wasn't completely successful doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Barack's handling of the Chrysler mess is right out of the Chicago playbook.

AJ Lynch said...

Minzo:

It is your serve. Can you show Obama does not diligenly support and consistently vote "aye" for legislation that enables abortion almost right up to the time of birth?

Minzo said...

AJ Lynch- No YOU made the claim that Obama doesnt care about fetuses so logically its up to you to substantiate your argument. My point was that you cannot come to that conclusion based on his refusal to state specifically when life starts in the womb. If thats the only criteria in this discussion then there are a lot of politicians out there who hate fetuses....

AJ Lynch said...

Minzo said:

"If thats the only criteria in this discussion then there are a lot of politicians out there who hate fetuses...."

I agree. There are a lot....Durbin, all the Kennedys, Biden, Casey, Specter, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kerry, Feinstein, Mikulski, and on and on.

And all are buddies of Obama.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

After reading these comments, I have a blatant man crush on Trooper York.

Not that there's anything at all wrong with that.

randyboise said...

The choice of a new S.Ct.Judge should also take into account the sexting situation in the United States. There should be ''empathy'' for the 200,000 adults in U.S. prisons for simply ''looking'' at free teen porn, and now Vermont and other states are considering making sexting (teens sending nude pictures) legal! Either all cannot create and send pornography, or all can. It makes 'O' sense to be able to do it as a teen with impunity, then at 18, all of a sudden it's a federal crime. All or none, period. It should also be all-or-none when felons register, not just sex offenders. Over 90% of sex crimes are done by family or family freinds, so registration does little and costs an extreme amount of our taxes. All-or-none, and let's show a little empathy for those in prison for porn that have no victum for simply looking at it for free.

Sofa King said...

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.

I think this is what they are referring to.

JAL said...

You know, the Chrysler thing is getting messier the further in people look.

What's with you all who think it is so cool to have the Prez rollup his shirt sleeves and try to fix something he has NO CLUE how to do. Not to mention no authority ...

You know, you and he think because he's Barack, whatever he does turns to gold? (Well for him, it seems.)

What's going on Is. Not. Legal.

Once you throw that out the window guys, it's no holds barred.

And if you voted for President Obama and are delighted, or are at least giving him some time, you need to do some heavy thinking.

How much of your thinking never considers that the shoe may go on the other foot...

And those of us who value the rule of law are going to get creamed by both sides of the-ends-justifies-the-means pendulum... unless someone sticks a stick on the string and stops this nonsense / evil.

Faster is better.

rhhardin said...

Catholics are running the supermarkets.

First supermarket displays, then Supreme Court.

rhhardin said...

So here is Sowell today on empathy.

hdhouse said...

Defenseman Emeritus said...
After reading these comments, I have a blatant man crush on Trooper York.

Not that there's anything at all wrong with that."

Not at all. I'm sure Trooper would be thrilled at the prospect....well any prospect.

Leave your phone...when his right hand heals, he'll give you a call...

ya'betcha!

Trooper York said...

Shouldn't you be dead by now hd?

I mean your incoherent ravings are getting more and more tiresome. You ask for explanations for comments that are crystal clear to any garden variety cretin because you have the reading comprehension of a drunken monkey. You can't follow a conversation or address any points that anyone else lays out in even the simplest terms. You accuse others of parroting talking points when your posts are nothing but the scolding of a senile douche bag that doesn't have two ideas to rub together. The best you can do is post lame jokes that a two year old would scorn in the playground.

I really is time for you to just simply turn you face to the wall and expire. Do the world a favor. Go green. Take your rotting moldering corpse back to sweet mother earth where it belongs. Your time has passed.

Please die soon.