It's nice to see you're coming around too.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
|
It's nice to see you're coming around too.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Here is the transcript.. not just the piece you cherry picked :
Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview) - MorningstarQuote:
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
I don't think his Warren comment, his views on "social justice" and judges with "empathy" have been beaten enough. When people begin to understand and react to the ramifications then perhaps we can say they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Isn't that what the opposition did to Bush? His opponents beat him to death over every issue they could imagine for 8 years. Correction, they're still beating him over it, Cindy Sheehad is still protesting at his home.
I spent over $17,000 and three years of grad school learning about empathy. Just because one has empathy doesn't mean one will cave, but it does mean one can get inside someone else's skin and imagine how that person feels--not a bad ability nowadays. So a Justice has empathy? Why is this a problem? I'm guessing at least the females on the SC have had empathy. Maybe it's not a guy thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It used to be a christian thing but it seems to get lost when it's convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Solomon is considered the wisest man who ever lived. His decision about how to satisfy the two women with one living baby just overflows with empathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As I've said before, a judge can have empathy. A judge has to make calls all the time, they have some latitude. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to uphold the constitution without partiality or they are violating their oath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
All I am hearing from the Right is that Sotomayor wouldn't rule fairly because she would be empathetic. Tell me I'm hearing wrong. (Empathy does not make one partial.)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Again with the insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
There are two distinct and separate things in play here and Jakester explained it as well as anyone on the Christianity board. And that is the difference between "1) the individual and his personal life as it relates to God and mankind; 2) the government and its role and function as it relates to people."
Whether I have empathy- as a Christian or otherwise - is irrelevant.
You don't think empathy belongs in the quiver of a SC justice?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, cut the kid in half and give half to each woman just overflows with empathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Of course not. What do you not get about the role of a Supreme Court Justice? It has nothing to understanding someone's feelings and emotions, to "put oneself in their shoes." It is about the rule of law. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Then where did Solomon get off making such a wise decision? He had to have had empathy in order to make a fair decision. Empathy doesn't mean for only one of the parties. It should be for both, and yes, it is very much involved in making fair decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
From acslaw.org --
"This criticism confuses empathy with sympathy. It also misunderstands the judge's role. Empathy is the capacity to understand the perspective of another. It is an essential attribute for living in the social world, and a crucial component of legal judgment. Judges need to understand multiple perspectives. What they do with that understanding is a separate question."
Why Justice Entails Empathy
May 14, 2009, 9:56PM
This post is a short response to the right wing mockery of empathy in judgment.
In order to judge matters correctly, a person must be capable of independence in judgment. What follows is a simple proof which demonstrates the necessity of empathy and the consequences of its absence.
(1) Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought.
(2) Freedom of thought presupposes the ability to shift perspectives.
(3) The ability to shift perspectives presupposes empathy.
Therefore, (4) Independence of judgment presupposes empathy.
(1a) The absence of empathy implies the inability to shift perspectives.
(2a) The inability to shift perspectives implies slavery of thought.
(3a) Slavery of thought implies co-dependent judgment.
Therefore, (4a) The absence of empathy implies co-dependent judgment.
(4) and (4a) have something counter-intuitive to say: only through empathy can one think freely, and so, only through empathy can one escape the prison of herd mentality. As the right wing makes fun of empathy in judgment, they implicitly champion co-dependent judgment.
Game, set and match to Wondergirl. Killed another one of their talking points. :)
Librarians rule!!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Based on your totally impartial point of view I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
He and I haven't dated yet, so I think he is impartial.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We try to be as impartial as you are.
"The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That would make their view of empathy in the legal system no surprise. I had already defined empathy by the way.
The constitution trumps independence of thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That not the intent of the statement. I read "Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought" to mean letting go of your biases.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You'd better read the posted statement again -- and think about what it says and means.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
For both of you since you don't seem to get it, the reasoning Wondergirl posted is just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo. Independence of thought is great and empathy is a wonderful thing, but in the legal system they are all subject to a standard, the law. In this case that standard is the constitution of the United States, which is not a living, breathing, malleable to your feelings or mood document, nor is it subject to international law. It is the supreme law of this land. The ONLY relevant thing here is the constitution. Checkmate.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I again, state that the right wing Supreme Court Justices have the same bias and empathy that ANY HUMAN INDIVIDUAL has. Their empathy, however, lies with the cops.
It's PROVABLE. I can bring up case after case, as I've done before, and I'll do again, if these right wingers keep insisting that THEIR bias is Constitutional - cause it AIN'T.
What WOULD be cool, is for them to admit that ALL the rulings that have ever been, and ever will be, has been based upon A HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the law. When HUMANS interpret the law, the PUT their own experiences into the decision. Right wingers ARE humans, are they not?? Don't answer that.
excon
Nah, I hang around judges and lawyers. Your constitution or stated laws do always not cover all situations, that why judges write *judgements* and they include verbiage that include their interpretation of situations.
Tsk, tsk. AGAIN, you did not track well when you reread my post. It's "independence of judgment," not "independence of thought." And isn't your hope for "independence of judgment"?? Seems like that's what you've been saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Most of us are indeed human, yes. Ex, I don't deny we all have biases but that has no bearing on my point which is there is an ideal we should seek in a justice, impartiality, and a standard they are subjected to, the constitution. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't know what you are hearing from someone else My Concern is that she proclaimed more than once that she would make "BETTER" Decisions because of her ethnic and gender experiences . That is rubbish and even Obama claims she misspoke.Quote:
All I am hearing from the Right is that Sotomayor wouldn't rule fairly because she would be empathetic. Tell me I'm hearing wrong. (Empathy does not make one partial.)
You can't argue my point so you nitpick, well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Nitpick?? Big difference between those two terms -- independence of thought and independence of judgment and how they relate.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The constitution is a joke in the federal goverments eyes now can't you see? Our rights and freedoms are stolen everyday and most people turn a blind eye or even favor losing them! I for one am becoming very ashamed of this country and the ignorant masses so willing to give up freedom to feel that they are secure. Land of the free no longer are we!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Give up our freedom? No longer the land of the free? I haven't felt any of that. The only lack of freedom I've seen are the people trying to rid us of "freedom of choice" and that freedom for any two consenting adults to marry thing. That is taking freedoms away right there. And don't throw the old gun control thing at me. Gun control is not gun banishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_1976
It's gun good sense. gun good judgment, it's keeping guns out of the hands of idiots that have shown to be a danger with a gun.
Their was murder long before guns but the second amendment is long gone so why bother. As for "freedom of choice" I am not against abortion but I don't like it when people try to pretty things up. Abortion is killing an unborn baby plain and simple. When a pregnant woman is killed and her "fetus" dies as well, the killer can be charged with two homicides. If a girl goes and gets an abortion she is not killing, she is practicing her "freedom of choice", both babies are dead no matter what you call it. Call it a fetus instead of a baby, call it "freedom of choice" if that is what makes you sleep at night. I really don't care who wants to marry who, I for one think marriage should be purely spiritually and the government has no place in it. Government is to big!Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
You haven't flown anywhere and seen your manicure kit and makeup bottles thrown into a bin because you might overwhelm the flight crew or build an explosive in the plane's bathroom? You haven't seen old people in wheelchairs made to stand up and/or painfully take off (and have to put back on) their shoes because the heels might be packed with explosives? No terrorists were ever arrested, but tons and tons of passengers were inconvenienced and even shamed. Meanwhile, the door between the cockpit and passengers sits blithely open during a flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Said perfectly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I stand corrected Wondergirl, feel better? Forgive me for typing from memory instead of copying and pasting my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
"It's about a new politics – a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts" --Barack Obama
Obama is no better or worse than Bush... they are liars plain and simple. They will sell the future of your children, grand children, and great grand children to get what they want!
Oh yes I have. I've flown a good bit. I know why we have to take precautions, I know the guidelines for what you can carry on the plane, and I've never had anything thrown out. Since 9/11 we have had to be more careful about assuming that everyone that gets on a plane is just there for the transportation. I would rather be inconvenienced and be safe. Imagine what a supposedly wheel chair bound passenger could smuggle on board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't see this as a lack of freedom, just a necessary evil.
I can't speak to the cock pit door being wide open. I haven't seen that, but maybe I missed it. At least we know now that if someone did get to the cock pit, their choice of weapon would be severely limited.
That's the most ignorant thing I've heard in quite a while. Seems like you hate this country. Why don't you just leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_1976
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:57 PM. |