Ask Me Help Desk

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

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.

I love this country, I have hundreds of ancestors who died fighting for this country starting with the Revolutionary War! I have ancestors who's signatures are on the Declaration of Independence! I dislike the way it is being governed and I dislike the snakes in Washington flushing our country down the toilet!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

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.

Why is that ignorant? Do you really believe all the propaganda you are fed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott_1976

I love this country, I have hundreds of ancestors who died fighting for this country starting with the Revolutionary War! I have ancestors who's signatures are on the Declaration of Independence! I dislike the way it is being governed and I dislike the snakes in Washington flushing our country down the toilet!

Correction, you don't hate this country, you just hate living in this country under present day
Conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott_1976

Why is that ignorant? Do you really believe all the propaganda you are fed?

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.

The truth is our rights are taken away slowly and usually under the guise of safety or for the good of all that most people don't even notice.

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.

Where was Sotomayor's EMPATHY in the Ricci v DeStefano case?

Sotomayor's mystery case, Ricci v. DeStefano. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Quote:

In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?

Could she not empathize with the dyslexic firefighter who had to study harder than the others to pass a written test? Or could she only have sympathy for the minority applicants that could not pass that same test?

This along with her "latina woman " quote shows that she does not have the impartiality to be on the SCOTUS. In addition, her lack of an opinion on the constitutional claims in the case either indicates laziness of thought, or a complete disregard for the constitutional merits of the case.

G&P

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

Two post. That really got your dander up. When I feel my rights infringed upon, I'll let you know. So far, so good.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott_1976

The truth is our rights are taken away slowly and usually under the guise of safety or for the good of all that most people don't even notice.

It's not a guise. Why so cynical? You have something against safety precautions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

It's not a guise. Why so cynical? You have something against safety precautions?

When it takes freedoms away... yes I do

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott_1976

When it takes freedoms away....yes I do

You must have been pissed about the Patriot Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If anything (stretch your mind a little!), Sotomayor was a thank-you.

Yep. It's not that she's qualified for the position (which she may actually be... I don't know). Obama just had a political debt to pay, so he nominated her.

Thanks for making my point, WG.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Not this one.

Baloney. Psychologists, psychiatrists and counselors are among the most insecure people I have met, and I say this as a long standing patient.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Poor Elliott. He will be horrified at what happened to his thread. (Sorry, ET!)

Not a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Now, back to that Sotomayor girl. Isn't she somethin'!!!

Yep. I just can't tell what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Irrelavent? Does it not show that a Republican is also "is enamored with the personal narrative and group identity politics"? Yes I think it does.

No it doesn't. The whole point of why Joe the Plumber became as famous as he has is because he's the "regular joe", the "everyman" that is getting screwed by Obama's identity politics and elitism. He is, in fact, the symbol of anti-identity-politics and anti-elitism.

As usual, NK, you misinterpret the facts.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You mean like your opposition to Sotomayor? Why do you think you are on a different plane of existence?

We haven't had to smear Sotomayor, NK. She's doing just fine on her own with her own words.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Joe the Plumber became as famous as he has is because he's the "regular joe", the "everyman" that is getting screwed by Obama's identity politics and elitism. He is, in fact, the symbol of anti-identity-politics and anti-elitism.

And in the end he was none of those was he.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

Nahhh, El. You're not just a guy. You're a JEW. I don't know why, but JEWS are endowed with the ability and empathy to understand the law better than any other group. That's just so. You know it, and I know it.

So, if JEWS can do it, why not another group?

I do not take that as factual. I don't even think it is true in MOST cases.

What I believe Jews have an ability to do is to read and interpret the law in an advantageous manner. It comes from our Talmudic backgrounds (as a culture, not necessarily individually). Because we are culturally good at legal interpretation within the Talmud, we are also good at interpretation within the secular US legal system. That's why we make such good lawyers as a culture. We can interpret and argue the law to our advantage. We are superior LEGAL minds. But that doesn't necessarily equate to a higher level of empathy than any other group. Nor do I believe that it should.

The Oath of the Supreme Court Justice is:

"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."

Similarly, the Bible says

Deutoronomy 16:18 Appoint yourselves judges and police for your tribes in all your settlements that God your Lord is giving you, and make sure that they administer honest judgment for the people.
16:19 Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous.
16:20 Pursue perfect honesty, so that you will live and occupy the land that God your Lord is giving you.

Both in Biblical culture and in secular law, we are told NOT to be "empathetic" in our approach to judgement, and so it has become part of us.

Quote:

You're a historian. You're going to tell me that JEWS know more about the law because of something that happened in our background. Kind of like we're good with money, because that's what we were relegated to... So, if JEWS can be good with money because of something that JEWS experienced, why can't Latinos be good or better at something than a member of a group who HASN'T experienced the same stuff they have??

Excon

They can. But they have to have experienced it culturally for it to be true. Can you show me anything in Latino (or Latina) culture that points to greater empathy than other cultures? I can't.

Can you tell me how having a different set of cultural and life experiences than 85% of those around you makes you better at understanding those 85%? I can't.

Furthermore, given the specific PROHIBITION against empathy within the judicial system, can you tell me how such empathy, if it exists, makes her more qualified to become a Justice of the Supreme Court rather than less?

Simply put, her experience as a Latina makes her better at understanding the Latina experience. Her experience as an Hispanic makes her better at understanding the Hispanic experience.

Culturally, she is probably very tough, hard working, willing to get her hands dirty to get the job done, and very dedicated to family. She probably has an affinity toward education. Those are typical cultural mores of Latinas and she is probably good in those areas. But what does any of that have to do with empathy toward others who are not Hispanic, and what does empathy in general have to do with being qualified to sit on the SCOTUS bench, given the oath to NOT evince such empathy in the performance of her duties?

Elliot

I hate the "regular joe" or "everyman" tag that gets put on us. That dude is nothing like me. I saw him on Bill Mahr apparently his regular job wasn't as exciting as it use to be so now he is reporting for some website or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, c:

I wasn't being intentionally offensive and I wasn't hurling stones either. I BELIEVE what I said in my post.

What limited knowledge I have about my own history pails in comparison to Elliot. What I DO know, is that in ancient days, the handling of money was considered distasteful. It was left to the underclass to deal with - the JEWS. In those days money was called "filthy lucre" - having to do with the devil, no doubt.

Nonetheless, the JEWS learned their craft well. The banking industry was started by and is to this day run by the Jews.

The JEWS were relegated to the handling of diamonds too. Today, if you want a diamond in the US, it came through a JEW.

Wouldn't a JEW be a better person to interpret banking laws or diamond industry decisions??? He WOULD, indeed.

Therefore, a person with Sotomayor's background IS better suited to deal with certain decisions than old white men would be. It cannot be denied, although the right thinks it can, even when their own guy, Samuel Alito said virtually the same stuff, and the righty's didn't bat an eye.

excon

Some historical corrections.

The handling of money wasn't "distasteful". It's just that the lending of money wasn't done because it was illegal under religious law for Christians and Muslims to charge other Christians and Muslims interest for lending money. The risk-reward analysis didn't work in favor of lending money when there was nothing to be gained by taking the risk.

However, Jews were under no prohibition of charging interest from Christians and Muslims, and so they became the "money lenders". And ended up taking a lot of flak for it... remember Shakespear's lines about borrowers and lenders, or the "Shylock" characters in the plays of the era? Or for that matter, the thousands of pogroms caused by borrowers who didn't want to pay back the Jews?

But it wasn't about it being too menial. It was about religious prohibitions against charging interest.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozyk

Hey righties, you got to find another fault. That one statement has been beat to death. As I said once before, what else you got?

That one statement says it all, Cosyk. She said it. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

It is a problem because it VIOLATES THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. It is a problem because justice is SUPPOSED to be blind. It is a problem because it violates the ethical requirement of the judge to not see under the person's skin, but rather simply to interpret and apply the LAW.

It is a problem because it goes against the very duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS Justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

It is a problem because it violates the ethical requirement of the judge to not see under the person's skin, but rather simply to interpret and apply the LAW.... It is a problem because it goes against the very duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS Justice.

Hello El:

I can see you missed my Jewish posts a few pages back. You oughta check 'em out. I'll bet you'll have something to say...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

I can see you missed my Jewish posts a few pages back. You oughta check 'em out. I'll bet you'll have something to say...

excon

No he did respond to them on the last page!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

No he did respond to em on the last page!!

Hey Skell:

So he did. You know, we got to stop arguing so fast. I can't keep up.

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1787913

What do you Sotomayor supporters have to say about this case?

Did you choose to ignore it because it really shines a light on to her as a judge and not as some individual to fulfill a demographic quota?

G&P