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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 AM. |