By the way, Phil, I did not see where anyone claimed that the law was not based on experience. Obviously the law is based on the experience and recorded experience of humankind. "Experience" and "empathy" are not synonymous.
Yours,
Issodhos
Issodhos , I've remained on the sidelines in this discussion, but have grown weary of your non-contextual spinning about Sotomayor, and Obama's nomination of her to to be a SCOTUS Justice. There have been far too many.
In this post, I will just address your continued hammering of a GOP talking point about Obama's selection process, and the import of "empathy". At its very foundation, the primacy of empathy is a distortion of what Obama stated were his criterion for nominating a SCOTUS Justice. It originates from just one of the many qualifications Obama stated were important in his decision making:
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
President Obama, Interrupting A Press Briefing By Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, May 1, 2009Here's a complete recap of President Obama's qualifications for his SCOTUS nominations:
- someone with a sharp and independent mind
- someone with a record of excellence and integrity
- someone who understands that justice is more that abstract legal theory; that it's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives
- someone who can empathize with people's hopes and struggles to arrive at just decisions and outcomes
- someone who is dedicated to the rule of law
- someone who honors our constitutional traditions
- someone who respects the integrity of the judicial process
- someone who respects the appropriate limits of the judicial role
- someone with respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded who understands to apply them in our time
You admitted previously in this thread, that you had been
duped by a WSJ editorial, and your assessment of the import Obama placed upon empathy had been in error, yet you have continued to emphasize it since. Why is that, and have you learned not to trust WSJ Op/Eds yet?
