FTA:

Crazy nonsense empathetic. I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.

That's the head of the RNC talking, folks. Remember, he wears his hat backwards, cause that's how dey do it in the hood.

Christ, what an embarrassment that man is.

You can't just claim to be judging people by their character and then pick the black dude. You actually have to put forth some effort.

AdolfOliverPanties: That's the head of the RNC talking, folks. Remember, he wears his hat backwards, cause that's how dey do it in the hood.

I always thought he looked like the guy from Digital Underground:

hillbillypharmacist: You can't just claim to be judging people by their character and then pick the black dude. You actually have to put forth some effort.

You're talking about picking Steele for the RNC head, right?

Because Obama hasn't actually picked anyone.

AdolfOliverPanties: That's the head of the RNC talking, folks. Remember, he wears his hat backwards, cause that's how dey do it in the hood.

The people behind the "I'm Lovin' It" ad campaign are running the RNC.

NeauxFear I always thought he looked like the guy from Digital Underground:


the RNC would be better off with Humpty Hump as chairman. especially if Shock G is a democrat.

Fo shizzle!

Is that really him? It's just audio and not video. Sounds like him though.

That being said, him saying:

I don't need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law.

Is absolutely, 100% correct and everyone should feel the same way.

Obama should nominate himself and then turn over the Executive branch to Biden, then the Republicans (and the rest of us for that matter) would really have something to cry about.

KaponoFor3: Is absolutely, 100% correct and everyone should feel the same way.

When people address you at work, do they (a) call you Your Honor or (b) look at your shirt to find your name? Because those are the only ways I can think of that your post makes sense.

One of the oldest tenets of our system of government is that when the law and justice are at odds, the law should lose that battle. That's why they're called "judges." A good judge takes circumstances (both mitigating and aggravating) into account, while a bad judge is just a fool with a manual and a black robe.

I don't need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law.

Very true, and a damned good reason to put an old white guy in the job to ensure that problem doesn't happen.

NeauxFear: One of the oldest tenets of our system of government is that when the law and justice are at odds, the law should lose that battle. That's why they're called "judges." A good judge takes circumstances (both mitigating and aggravating) into account, while a bad judge is just a fool with a manual and a black robe.

Nothing you have said disagrees with what I posted. The fact of the matter remains, a judges' "empathy" with one party's plight or situation should play no role in his decision under the law. Does it sometimes? Yes. Should it? Not easily. Judges just cases based on the law and the facts, not how they personally feel about the facts or whether they empathize with one party's situation. If a judge cannot support his decision based on the law and the facts of a case, and has to resort to "empathy" to make his decision, then that person has failed as a judge.

I would assert that empathy comes into play more in sentencing (for criminal cases) than in the determination of guilt.

I don't know how empathy would factor in a SCOTUS issue. Perhaps Obama's statement about empathy means he really just wants a justice that is a whole, thinking, compassionate person and not just a robot that toes a certain party line.

Maybe not.

AdolfOliverPanties: I don't know how empathy would factor in a SCOTUS issue. Perhaps Obama's statement about empathy means he really just wants a justice that is a whole, thinking, compassionate person and not just a robot that toes a certain party line.

No, I'm pretty sure he wants someone that would ignore case law and make gut decisions because he feels for the plaintiff.

That sounds like something a spicy mustard eating terrorist-palling arounder would do.

NeauxFear: AdolfOliverPanties: That's the head of the RNC talking, folks. Remember, he wears his hat backwards, cause that's how dey do it in the hood.

I always thought he looked like the guy from Digital Underground:

Oooooh! I get to use this again!

Mustard mustard mustard.

KaponoFor3: he fact of the matter remains, a judges' "empathy" with one party's plight or situation should play no role in his decision under the law. Does it sometimes? Yes. Should it? Not easily.

What decisions do you foresee the Supreme Court making that are detrimentally affected by Justice empathy? Out of curiosity.

KaponoFor3: The fact of the matter remains, a judges' "empathy" with one party's plight or situation should play no role in his decision under the law

Empathy -noun
The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Sympathy -noun
Harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.

So uh..

KaponoFor3: Judges just cases based on the law and the facts, not how they personally feel about the facts or whether they empathize with one party's situation.

You may want to revisit this...

Senescent Dawn: KaponoFor3: he fact of the matter remains, a judges' "empathy" with one party's plight or situation should play no role in his decision under the law. Does it sometimes? Yes. Should it? Not easily.

What decisions do you foresee the Supreme Court making that are detrimentally affected by Justice empathy? Out of curiosity.

Do you think a Justice who is a Kenyan immigrant would still push for Obama to release his long form birth certificate ? Do you think a Justice who happens to like spicy mustard would be impartial during Obama's inevitable impeachment ?

Mordant: Do you think a Justice who is a Kenyan immigrant would still push for Obama to release his long form birth certificate ? Do you think a Justice who happens to like spicy mustard would be impartial during Obama's inevitable impeachment ?

Peach/Mustard bbq sauce is a tasty thing.

KaponoFor3: Nothing you have said disagrees with what I posted. [other crap which directly disagrees with what he posted]

By what mechanism do you think judges can judge where there is a disagreement between the letter of the law and justice? I'll give you a hint: it starts with an 'e'.

So, if we're looking for fair treatment under the law, then we are agreed then bans on gay marriage, and "civil unions" both violate the Constitution, and should then be done away with?

Excellent. Glad that you can cast aside the idea that we need to be sympathetic to parties that feel that they should get special treatment because their religion doesn't like their neighbors.

I'm also glad that we can then go forward with prosecution of those who interfere with doctors and the performance of legal procedures--and what amount to acts of domestic terrorism based on religious fervor.

And we can put aside any sympathy for those who violate tax law as protests, and get on with the seizure of their property, as was advanced by laws for the last 10 years or so.

Yes, all this "empathy" and "sympathy" needs to go, so we can get back to the rule of law, and actually enforce our tax code--as was done away with for the last 8 years or so with de-emphasis on corporate tax violations--and enforce our environmental and business regulations--likewise de-emphasized in the last eight years--and certainly get back to looking into fraud and running down real criminals.

No empathy? Steele must have loved the Rehnquist court. By appointing Bush, those sociopaths sentenced the GOP to death, and the rest of us to decades of hard times.

hillbillypharmacist: By what mechanism do you think judges can judge where there is a disagreement between the letter of the law and justice?

I'm sorry, but is not some objective concept of "justice" that exists outside the "letter of the law." A judge's job is to act according to the law. That is the definition of "justice."

kronicfeld: I'm sorry, but is not some objective concept of "justice" that exists outside the "letter of the law." A judge's job is to act according to the law. That is the definition of "justice."

So how would you rule, if you were a justice sitting on Dred Scott v. Sandford?

The letter of the law is sometimes, and unequivocally, unjust. Argument otherwise is bald-ass stupid.

I should bother to listen to this idiot on his opinions, why?

hillbillypharmacist: So how would you rule, if you were a justice sitting on Dred Scott v. Sandford?

I would probably come to the regrettable conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the controversy.

GAT_00: I should bother to listen to this idiot on his opinions, why?

Because he wears his hat backwards, you know...that's how he rolls.

Why wouldn't you listen to this guy??

kronicfeld: I would probably come to the regrettable conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the controversy.

Right. And on any number of other patently unjust laws?

GAT_00: I should bother to listen to this idiot on his opinions, why?

Because he can do the Humpty Hump...



Duh...

hillbillypharmacist: Right. And on any number of other patently unjust laws?

Which laws, specifically? And "unjust" from whose perspective? There are plenty of people who I've drilled in court who consider their drilling "unjust."

kronicfeld: Which laws, specifically?

Unless you can look me in the eye and tell me that there are no written laws that are unjust, or have been unjust, then how can you sincerely hold then belief that there is not some objective concept of "justice" that exists outside the "letter of the law." A judge's job is to act according to the law, and that is the definition of "justice"?

hillbillypharmacist: Unless you can look me in the eye and tell me that there are no written laws that are unjust, or have been unjust, then how can you sincerely hold then belief that there is not some objective concept of "justice" that exists outside the "letter of the law." A judge's job is to act according to the law, and that is the definition of "justice"?

There are laws that I THINK are unjust, in exactly the same way that there are other laws that a lot of other people think are unjust. There are people who think it's unjust for people who lose their jobs to be sued by their creditors. There are people who think it's unjust for fetuses to be aborted. There are people who think it's unjust that fathers have to pay for babies that they have to pay child support for babies that they didn't want and that mothers refused to abort. By saying that judges should decide what is "just" based on some standard other than the written law, you are giving the advocates of those aforesaid positions the power to circumvent poplar sentiment and the legislative process, and enact laws supporting those views through judicial fiat. Do you want that?

kronicfeld: Do you want that?

No, not all the time. But there are times in which it's necessary to overturn an obviously unjust written law, by fiat. Don't you agree? Or should the judiciary simply be mere toadies to the legislative bodies?

hillbillypharmacist: No, not all the time. But there are times in which it's necessary to overturn an obviously unjust written law, by fiat. Don't you agree? Or should the judiciary simply be mere toadies to the legislative bodies?

Toadies? Not at all. But, again, the court's standard isn't "unjust." It's "unconstitutional." There are plenty of perfectly constitutional laws that are unjust. There are plenty of just laws that are/would be unconstitutional.

hillbillypharmacist: No, not all the time.

How do you determine what is the correct percentage of time that they do this?

If they are allowed to view the law in that way, then you have to be able to accept that you can't control when or when they don't use that ability. Otherwise, you seem dangerously like you are advocating "use empathy only when my issues are on the table".

kronicfeld: There are plenty of perfectly constitutional laws that are unjust.

And these should be kept? The judges should sit on their hands?

bulldg4life: How do you determine what is the correct percentage of time that they do this?

It's purely a matter of judgement. That's what they're hired to do.

Neither solely the letter of the law nor the feelings of the judge should decide a case.

Why don't we appoint some empathetic football referees?. Poor Detroit Lions, they're so sad, let's call a penalty on the other team.

AdolfOliverPanties: FTA:

Crazy nonsense empathetic. I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.

That's the head of the RNC talking, folks. Remember, he wears his hat backwards, cause that's how dey do it in the hood.

Shut the fark up. He said that? Wow.

KaponoFor3: Is that really him? It's just audio and not video. Sounds like him though.

That being said, him saying:

I don't need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law.

Is absolutely, 100% correct and everyone should feel the same way.

I know you're a lawyer and you're intelligent, and I think you know what Obama actually meant, so let's not play games. Any justice that has served on the bench in my lifetime has been at least borderline genius. In most cases they can write incredibly convincing cases for both sides. That's why the politics of the selection still matter. All Obama was saying was that he was going to choose someone who will be on the social justice "living document" side as opposed to the strict onstructionist "I want my musket" side. I'm not terribly scared that a respected constitutional professor will appoint a judge who rules a certain way simply because he or she feels "sorry" for either party.

Btw, his other message seemed to be that strict constructionism is an esoteric exercise that does little to serve the needs of a society that has progressed some 200 years since the constitution was initially crafted. Presidential, um, legal scholar BURN?

I_Love_Verdi: Btw, his other message seemed to be that strict constructionism is an esoteric exercise that does little to serve the needs of a society that has progressed some 200 years since the constitution was initially crafted. Presidential, um, legal scholar BURN?

Not just an esoteric exercise, but considering how capriciously it's applied, it's self-deception at best, in my humble opinion.

I_Love_Verdi: All Obama was saying was that he was going to choose someone who will be on the social justice "living document" side as opposed to the strict onstructionist

In other words, he's going to pick an Activist Judge who's willing to make up laws as he goes along to impose his leftist vision of "social justice" on America. Well that comes as no surprise.

KaponoFor3: If a judge cannot support his decision based on the law and the facts of a case, and has to resort to "empathy" to make his decision, then that person has failed as a judge.

I hope we can find you a judge with no empathy.
because you are so dumb, your deserve what you ask for.

so a battered woman, who snaps and kills her abusive husband, she should go to prison for life right?
because the law is clear
it is empathy which allows for justice

/but you aren't talking about jsutice, you are talking about abortion. so stfu. cause we know your secret decoder ring of insanity

SkinnyHead: In other words, he's going to pick an Activist Judge who's willing to make up laws as he goes along to impose his leftist vision of "social justice" on America. Well that comes as no surprise.

How many examples can you show of "activist" judicial rulings?

kronicfeld: hillbillypharmacist: Right. And on any number of other patently unjust laws?

Which laws, specifically? And "unjust" from whose perspective? There are plenty of people who I've drilled in court who consider their drilling "unjust."

Did you wear a condom? ;)

SkinnyHead: I_Love_Verdi: All Obama was saying was that he was going to choose someone who will be on the social justice "living document" side as opposed to the strict onstructionist

In other words, he's going to pick an Activist Judge who's willing to make up laws as he goes along to impose his leftist vision of "social justice" on America. Well that comes as no surprise.

Not a creationism thread.