People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers.

Someone want to argue against this?

David Brooks is NOT a Conservative which is why the NY Times hired him as their Conservative columnist.

DamnYankees: Someone want to argue against this?

No, but I will point out that there is a wide range of values between sociopathy and hysteria.

EatHam: DamnYankees: Someone want to argue against this?

No, but I will point out that there is a wide range of values between sociopathy and hysteria.

Hysteria is not the opposite of sociopathy.

DamnYankees: Hysteria is not the opposite of sociopathy.

No, but I couldn't think of any other single word to say that there is a big difference between having no emotions and being overly emotional, and both extremes are many times categorized as mental illnesses.

EatHam: DamnYankees: Hysteria is not the opposite of sociopathy.

No, but I couldn't think of any other single word to say that there is a big difference between having no emotions and being overly emotional, and both extremes are many times categorized as mental illnesses.

If you meant to say "overly emotion", the word is "female".

BADUM-BUM!

DamnYankees: People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers.

Someone want to argue against this?

It so dumb I don't know where to begin. Empathy is wonderful and everyone should have it but it is not something to guide a SC Justice. SC Justices have the law in front of them and that is what should be their guide. I have empathy for a woman who was sexually harassed by her boss but if she legally waited too long to sue then you rule against her. Apparently Obama is only concerned that Sotomayor have empathy for the woman and not whether Sotomayor would follow the law.

DamnYankees: People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers.

Someone want to argue against this?

Emotions and empathy are not negatives. But objectivity still requires you keep those two in proper perspective and balance them with impartiality. I don't know where this notion that anyone expects judges to be emotionless automatons is coming from. I think it's taking the "empathy" objection to an extreme.

Hang On Voltaire: It so dumb I don't know where to begin. Empathy is wonderful and everyone should have it but it is not something to guide a SC Justice. SC Justices have the law in front of them and that is what should be their guide. I have empathy for a woman who was sexually harassed by her boss but if she legally waited too long to sue then you rule against her. Apparently Obama is only concerned that Sotomayor have empathy for the woman and not whether Sotomayor would follow the law.

So, nothing to argue against the actual quote then? Alright.

Nabb1: Emotions and empathy are not negatives. But objectivity still requires you keep those two in proper perspective and balance them with impartiality. I don't know where this notion that anyone expects judges to be emotionless automatons is coming from. I think it's taking the "empathy" objection to an extreme.

So you agree with Brooks and Obama and Sotomayor then. I don't see the problem. It's the conservative clique which is shouting the "NO EMPATHY EVER" slogan. You don't see any liberals saying "ONLY EMPATHY ALWAYS".

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Emotions and empathy are not negatives. But objectivity still requires you keep those two in proper perspective and balance them with impartiality. I don't know where this notion that anyone expects judges to be emotionless automatons is coming from. I think it's taking the "empathy" objection to an extreme.

So you agree with Brooks and Obama and Sotomayor then. I don't see the problem. It's the conservative clique which is shouting the "NO EMPATHY EVER" slogan. You don't see any liberals saying "ONLY EMPATHY ALWAYS".

I'm not going to let some law student quoting an op-ed piece tell me what I think about what makes a good judge.

Hang On Voltaire: David Brooks is NOT a Conservative which is why the NY Times hired him as their Conservative columnist.

that's it. purge the unclean from your midst. let the flame of truth burn their tongues from their heads. only the righteous shall endure.

Nabb1: I'm not going to let some law student quoting an op-ed piece tell me what I think about what makes a good judge.

Wow, you got defensive fast. All I'm observing is what you said:

Nabb1: You need both empathy and emotion to balance with impartiality.
Obama: Empathy is important.
Consevatives: Empathy should be nonexistent in a judge.

Which do you sound like more? That's all I'm going off of. Feel free to correct me.

Hobodeluxe:
that's it. purge the unclean from your midst. let the flame of truth burn their tongues from their heads. only the righteous shall endure.

HEAL HIM!!!

DamnYankees:

So, nothing to argue against the actual quote then? Alright.

No because I reject his premise that conservatives think that a judge shouldn't have empathy. That is why I said this is so dumb I don't know where to start.

Someone want to argue against this?

He's drawing a false distinction. The conservative point (as opposed to the Limbaugh whargarbl point) is not that there's no place at all for empathy, it's that there are many more important factors to consider first.

Gulper Eel:

He's drawing a false distinction. The conservative point (as opposed to the Limbaugh whargarbl point) is not that there's no place at all for empathy, it's that there are many more important factors to consider first.

What we said. I think judges should also pick out fashionable ties but I don't think it is an important factor when deciding on a SCOTUS nominee.

Gulper Eel: He's drawing a false distinction. The conservative point (as opposed to the Limbaugh whargarbl point) is not that there's no place at all for empathy, it's that there are many more important factors to consider first.

Empathy isn't a 'factor'. You don't tally it up next to 'law' and 'equity' in the pros and cons when making a ruling. It is simply an all-enfusing concept, like logic. I frankly don't even understand the conservative argument here.

I have to say that I agree with her in her assessment that you cannot fully divorce yourself from who you are when making decisions that involve real people and real lives. you might think you can. you might deny it. You can aspire to be more than the sum of all your experiences. but are you really? Takes an honest and brave soul to admit that in her position. her candor is refreshing to me even if it has caused some to frown.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I'm not going to let some law student quoting an op-ed piece tell me what I think about what makes a good judge.

Wow, you got defensive fast. All I'm observing is what you said:

Nabb1: You need both empathy and emotion to balance with impartiality.

No, that's not what I said. I'm not sure I completely agree with the assertion that emotion and empathy are essential to objectivity, but I don't think they necessarily interfere with legal judgment unless one lets them.

Obama: Empathy is important.
Consevatives: Empathy should be nonexistent in a judge.

Which do you sound like more? That's all I'm going off of. Feel free to correct me.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the issue. It's not an absolute. Let's take a look at the empathy, emotion issue:

There has been a great deal of litigation down here over flood exclusions in homeowners policies since hurricane Katrina in that homeowners policies exclude flood damage, but many people tried to claim flood damage under their homeowners policies, largely where they had no flood insurance or insufficient flood insurance. The policy language is pretty cut and dry. Do you think a judge should let empathy for people who lost their houses override their judgment that the flood exclusion applies? From an emotional standpoint, you have to tell someone they've lost everything with no recourse. (Or, perhaps a greatly diminished recovery.)

DamnYankees: It is simply an all-enfusing concept, like logic.

Okay then, consider empathy as coming in behind logic in the conservative (again non-Limbaugh) mindset.

DamnYankees:

Empathy isn't a 'factor'. You don't tally it up next to 'law' and 'equity' in the pros and cons when making a ruling. It is simply an all-enfusing concept, like logic. I frankly don't even understand the conservative argument here.

I have explained it three times and others have as well.

Nabb1: No, that's not what I said. I'm not sure I completely agree with the assertion that emotion and empathy are essential to objectivity, but I don't think they necessarily interfere with legal judgment unless one lets them.

It's exactly what you said:

But objectivity still requires you keep those two in proper perspective and balance them with impartiality.
'
That is literally you saying you need to keep empathy and emotion in balance with impartiality. I mean, literally.

Nabb1: There has been a great deal of litigation down here over flood exclusions in homeowners policies since hurricane Katrina in that homeowners policies exclude flood damage, but many people tried to claim flood damage under their homeowners policies, largely where they had no flood insurance or insufficient flood insurance. The policy language is pretty cut and dry. Do you think a judge should let empathy for people who lost their houses override their judgment that the flood exclusion applies? From an emotional standpoint, you have to tell someone they've lost everything with no recourse. (Or, perhaps a greatly diminished recovery.)

Depends on the specifics - sounds like not. These people were simply uninsured. But I can['t so no for sure, because of the one principle of contract based almost entirely on empathy - unconscionability. I would highly doubt these contracts would quality as unconscionable, but in certain cases it might be possible. And the idea of an unconscionable contract, one so grossly unfair that it won't be upheld according to the literally words of the contract, is something which is entirely dependent on empathizing with the bereaved party.

Hang On Voltaire: I have explained it three times and others have as well.

Well, you've asserted it. You haven't explained it.

Hobodeluxe: I have to say that I agree with her in her assessment that you cannot fully divorce yourself from who you are when making decisions that involve real people and real lives. you might think you can. you might deny it. You can aspire to be more than the sum of all your experiences. but are you really? Takes an honest and brave soul to admit that in her position. her candor is refreshing to me even if it has caused some to frown.

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life." Would you find that refreshing if John Roberts said it?

Hang On Voltaire:

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life." Would you find that refreshing if John Roberts said it?

No because it doesn't make any sense. Female latinas have a different cultural context than white men.

Nabb1: I think it's taking the "empathy" objection to an extreme.

It is a little strange, isn't it? Especially given those empathy quotes someone found on Alito, Scalia and someone else in another thread.

Gulper Eel: Okay then, consider empathy as coming in behind logic in the conservative (again non-Limbaugh) mindset.

Where has she ever said she values empathy over logic? Of course judges are going to have feelings, and they are going to judge from them. Expecting someone to turn into a robot once they reach the bench is ludicrous.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: No, that's not what I said. I'm not sure I completely agree with the assertion that emotion and empathy are essential to objectivity, but I don't think they necessarily interfere with legal judgment unless one lets them.

It's exactly what you said:

But objectivity still requires you keep those two in proper perspective and balance them with impartiality.
'
That is literally you saying you need to keep empathy and emotion in balance with impartiality. I mean, literally.

So, they need to be balanced. I'm not sure they are essential to the equation as Mr. Brooks - whom I'm fairly certain has not actually argued a legal issue before a judge before - asserts.

Depends on the specifics - sounds like not. These people were simply uninsured. But I can['t so no for sure, because of the one principle of contract based almost entirely on empathy - unconscionability. I would highly doubt these contracts would quality as unconscionable, but in certain cases it might be possible. And the idea of an unconscionable contract, one so grossly unfair that it won't be upheld according to the literally words of the contract, is something which is entirely dependent on empathizing with the bereaved party.

Unconscionability did not enter into the issue, at least not under any rational standard. I'm sure somewhere some ambulance chaser tried to argue flood exclusions were "unconscionable." If you have a contract dispute, you better have a lot of other arguments lined up before you start playing the "unconscionability" card. In the vast majority of contractual dispute cases, that's not going to even enter the equation.

Hang On Voltaire: David Brooks is NOT a Conservative which is why the NY Times hired him as their Conservative columnist.

I knew that some wingnut was going to say that. Tell me, why did the NYT hire Kristol then? Were they low on their dumbass quota?

Hang On Voltaire: David Brooks is NOT a Conservative which is why the NY Times hired him as their Conservative columnist.

STFU - he is too. Conservative != "agrees with HOV on all issues"

This apparently is incomprehensible to the squalling children who are intent on a rigid definition of "conservative" (to the point that it is destroying the GOP), but people of similar enough beliefs to all fit under the same label can, in fact, disagree on issues.

This "so and so isn't a conservative because his opinions on issues x, y, and z are different than mine (and Limbaugh's)" is the acme of childish arrogance.

But go ahead...rigidify your definitions and drive the "RINOs" to the Dems. Go right ahead. Be sure to whine the whole time, too - it just makes the whole thing that more satisfying...

Nabb1: So, they need to be balanced. I'm not sure they are essential to the equation as Mr. Brooks - whom I'm fairly certain has not actually argued a legal issue before a judge before - asserts.

That's fine - but you are then certainly close to Sotomayor than you are to the GOP talking heads going on TV and writing columns saying emotion has no place anywhere in a courtroom.

Nabb1: Unconscionability did not enter into the issue, at least not under any rational standard. I'm sure somewhere some ambulance chaser tried to argue flood exclusions were "unconscionable." If you have a contract dispute, you better have a lot of other arguments lined up before you start playing the "unconscionability" card. In the vast majority of contractual dispute cases, that's not going to even enter the equation.

Then it sounds like you, I, and Sotomayor would agree they would not get the insurance. Done and done.

The issue is not "do we let our sympathies trump law", the issue is "is there a place within the law itself where we have no choice but to empathize with the parties before making a decision". I think any intellectually honest lawyer has to say the latter is obviously true.

Nabb1: I'm not going to let some law student quoting an op-ed piece tell me what I think about what makes a good judge.

Conservative thought is not as simple as saying "there should be no empathy in a judge whatsoever."

The biggest problem I have with this is the fat that Obama points to her empathy and her experiences as though they are the only qualifying aspects that should be considered, or at the very least the aspect to her that makes her most qualified to sit on the SC.

Empathy, while a valuable human trait, should not be the lone consideration when appointing someone to the highest court in the land. Their background and legal decisions should be scrutinized.

Obama has said as much with Clarence Thomas, by stating that he would not have voted for him in his confirmation because he, at the time, was not a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time to justify the elevation."

so at one point, we have him looking at the legal thinking of a nominee that was not his, now conservatives are supposed to just take Sotomayor as the perfect SC justice because of her empathy?

I think this is diversionary because empathy is not a measurable quantity- like telling someone who asks what she looks like, and you saying "she has a good personality," deflecting the fact that she's 5'3" and weighs 300...

How about a look at her decisions and writings? seems like more sound reasoning than 'empathy.'

GAT_00: Where has she ever said she values empathy over logic?

We'll find out which she values more at the hearings, won't we?

Of course judges are going to have feelings, and they are going to judge from them.

And again, the question will be where those feelings show up on her list of priorities.

That she said a couple of dumbshiat things in her past isn't a dealbreaker by itself. Obama's the president, and the default position should be to defer to his wishes long as he doesn't go full Ramsey Clark on us.

Unwashed_Mass_Member: Empathy, while a valuable human trait, should not be the lone consideration when appointing someone to the highest court in the land. Their background and legal decisions should be scrutinized.

The argument I would make is that Sotomayor's experience and credentials are obvious - they don't need to be 'argued'. The truth is there is a large (relatively) pool of people who are perfectly qualified to be on the Supreme Court. There's a group of people who all have the necessary experience, intelligence, and credentials. The question is how you decide among them. That's where the argument about empathy comes in.

Gulper Eel: We'll find out which she values more at the hearings, won't we?

You can find out already if you'd bother reading her decisions. She's already been a judge a long time.

Unwashed_Mass_Member: The biggest problem I have with this is the fat that Obama points to her empathy and her experiences as though they are the only qualifying aspects that should be considered, or at the very least the aspect to her that makes her most qualified to sit on the SC.

I'm fairly sure I've heard that she's got more experience as a judge than any current member. I'm fairly sure I heard that from Obama's administration. So what, pray, are you talking about?

Lionel Mandrake:

STFU - he is too. Conservative != "agrees with HOV on all issues"

You STFU - he is not.

This apparently is incomprehensible to the squalling children who are intent on a rigid definition of "conservative" (to the point that it is destroying the GOP), but people of similar enough beliefs to all fit under the same label can, in fact, disagree on issues.

This "so and so isn't a conservative because his opinions on issues x, y, and z are different than mine (and Limbaugh's)" is the acme of childish arrogance.

But go ahead...rigidify your definitions and drive the "RINOs" to the Dems. Go right ahead. Be sure to whine the whole time, too - it just makes the whole thing that more satisfying...

It's not childish arrogance it's standing up for what you think is right. David Brooks is not a Conservative. You and the NY Times and he can call himself one all day long but it doesn't mean it is true. Brooks likes to be the token Republican at cocktail parties in Manhattan and have his liberal hosts like him. The RINOs can go to the Dems all day long. I would prefer it. What is the point of electing Republicans if all they are going to do is govern like Democrats.

It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism and states' rights. This is folly. It's the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.
David Brooks (new window)

THAT is not a Conservative

DamnYankees: The issue is not "do we let our sympathies trump law", the issue is "is there a place within the law itself where we have no choice but to empathize with the parties before making a decision". I think any intellectually honest lawyer has to say the latter is obviously true.

That's rather arrogant and a bit petulant to assume that any lawyer - as in one who has graduated from law school and actually practiced - that does not agree with your pronouncement is "intellectually dishonest." I suggest you check that attitude before you get out of school. In case you hadn't noticed, the job market for recent JDs isn't very good right now.

Nabb1: That's rather arrogant and a bit petulant to assume that any lawyer - as in one who has graduated from law school and actually practiced - that does not agree with your pronouncement is "intellectually dishonest." I suggest you check that attitude before you get out of school. In case you hadn't noticed, the job market for recent JDs isn't very good right now.

Don't be Kapono - you aren't usually a condescending dick. Just deal with the issue. Do you think this statement is wrong:

There a place within the law itself where we have no choice but to empathize with the parties before making a decision.

BritneysSpeculum:

I knew that some wingnut was going to say that. Tell me, why did the NYT hire Kristol then? Were they low on their dumbass quota?

He was their token Republican but when he actually, you know, started saying Republican things they needed to go another direction with their token conservative columnist.

DamnYankees: Don't be Kapono - you aren't usually a condescending dick. Just deal with the issue. Do you think this statement is wrong:

There a place within the law itself where we have no choice but to empathize with the parties before making a decision.

"No choice"? That's rather absolute, and law is generally not a place for sweeping absolutisms (apologies to Justice Hugo Black). What do you mean "no choice but to empathize with the parties"?

I'm going to have to say knowledge of the law would be the most important quality for a judge. But I'm not lawyer, what do I know?

Nabb1: "No choice"? That's rather absolute, and law is generally not a place for sweeping absolutisms (apologies to Justice Hugo Black). What do you mean "no choice but to empathize with the parties"?

I mean that without understanding where the parties come from (psychologically), you can't possibly make a sound ruling. Some obvious examples are whether there is a rational basis (or compelling interest) for certain types of discrimination, whether a contract is unconscionable, or whether certain affirmative defenses are valid.

And I still point to Bowers v. Hardwick as a Supreme Court case where empathy, or more precisely the lack thereof, swung the case. Even Justice Powell said he was wrong because he didn't have enough empathy for gay people - he would have changed his vote in retrospect.

Gulper Eel: That she said a couple of dumbshiat things in her past isn't a dealbreaker by itself.

I agree. I'm looking forward to hearing some of her explanations of her past statements at her confirmation hearings.

Obdicut: I'm fairly sure I've heard that she's got more experience as a judge than any current member. I'm fairly sure I heard that from Obama's administration.

Remember those prior discussions we had about the importance of judicial experience for a SCOTUS nominee? It appears that Obama agreed with me.

DamnYankees: Don't be Kapono - you aren't usually a condescending dick.

Looks like the "oh snap" picture was taken a little bit too sensitively, doesn't it?

If anyone is condescending in this discussion, it's probably the person who asserted that anyone who disagreed with him must be intellectually dishonest.

DamnYankees: certain affirmative defenses are valid.

What kind of affirmative defenses require you to psychologically understand "where the parties are coming from"?

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: certain affirmative defenses are valid.

What kind of affirmative defenses require you to psychologically understand "where the parties are coming from"?

Extreme emotional disturbance is one.

Another one is crimes of passion - this isn't an affirmative defense, but a reduction in charge. It requires you to understand the mindset of someone set off by a certain event into a rage, like seeing your wife screwing another guy.

She's going to sail through. You guys are getting all worked up for nothing. But do go ahead and keep up the racist/kkk rhetoric.
The fastest growing demographic in the country is listening.

Nabb1: DamnYankees: The issue is not "do we let our sympathies trump law", the issue is "is there a place within the law itself where we have no choice but to empathize with the parties before making a decision". I think any intellectually honest lawyer has to say the latter is obviously true.

That's rather arrogant and a bit petulant to assume that any lawyer - as in one who has graduated from law school and actually practiced - that does not agree with your pronouncement is "intellectually dishonest." I suggest you check that attitude before you get out of school. In case you hadn't noticed, the job market for recent JDs isn't very good right now.

damn dude, someone piss in your coffee this morning?

(if his grades are any good at all, he's still probably going to find a job coming out of NYU ... you and i both know that)

DamnYankees, I think Nabb forgot he was in law school once and probably thought he was pretty smart too. Besides, qualifications of a SCOTUS judge is a purely academic discussion so I'd say anyone past their first year is qualified to have it.

Hobodeluxe: She's going to sail through. You guys are getting all worked up for nothing. But do go ahead and keep up the racist/kkk rhetoric.
The fastest growing demographic in the country is listening.

Who was the last justice to not get confirmed when the President had 55+ members of his own party in the Senate? Has it ever even happened?