The Coming War on the Word "Empathy"
Yoo's stunningly un-self aware attack on Sotomayor (which, after all, did not cause death or induce organ failure and thus was perfectly permissible) is one note in a choir of stupidity we're going to hear ad nauseum in the coming days, I think. A couple of hours ago, on "Here and Now," Robin Young was vapidly interviewing a purported liberal at GWU law who had his heart set on Wood and some ex-clerk of Scalia's from one of those evil VRWC think tanks with a noble-sounding name (Center for Justice, Ethics and the Preservation of Puppies, or some such thing).
The VRWC guy used the term "Obama's Lawless Empathy Standard" about fifty times in five minutes. You could hear the capital letters every time he said it. The Right has apparently either decided that when they run the word "empathy" through the decryption function on their tinfoil hats it means "radical socialist judicial activism" or else Luntz said the phrase focus-grouped well with the base and will loosen up their purse strings (which comes to about the same thing, I suppose.) It's pretty clear that "empathy" = "judicial activism to give lawless preferences to lawless minorities" was point one in their pre-positioned Sotomayor contingency action plan.
And hence we get Yoo's suspiciously prompt response using the official attack on "empathy" and we get the asshat from Judicial Watch saying:
The President said that he wanted a judge who had empathy and I read empathy to mean bias in favor of politically correct individuals, whether they be women or a gay person or a black or Hispanic. You know that's the way they should decide in favor of them no matter what the law is.In fact, what Obama means by "empathy" is simply considering the effects of on real people in the real world when intrepreting the law. He talked about it constantly as a Con Law professor and he's talked about it a lot since he was elected.
Pretty bland stuff, even by loony right standards. At worst, what he means is that when interpreting a statute, if it is clear that Congress intended to screw people, then that's how you have to interpret the law, but if you have to choose between two equally plausible interpretations, one of which screws people and the other doesn't, the fact that people will get screwed under one of them should certainly be a relevant factor in determining the intent of Congress. Only a Republican would consider that a radical notion. And, indeed, Republicans don't think it is a radical construction if you replace the word "people" with "corporation." That's the difference between "strict construction" and "judicial activism" for them, these days. That's the essence of the Roberts philosophy. That's what this fight is really about. It is transparantly obvious that the misconstruction of what Obama means by "empathy" is the result of an orchestrated and premeditated campaign from the right. Transparantly obvious, that is, to all except the MSM who consider it their jobs to blind themselves to such things because transparently obviously orchestrated capaigns like this one generate juicy, delicious, conflict-filled content. Whether the right wins this fight in the MSM is the critical battle for the Administration over next 48 hours. If they win, which is to say, if they succeed in getting the MSM to internalize their slanderous misconstruction because no one on our side calls "bullshit" on it with sufficient force, it will represent a recasting of Obama's entire agenda in terms of their favored "reverse discrimination" smear, which is what they've longed to do for two years now. I am usually the guy calling for calm and pooh-poohing the alarmists for viewing with alarm when they push the panic button over petty symbolic point scoring crap, but I think this is serious. Mighty serious. I hope that either I'm wrong or that the right people agree with me and they don't find themselves on the defensive and losing two days from now because they lost control of the narrative on this point."He didn't seem to really want to talk theory in the classes," said onetime student David Franklin, now a law professor at DePaul University. "He wanted to talk about what worked and what the real-world testing of those theories had yielded."
For Obama, "the Supreme Court is a part of his life in a way that the typical person just doesn't understand," said Douglas Baird, a friend and University of Chicago law professor. And yet the president, according to his associates, does not look to the high court as a source of seismic shifts.
Politics and legislation are the main engines of social change in Obama's view, said University of Chicago law professor David Strauss, "and the courts . . . should be practical, common-sense, working around the edges. We shouldn't be looking to the courts for salvation."
Advertisement
"The President said that he wanted a judge who had empathy and I read empathy to mean...."
That sort of straw-man building is what has been behind most of the Right's fear and anger against Obama. They imagine the worst, mostly bigoted, right-wing nightmares (Marxist, terrorist, black Kenyan, Muslim, anti-Christ, etc, etc.) and then lash out with all the extreme emotionalism one might expect from them if Obama had been or done any of those things. Right-wingers interpret Obama's actions and statements as having whatever nefarious motivations necessary for them to experience/generate the greatest amount of hate and fear.
May 26, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE have a point of agreement! :-)
May 26, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
hate, fear, ... and revenue!!!
Well said. It is all about emotions. The Right wil not prevail if they admit their goal is to ensure corporate dominance of politics, so they appeal to people's emotions. It cannot be any plainer then their choice of verbiage here, empathy. The very root of the word is emotion itself.
The Right has no rational arguments, nor do they waste their time in the rational world. They are appealing to emotional voters who have this sense that things are going to be taken away from them if they do not support the GOP. The emotional forces coupled with the name calling is so well-crafted it is a nearly impenetrable fog to the remaining GOP voters. Just mumble the words, liberal, socialist, or activist, and they fly into a blind rage, completely removed from the present. These are their dog whistles with which they control their popular base. The Left got through with Obama and many have left the GOP, but we could lose them again very easily.
CFKANCS, I agree. This IS a critical moment, today and tomorrow. One might even say we are fighting for our humanity, the ability to have empathy for another person. It is astounding how boldly the GOP can declare "empathy" is a dangerous word. For the GOP and corporate interests, yes it is.
May 27, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great irony for them is that it's the extreme emotionalism, which the GOP has manipulatively cultivated for years, that is destroying them today. They've turned their base in to a political Frankenstein's monster, zealously driven to purify the party. Yet, they continue to feed the monster with self-destructive negative emotions.
May 27, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP agrees with the self-destructive meme. It enables them to dismantle the government as they did under W. We had laws. We just ignored them, so it was as if there were no laws, and no government. That is their self-proclaimed nirvana.
May 27, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There would be a "war of the words" no matter what words Obama had used to describe his nominee.
Even if he had chosen "strict constructionist" somehow, some way the right would misconstrue it to mean something else:
"Strict construction, you say? What the hell? You mean you're going to appoint someone who has the audacity to actually READ the Constitution instead of just believe what we say is in the Constitution as interpreted by John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez? The Constitution is not some "construction project." That's not what the Founding Fathers intended. And since when is "strictness" the qualification for a justice? They're supposed to play it loosey-goosey, just wing it."
Helmets and flak jackets on, ladies and gentlemen as the crapola will commence flying in 3-2-1...
May 26, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Got this exactly right, Jade.
May 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jade. I always thought, hell if the Second Amendment has guarantees. I am all for it!!!
Every household is hereby awarded a single shot musket.
May 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good piece, Steve. There's a nice post from Balkinization on this as well
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-is-empathy-controversial-or-liberal.html
May 26, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm betting on Obama not backing down on this. The pick is centrist, not radical, and I think he wants to win a fight. Anyone opposing her will look radical, and given the millions of victims of non-empathic business decisions we only have to plan on letting the right wing measure their own rope.
May 26, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not worried about backing down. This nomination is the most "in your face, mofos" choice on the short list. I'm just worried about losing control of the narrative. Probably needlessly. They're nothing if not messaging pros.
May 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But isn't this 'messaging' or relabeling loosing its momentum? I'm of the opinion that all of the bullshit Republican revisionistic fear-mongering language (for example: Clear Skies, Patriot, Freedom, Orange Level, War on Terror, and an additional mini-dictionary number of phrases) is loosing effectiveness. We've become too cynical to believe that phrasing actually means anything.
I mean, when the White House was showing us mobile labs in Iraq when they aren't actually there--it's even hard to believe even specifics that the gov is saying....
May 26, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that the choice is "in your face", beyond the much-hyped sex and race. If Sotomayor's record of decisions had belonged to an older white male, the right would have absolutely nothing, beyond the expected RW mantra, "He's too liberal". And, being absurd when taken in context (which that would have been, without the distraction of race and sex) it wouldn't have gotten to first base.
What this is about, besides the base-fluffing for those who hate brown-skinned women (and are willing to send their dollars in, accordingly) is to break Obama's kneecaps so hard now, that next time, he doesn't dare nominate anyone a tenth more progressive than Judge Sotomayor.
After all, if they're gonna give him shit over a corporate-friendly centrist, just imagine the WWIII over a strong civil libertarian, or (gasp!) librul. There may even be pressure in the CW for him to prove some kind of Beltway "centrist" bona fides, by actually appointing an all-out "conservative". And that suggestion will be considered perfectly legit, in a way that suggesting a "progressive" or "liberal", simply cannot, in that reality.
It will work, too. Obama now knows where the boundary lines have been painted.
Be alarmed over that.
May 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you say, the pick is a centrist not a radical (formerly called liberals). Conservatives have already won. When they're in office they nominate a Scalia, a Roberts, an Alito, etc. and move the court very deliberately and radically to the far right. They are proudly and intentionally and proactively and relentlessly and single-mindedly conservative.
We preemptively surrender ideology and pragmatically choose a safe choice expediently for the short run.
They win in the end. They know this is a long game.
I'm not critical of Sotomayor here. She's probably a fine person. I'm just saying, it's a long game and they're fighting to win it. I'm not really sure what we're doing.
May 26, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Souter wasn't 'radical' either. So this may be a zero sum game as of yet, unless she moves left once confronted by the Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas block.
May 26, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'll admit it's been that way recently, remember that 7 of the 9 Justices were nominated by Republican Presidents (which was also true at the beginning of the Bush years). My point is that we're not doing too bad considering that only 2 of those 9 Justices were appointed by Democrats.
May 27, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
good point. really good point.
May 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOp has changed radically between the Bushes. yes, from HW and prior, the GOP understood our strength was in our balance. Today, the GOP has become so self-righteous, they only see themselves as holding any truth. Thy will only recognize themselves as the true government.
This is how we have come to hear Gingrich demand he be called Speaker Gingrich. Pelosi is the Speaker and Gingrich a has been. This is how they can develop the idea they will rename the Democratic Party, either as the Democrat Party or Democrat-Socialist Party. And, though this was missed by pretty much everybody, there was a former Congressman, Shayes I think was his name, who when challenged about a law on Hardball a few eeks ago, replied that it was a Democrat Committee that promulgated the law. As if taht law was somehow invalid because the Democrats ran the committee. This is the law of the United States, not the Democrats. I believe the GOP since Dubya has lost touch with the reality that the government is perpetual. It does not start and stop when the GOP is the majority.
May 27, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This calls to mind something I read only yesterday, in a 2005 FAIR article about the abortive attempt to seat Robert Bork on SCOTUS.
This from the columnist Coleman McCarthy, at the time, on the Outrage [tm] experienced by Republicans, when they couldn't pass the nomination of the guy who fired the Justice Department, on behalf of Tricky Dick, and against the rule of law:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2592
May 27, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't that sound like an entitlement complex, or something?!?
May 27, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The authors of Wired to Care, one of the only books on empathy and leadership, have a nice post up today on the subject, as well.
http://www.wiredtocare.com/?p=1531
May 26, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is important to throw the bullshit flag, but I don't think this sort of thing gains much traction for any but the hardest of the hard core. I am tired of giving a shit what any of those clowns think.
It's why I have mostly stopped watching the news, actually.
Like Tom said, this pick is actually very moderate, very center-left, and should play as such to the vast majority of Americans. Baring some unknown skeleton, I am sure Obama will knock this one out of the park.
May 26, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh, thanks for the image. I'm now imagining a ref tossing a flag and then later addressing the audience: "Illegal BS. Offense. 15 yards."
May 26, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intentional Bullshit penalty? I say ejection from the game. We need to get rid of these clowns completely. They are impeding our forward progress.
May 27, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. They had a Carville vs. Coulter Sotomayor face-off this morning on GMA. Only so much crap one can take with the morning coffee...
May 27, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. That must have been an earplug worthy debate, though at least it was a fair fight.
May 27, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you watched it? Bless your heart!
May 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh, only some of it. Like I said, only so much that you can take!
May 27, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know who I'd like to see them pit against Ms. Coulter, on the boob tube.
But there is probably a big sign up at VRWC HQ: "Do NOT accept invitations to appear on TV in a debate with Rachel Maddow!"
May 27, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She isn't even center-left, she's center.
May 27, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess that depends on the definition. If she is "center" like Obama is "center" then she should be a solid choice.
If Obama is merely playing with moving the center back to a more rational position, then maybe she isn't all the good. I guess we'll see. Even as corporate-centered as the SC is these days, I have been moderately surprised by some of their rulings. Outright disgusted by others.
More hurry up and wait for all involved.
May 27, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get a lot more terrified when Chuck Schumer calls her a moderate. Now, if someone wants to start a war on the word moderate, I'll enlist.
May 26, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we already lost that one. Ben Nelson and and Lieberman won it. "Moderate" now means "conservative asshole in the wrong party."
May 26, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empathy is the ability to understand someone else's position, feelings and thoughts, without being in that position yourself.
Certain appropriate personae might feel comfortable continuing with:
Lack of empathy is the defining characteristic of psychopaths.
Are we to understand that the Republicans think it is appropriate to appoint psychopaths to the Supreme Court?
(I know, I know, rhetorical question.)
May 26, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC - a front page worthy post - thank you. But I love this from the Marxist:
Lack of empathy is the defining characteristic of psychopaths.
Sooo, how do we define the republicans now?
May 27, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only bitch with this blog is the title, The Coming War on the Word "Empathy".
I'd say the war has already started.
May 26, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it was still coming when I started it . . .
May 26, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Faux News hadn't yet warmed up for the night when you wrote this.
May 26, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice the words seems to be changing to compassion later in the day.
May 26, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Balkinization post ref'd upthread is excellent and I highly recommend it.
I hear everyone who says they don't think it'll stick and that the whole kid of politics where that kind of thing does stick is a dead letter and you're probably right. Ordinarily, I'm the one saying that. That's my standard view on almost everything like this.
But there's just something about this one that worries me. As Inoefe and the Judicial Watch made clear, their "empathy" smear paints Obama as a lightweight who doesn't understand what a judge needs to be (white and male) to do his job (keep the coloreds under control) and Sotomayor as the underserving beneficiary of affirmative action. What I think it really comes down to is that it is such a slyy vicious way of stoking the racist assumptions they dearly hope are still out there. Just like their insistence that Obama is a complete doof who's just good at reading stuff that they (no idea who the "they" is, but George Soros is bound to be involved) write for him. And their smear that Sotomayor is an intellectual lightweight. And the guy I saw in the comments over at Space.com sneering at Obama's pick to head NASA--a Marine Corp major general with 100 combat missions and a former astronaut with four shuttle flights, two as commander--as a "social experiment."
I guess it boils down to the fact that, at some level, a lot of white people, including whites who voted for Obama, at some level think still white people are, on average, intellectually superior to brown people. And, more insidiously still, at some even deeper level they still equate "American" and "Americanism" with "white." The Republicans really do seem to think that if they can get that little shard of racist doubt under the skin of enough white Americans, it'll slowly work itself into their brains and hearts, like a shard of glass working itself into flesh if its not plucked out. They think it work in, spread the infection and and once it festers the white voters will all come flocking back to them.
May 26, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of baseless assumptions in this comment, Steve. You are succumbing to the very thing you've been railing against this last year or so. I understand the temptation, but believe we are actually in the process of winning the War on Words.
I believe the wing nuts who would call the general you described a "social experiment" are not the majority of Americans. Not even white Americans. They are the exception. They are also the loudest, so they appear to have more weight than they actually do, but we have to resist the temptation to get all flustered when they start chanting stupid shit.
We are at the beginning of a number of changing trends in America that started with the election of Barack Obama. If we can't be patient enough to see some momentum take shape, we run the risk of failure altogether.
May 27, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good comments, on the whole, Jason! Only it's more than simply "they're also the loudest" (which they are), that gives the 20 percenters their grease.
They are also the political ideologues, most likely to have their loudness played on TV, and printed in the papers. There are plenty of "loud", righteous Lefties who speak truth to power on a daily basis.
And they will never make it to CNN or Katie Couric, or talk radio networks with an affiliate list of over 15 stations. It's kind of hard to overcome that kind of ideological weighting, in the MSM.
But the good news is, it's far from impossible. Just remember what kind of national retreat from Bushism we've affected, using only our computers and social networks. And they've got the corporate billions, and the mainstream media. I'd say we're more dangerous than anyone, including those clowns, ever anticipated!
May 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Barry. You make some good points as well. The democratization of information as seen online is certainly the thing that keeps these Masters of the Universe up at night. Controlling the public was a lot easier when we only had limited sources of information.
What I would love to see is fewer ideological lefties speaking truth to power and more ideological lefties who speak truth to their fellow citizens, but do so in a way that might actually communicate the message that we all want the same things but have been convinced we are enemies.
As long as they can divide us with semantics and identity politics, it won't matter how free the information flows online.
May 27, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will not be long before the White vote cannot carry the day. This is an example of how RNC works backwards. No matter what, Whites will not be a majority very soon. Frankly, I say Amen to that. In the diverse global village in which we live, isolating oneself to a Whites Only society is the recipe for failure. Good riddance GOP, if that is how they wish to play that. Sorry JEM, but the GOP may be finished, and it will be some other party that will rise to replace it in oposition to the Demcoratic Party.
May 27, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear on "very soon", whites are projected to be a majority in the US up until around 2050 or so. As that percentage decreases, however, the GOP has to get an ever increasing slice of the "White Pie" in order to offset that they get far less from the other demographics. (Obviously many in their party would also like to cater to those other demographics, but they're often operating at cross-purposes in doing so.)
May 27, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no argument with the numbers. Maybe very soon is an exaggeration, but let's just pretend the GOP can have ALL the white vote, which is absurd, but that is how they are playing their hand. They have a 30 year future with that tactic. Of course, there are people of color who will vote with them, like Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice and Michael Steele...and I think that's about it. Dick Cheney reports Colin Powell has left the GOP.
May 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another, probably uncalculated, statistic is the percentage of white people in the US who do not have a "close relative" who is non-white/non-Hispanic.
May 27, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are! Like that one family in Kansas. Their daughter married this guy from Africa. Next thing you knew, they had a son, and wouldn't ya know, this black-n-whit kid was elected President of the United States!
Does the GOP get that? Not enough to give up their racist ways, evidently. Now, there may be some decent Republicans who do not favor this kind of thinking, but they do not have much voice in their own party because we all see what kinds of things come out of the DC GOP.
May 27, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Beck has weighed in on 'empathy'. He uses Hitler as an example to say "Empathy leads you to very bad decisions, many times." (Only Beck could come up with this one.)
May 26, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, am I missing something, or is Beck arguing in favour of empathy?
May 27, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so, KM. Beck is saying that Hitler's empathy for the parents of the badly deformed baby (and the baby) is what led him to approve the parent's request to have the baby "put to sleep". Not content with this bit of embellishment, Beck goes on to say that this incident led to Hitler's T4 program, where more than 70,000 undesirables were killed in the name of "mercy". And Beck wants us to believe that all these killings were done out of Hitler's feelings of "empathy" for those who were born with severe birth defects, rather than the case that he looked at them as burdens on national resources, just for starters.
I have to admit, he worked hard to pull that explanation out of his ass.
May 27, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! Beck sure has an extensive grasp of the history of Hitler and the Nazis. Is this a reflection of his interests, racism? Just sayin'.
May 27, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddammit, they're doing it again! They are deliberately conflating "EMPATHY" with "SYMPATHY"!!!!
Okay, here are your marching orders: whenever you see them pull this off without being corrected, give them Webster's definition of "empathy":
... vs. "sympathy":
DO YOU SEE HOW THEY HAVE AN AGENDA? "Sympathy"... not "empathy"... is SOMETHING YOU "HAVE FOR THE POOR"!
No self-respcting right-winger would have either "feelings", OR "feelings for the poor".
You think Frank Luntz didn't know this?
May 27, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah hell Steve. EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL,and certainly so in the courts. Always have been, always will be.
How can we help the powerful and the moneyed classes? That is Alito, Roberts, Scalia....
This is all bullshit. Shove the most radical lefty youcan put on the court. To hell with them.
"Pretty bland stuff, even by loony right standards. At worst, what he means is that when interpreting a statute, if it is clear that Congress intended to screw people, then that's how you have to interpret the law, but if you have to choose between two equally plausible interpretations, one of which screws people and the other doesn't, the fact that people will get screwed under one of them should certainly be a relevant factor in determining the intent of Congress. Only a Republican would consider that a radical notion. "
I still like this blog and especially this paragraph though so I hereby give you the Knightly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me.
May 26, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He purposefully dropped the empathy bomb knowing that the schizo-wing would fall off the deep end, legislate from bench etc...
This only serves to reinforce her background story, which makes them look like bigger "enhanced interrogators" than expected.
May 27, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really what does The Right have to lose here. Their dignity? Honor? Reputation for clear headed rational thought? Support of fair minded people of good will? All gone. All that is left is their steadfast base that will swallow and cheer anything said by Rush, Bill, Newt, Cheney, Sarah...
The Right has made their stock and trade smirking and snearing at any one who advocates peace, justice or even God fobid fairness. And now after three decades in ascendence the nation and the world has seen what it all boils down to and we don't like it one bit. Except for the loyal few. More red meat for them is all they can deliver now. And deliver they will.
May 27, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. All outstanding points, actually.
May 27, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Right has nothing to lost, but I don't think that's the point. As usual, the right has the megaphone of cable news. This morning, at approximately the same time, CNN was interviewing a conservative activist about Sotomayor (her opinions lack "depth", and, from the CNN anchor to the guest: "I don't know if you knew this, but President Obama barely knew Sotomayor before he nominated her") while MSNBC was interviewing a conservative activist who quoted Rosen and Turley to argue that even liberal scholars objected to Sotomayor, and the only reason Obama nominated her was because she was a Latina, and that there were far more qualified people (Dianne Wood or Elena Kagan were the two mentioned, as if conservatives would ever support either) that he could have nominated.
Add it all up, and empathy is just a code word for arguing that Obama nominated an unqualified person that he barely knew just because she has brown skin just like he has. Reverse racisim. Sure, this will only appeal to the wingnutosphere, but every other nomination by Obama potentially will be framed in these terms, unless there's significant pushback on the part of Democrats.
And if this morning on cable news was any indicator, the Democrats, again, are caught flat-footed.
But at least Turley and Rosen are out there.
Right?
May 27, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know if you knew this, but President Obama barely knew Sotomayor before he nominated her"
Good Lord, I voted for a president that has the audacity to nominate a person for SCOTUS that he barely knows!
May 27, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you knew this...
OOooooh. A secret! I'm an insider now to the conspiracy to promote non-whites into the government for no other reason then their darker skin-color.
These people are sick. They are really very, very sick.
Let's allow them this fantasy that these people of color made it into their respective schools because of affrimative action. It's not true, but let's just say they did. When we do, it opens up the listeners to what we say. Throw them a bone to loosen them up. Fine, Obama and Sotomayor caught a break to get into school. Then how do they explain getting to be President of the Harvard Law Review (Obama), or 2nd in her class at Princeton (Sotomayor). Is that an example of affrimative action? Yeah, didn't think so.
May 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only Judge Sotomayor was mediocre, then the Republicans would be happy.
Nixon apparently nominated a court of appeals judge from Florida named Carswell. As a District Court Judge over 60% of his decisions had been overturned and the most that could be said about him was that he was mediocre. So this asshat Republican Senator, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, came to Carswell's defense.
This is what will make the Republicans happy? A Supreme Court justice to represent all the mediocre people in America?
May 27, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is EXACTLY why the GOP was enthralled with Bush, he reminded them of their mediocre selves. And Sarah Palin, too! Not to mention Joe the Plumber! The GOP is on a quest for mediocrity because they just don ot understand the high ideals of the Left and all that empathy.
May 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama posted a vid introducing us to his SC choice and his reasons for choosing her. The page requests that we email this vid to as many people as we know. And encourage our elected reps to approve her. The best way to overcome all of the MSM crappola is to do exactly as we did in the campaign - spread the word virally.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/introducing-sotomayor
May 27, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken!
Perhaps a commercial showing GHW Bush using the 'empathy' word in this repect over and over will mellow out the 'asshattery'? Maybe include all of her credentials and the fact that she was nominated first by GHW then nominated furher by Clinton and has been 'approved' by congress both times.
... but probably not even though there is an incredibly weak case against her nomination.
Fighting over judges has always been a favorite fundraising issue for the GOP. No matter who the president nominated they would play their games and milk it for all it is worth. It's about the almighty dollar. That and maybe right now they'd like to stop talking about torture... to distract us and take our eyes off that ball.
I am going to take cover and do my best to avoid the load of excrement about to be thrown around... I believe she will be on the supreme court, hopefully by October.
May 27, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN BULLETIN:
Obama nominates Jesus Christ to Supreme Court.
Conservatievs point to Sermon on the Mount as proof of his radical liberal agenda.
Newt Gingrich sees "Love thy neighbor" as appeasement of radical islamic terrorists."
Wolf Blitzer to Harry Reid: 'So, Senator Reid, is this nominee a friend of islamic terrorists?'
May 27, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha. Very well put JohnW. ha
May 27, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. That is how ridiculous this has become.
May 27, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Turning the other cheek"?!
That guy is way too soft on Defense!
May 27, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn,
truly. :-)
"It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven."
Jesus is obviously a champion of class warfare.
May 27, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swear to all that is Democratic and mostly holy, this is from a diary in Red State (via Balloon Juice):
There's more even, but that pretty much does it for WWJD about waterboarding.
May 27, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, over there on Red State, when they turn the other cheek, it's someone else's cheek! LOL!!!
May 27, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. I am going to circulate that... Maybe you should send it to KO or Robert Gibbs(ok well maybe not him).
May 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
At the baser, tit-for-tat level, it is helpful that both GHW Bush (speaking of Thomas) and Robert Bork used the term 'empathy' as characteristics of a good judge.
May 27, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent summary of the issue. Unfortunately, conservatives don't do nuance very well.
The "conservatives" now on the Supreme Court show an obvious bias towards the status quo, so that in any dispute between the rich or powerful and the poor or powerless, the rich or powerful will win. But for a Republican, that's such a natural state of affairs that they can't see it and can't even understand that any other result is possible.
The fact that someone might occasionally want to give the poor or powerless a break might seem radical to conservatives, but mercy and compassion are actually part of what is usually meant by "justice."
May 27, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink