Some Republicans seem to think having empathy is a bad thing. This explains a lot.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Well, it seemed to be important enough to George H. W. Bush for him to mention it when he introduced Clarence Thomas to us back in 1991:
I suppose you could argue that Bush 41 lied…
‘Some Republicans seem to think having empathy is a bad thing.’
And so do some Democrats there Jon with the stupid last name. Hypocrit.
Yep them Democrats really respected empathy when they voted on Thomas’ nomination. 46 Democrats voted to ignore his empathy.
Justice Thomas has plenty of empathy — for himself. Everytime I’ve seen him on TV, it’s been a whine and cry-fest for himself.
Puddybud,
They voted to ignore him because according to Anita Hill’s testimony his personal character was unbecoming a Justice of the SCOTUS.
I think they meant that she put the ‘pathetic’ in empathetic.
Will empathy disappear down the same hole that disappeared sympathy?
Sociopath is a word that’s way over head of the knuckle draggers on the right! But it really does fit the entire Publican party.
I am GLAD they are attacking this Supreme Court nominee. It will help to solidify the right’s permanent minority status. Bring it on bitches. You right wingers don’t have a hair on your chest if you don’t right your representatives TODAY and demand that they attack PRESIDENT OBAMA’s nominee. Do it. Do it now.
We’ll appreciate the extra 10 percentage points that we beat you buy next time around you scum.
@3: Maybe because Clarence Thomas was unqualified and had no empathy for anyone other than himself.
As he has so ably and completely demonstrated while on the Supreme court, Thomas is an intellectual lightweight without a clue.
Can you name a memorable and incisive Supreme court decision authored by Thomas?
@4: oops – you already went there with Clarence Thomas – a true whiner who has “empathy” only for his failed attempt to be e supreme Court justice. Thurgood Marshall would have turned over in his grave to see the pathetic mess of Clarence thomas.
The worse it gets for you whining Republican traitors and constitution-haters, the better I’m gonna like it. Eat shit, righties!
How can Republicans have empathy when Obamatrons and Psychogressives have sucked it all up and hold it in like a sponge at the bottom of the Marianas Trench? It’s the goozy quim of politics and it only spenches out at Drinking Liberally.
The wingnuts aren’t against her because of ’empathy”, they’re against her on the merits — the merits of her skin color and her singular failure in the ever-important penis qualification.
Some Republicans won’t oppose her too hard, but that’s only because they can’t figure out how to cut holes in their hoods without poking themselves in their eyes.
So some R’s are against Sotomayor because she is a judicial activist except in the New Haven case where they expected judicial activism in the New Have case.
Just another sign of the party that freed the slaves becoming the party that wants to enslave us all, and kill anyone that resists.
Empathy means a mental or affective projection into the feelings or state of mind of another person,
So tell us all jon where does this play into interpreting the constitution and rendering judicial decisions based upon constitutional rights.
@ 16
So tell us all jon where does this play into interpreting the constitution and rendering judicial decisions based upon constitutional rights.
Pardon my answering your question with another question, but the answer does depend in large part on your point of view. So, do you think that there is a singular understanding to the law in every respect, or do you believe that there are areas of ambiguity that are open to multiple interpretations?
re 17: Wingnuts feel that they are on the side of ‘Good’, therefore there can be no evil results from their actions.
So tell us all jon where does this play into interpreting the constitution and rendering judicial decisions based upon constitutional rights.
Ooh, ooh! I know the answer! Pick me! Pick me!
Allow me to quote the Supreme Court nominee directly:
[I]n my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point…
I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
Does that help?
Interesting sentence in her opening statement.
But at Duke University she said…
So one of the statements is a bald face lie. But of course Another Total Jerk can’t figger that out cuz he’s rigidly ideological.
But then there’s more which Another Total Jerk didn’t get from his love of the Talking Points Memo for morons like him and Don Joe…
Hmmm… The Lady Justice Statues Puddy remembers are gender and color blind. But don’t let her gender and skin color comments change your “facts” Another Total Jerk. You need to continue to wallow in those leftist pinhead web sites that love to lie about Dummocraptic phony soldiers and who delivers what baby.
Watchman, Puddy has a response but I’ll wait to see if Goldy’s gang frees it up.
Goldy it’s comment 919947… Apparently including an Amazon site blows up the filter…
Here it is without the link to the info.
Interesting sentence in her opening statement.
But at Duke University she said…
So one of the statements is a bald face lie. But of course Another Total Jerk can’t figger that out cuz he’s rigidly ideological.
But then there’s more which Another Total Jerk didn’t get from his love of the Talking Points Memo for morons like him and Don Joe…
Hmmm… Puddy remembers the Lady Justice Statues (see them on Amazon) are gender and color blind. But don’t let Sotomayor’s gender and skin color comments change your “facts” Another Total Jerk. You need to continue to wallow in those leftist pinhead web sites that love to lie about Dummocraptic phony soldiers and who delivers what baby.
Bold Emphasis added by Puddy to highlight some interesting commentary about judging.
Is there any sane person willing to claim that our personal experiences don’t inform our view of the world? Blind us to some things, open our eyes to others?
Is there any sane person willing to disagree with the sentiment expressed in what I quoted?
TJ,
Only Puddy could take two entirely accurate and completely factual statements and reach a conclusion that one of them must be a bald-faced lie. “Rigidly ideological,” indeed–sorta like convincing oneself that Alan Greenspan was a liberal in order to avoid the obvious implications of the present economic crisis.
I see that today’s Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll’s Presidential Appproval Index is at +6, an increase of 500% since only Tuesday!
Don Joe,
And only Lambchop would not think to look up who actually made the statement I quoted. It was Sam Alito in response to crazy Tom Coburn. Coburn was satisfied with Alito’s display of empathy at the time. Now empathy is icky and wrong, evidently because Sotomayor is not white and lacks a penis.
That sound you hear is Lambchop’s forehead meeting the rake handle.
Gee Puddy, would you approve of a judge who said this?
It was Alito who said that – and TJ just embarassed you.
I sure don’t remember you (Puddy) opposing that intellectual lightweight Alito – the guy who was a member of CAP at Princeton – you know, the club that opposed women and “coloreds” at Princeton (the place where Sotomayor. Just like the rest of your republican buddies….
Well HA swineflu weasels you just made Puddy’s day. Since Sam Alito said the first statement
Then we can see he does take his oath as AJOTSC seriously. And from the statements of Sotomayor, we see she freely admits she’s clouded by her persona and it’s “affects” the her “effect” on the law judgments. Of course being rigidly ideological you ignore what Sotomayor has said.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now to NutRight…
Puddy went on line and saw the SCOTUS agreeing with Alito’s decision making process more than Sotomayor. So for a “lightweight as you call him NutRight (still reading those leftist pinhead blogs Puddy sees) he has more going for him than Sotomayor. But being the tool you are you missed that eh?
Of course your leftist blogs don’t tell you that Clarence Thomas’ First Amendment viewpoint is broader than the SCOTUS libtards. And then there’s this case…Puddy doubts you remember the SCOTUS Kelo v. New London decision. Where were the libtards in this judgment? Of course they destroyed the 3rd, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments with their ruling. Then again you don’t read Justice Thomas’ opinions. Your mind would explode.
cnr,
TJ just embarassed you.
Now, don’t blame me. I just set the rake out; the person who walked into it is the one who embarrassed himself.
It’s like him taking two quotes, each addressing a different issue, and thinking they can’t both be true. It’s embarrassing, yes, but it’s not the fault of the person who points it out.
Puddy @ 28 spews:
Of course being rigidly ideological you ignore what Sotomayor has said.
When Puddy fails to quote the part of those remarks where Judge Sotomayor says, “I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it,” isn’t it Puddy who’s ignoring what Sotomayor has said?
You betcha. The Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry strikes yet again. Will Puddy ever tell the whole truth? I doubt it.
Puddy
ATJ bitch-slapped you good. Give him credit. C’mon, be an adult and acknowledge that you just got schooled.
ATJ,
Kudos, man. It’s hard to make Puddy look more foolish than usual; the bar is so low. Nonetheless, you did it. Take the day off, you’ve earned it.
WOW! I must admit I am truly shocked today.
Puddybud, normally is the Mad Googler on this blog and I cannot believe he didn’t check his facts about Alito’s statement before he turned it into Sotomayor’s words.
Puddy, yeah I gotta agree with Proud Leftist, you need to give props to Another TJ, he set you up for the old rake in the face trick BIG TIME!