Smooth sailing for Sotomayor?

[BrainGlutton]

@Mr.Moto

And yet we have seen time and time again where justice was perverted because an empathy standard was applied over a legal one.

For instance?

[Marley23]

@DSYoungEsq

WHERE in ANY Supreme Court case is there EVER room for applying “empathy?”

If Dred Scot wasn’t a valid example, the Safford v. Redding case probably would be.

[Marley23]

@DSYoungEsq

As it stands, unless and until Franken is seated for Minnesota, the Democrats cannot break a Republican filibuster.

Which means it can mean a hell of a lot.

No. There are 99 Senators right now, which means it takes only 59 to break a filibuster.

[MovieMogul]

Here’s an interesting piece on Empathy and its place in jurisprudence.

As for Sotomayer:

I have no idea whether Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court. But, unlike Harriet Miers, she’s not obviously unqualified. Having been appointed to the bench by George HW Bush is no bad thing; having been recommended by Daniel Patrick Moynihan a considerable advantage. Presuming that no scandalous relevation from her past bubbles up into the public domain one imagines she will be confirmed. This appointment, though it won’t shift the balance of the court too much, poses a couple of awkward problems for the Republican party. Since I doubt they can prevent her being confirmed, one wonders whether there’s any significant upside in fighting the nomination with as much vim and anger as many interest groups on the right are likely to demand?

Identity politics and treating entire swathes of the population as client groups is not an especially bonny aspect of American politics. But it is what it is. While it’s not obviously the case that just putting the first hispanic justice on the bench necessarily advances or even much solidifies Democratic support amongst latino voters, one can easily imagine a situation in which a raucous, energetic, strident Republican attempt to derail the nomination could further alienate hispanic voters from the GOP. That might be unfair, but I wager it’s how it would be perceived by latino voters. So this would seem, at first blush, to be the trap Obama has set for the Republicans: accept the nomination (assuming there’s no scandal) and like it or fight it and lose and do more damage to your own interests than you would if you’d simply seethed in silence and accepted your inevitable defeat. It’s one they do not need to fall into…

[Captain_Carrot]

@DSYoungEsq

As it stands, unless and until Franken is seated for Minnesota, the Democrats cannot break a Republican filibuster.

Which means it can mean a hell of a lot.

Even if 60 votes were needed, Collins and Snowe are practically guaranteed votes.

[Tom_Tildrum]

Since Sotomayor isn’t going to change the perceived overall left-right calculus on the court, I’d be surprised if she was the subject of a big fight.

Remember, Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, and Breyer 87-9.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

Well, she’s his nominee

Irrelevant.

and this is a concept that she has indicated that she’s interested in as well.

Cite?

[Mr.Moto]

@BrainGlutton

For instance?

The Duke rape case travesty only went as far as it did because the victim was seen in a sympathetic light by many, and likewise the defendants were seen in an unsympathetic light. This only changed as more facts in the case were made public, and wasn’t a foregone conclusion at the outset.

Medical malpractice cases often depend on juries to sympathize with the victim and see the doctor, hospital, or insurer in a bad light - and often juries will award damages even in cases where nobody has done anything wrong. This led to the collapse of malpractice coverage and high-risk medical practice in some states and necessitated legal reforms there. West Virginia in particular suffered from this and has only recently begun to recover.

I can easily cite more, but these are particular egregious examples. Indeed, I feel a better case can be made for employing empathy in crafting laws, but when it comes to judging, keeping empathy out of it. Things will fall apart pretty quick when penalties are applied to one group over another in a misguided attempt to make up for past wrongs.

[elucidator]

Doomed. Jobba the Rush has spoken:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/limbaugh-sotomayor-fail/

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Mr. Moto, would you please clarify what you mean when you use the term “empathy” or “empathy standard”?

Do you mean to employ it as a synonym for sympathy, as you have explicitly done in your last post? Do you think Obama does too?

[Sam_Stone]

So about this ‘empathy’ standard… Let’s say that the Supreme court was made up of nine conservative white old guys. Now comes a case where an old white businessman is being sued because he refuses to hire a qualified black person.

Do you really want the old white guys deciding the case based on their ‘empathy’?

I thought you wanted a country of ‘laws, not men’. Of objective standards and written rules that take away the power of individual men to rule over people by fiat, prejudice, or bias. And what is ‘empathy’ if not bias towards one side of a legal dispute?

If you think it would be so great for the supreme court, or any court, to start re-defining laws or overlooking them based on their personal feelings about the litigants, try to imagine that situation existing when the people using their ‘empathy’ are your political opponents. What goes around comes around, eventually. Do you really want to set the precedent for this type of rule making?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

The Duke rape case travesty only went as far as it did because the victim was seen in a sympathetic light by many, and likewise the defendants were seen in an unsympathetic light. This only changed as more facts in the case were made public, and wasn’t a foregone conclusion at the outset.

Medical malpractice cases often depend on juries to sympathize with the victim and see the doctor, hospital, or insurer in a bad light - and often juries will award damages even in cases where nobody has done anything wrong. This led to the collapse of malpractice coverage and high-risk medical practice in some states and necessitated legal reforms there. West Virginia in particular suffered from this and has only recently begun to recover.

I can easily cite more, but these are particular egregious examples. Indeed, I feel a better case can be made for employing empathy in crafting laws, but when it comes to judging, keeping empathy out of it. Things will fall apart pretty quick when penalties are applied to one group over another in a misguided attempt to make up for past wrongs.

None of this is responsive to the question. None of them involve JUDGES putting sympathies ahead of the law.

The Duke accuser wasn’t sympathetic for very long, by the way. Public sentiment was overwhelmingly with the players from very early on.

[Icarus]

@elucidator

Doomed. Jobba the Rush has spoken:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/limbaugh-sotomayor-fail/

And it is reported that the Pope remains a Catholic…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sam_Stone

So about this ‘empathy’ standard…

There is no such standard being asserted by the nominee. This is a phony issue.

[Voyager]

@Tom_Tildrum

Since Sotomayor isn’t going to change the perceived overall left-right calculus on the court, I’d be surprised if she was the subject of a big fight.

Remember, Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, and Breyer 87-9.

If the GOP has maintained any shred of rationality, I agree. Now way Snowe and Collins are going to vote for a filibuster, so this is a done deal. I’m sure there will be the standard ranting and raving, but any serious effort by the Republicans to stop the nomination, given its futility and its impact on Hispanics, would mean that they are totally captive of the loons.
Not that coming out against empathy is all that bright.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Sam Stone, your confusion of the word is less clear than Mr. Moto’s, but is still evident. Would you please explain what you mean by the use of the word “empathy”? Would you contrast it with sympathy, if possible?

[Voyager]

@Sam_Stone

So about this ‘empathy’ standard… Let’s say that the Supreme court was made up of nine conservative white old guys. Now comes a case where an old white businessman is being sued because he refuses to hire a qualified black person.

Do you really want the old white guys deciding the case based on their ‘empathy’?

You realize empathy is not limited to those of the same age, color, sex and religion as you, right?

[Gorsnak]

@Sam_Stone

And what is ‘empathy’ if not bias towards one side of a legal dispute?

Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and consider things from their perspective. That’s all it is. It doesn’t entail that you take that other perspective to be privileged in any sense, or biased towards it. Merely that you’re capable of considering it.

I’m not sure how being able to consider other points of view necessarily entails bias towards one side of a legal dispute. Perhaps you could elaborate on the connection you see, because so far as I can tell your argument so far relies on conflating empathy and sympathy.

[Sinaijon]

@Voyager

You realize empathy is not limited to those of the same age, color, sex and religion as you, right?

It’s not limited to those of the opposite age,color,sex, or religion either.

[gonzomax]

The repubs have defined themselves as the “opposition party” and take it seriously. I expect a filibuster and the repubs holding as a bloc against any thing Obama does.
I want to hear Sessions ,who declared every Bush nominee including Meyers as the single best qualified person in the country.