About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post again advanced falsehood that Obama doesn't want justice committed to following law

May 08, 2009 12:07 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: Quoting a conservative lawyer criticizing President Obama for saying that he will be looking for potential judicial nominees who demonstrate "empathy," The Washington Post did not note the rest of Obama's statement: that he will seek a potential Supreme Court nominee "who is dedicated to the rule of law."

6 Comments

In a May 8 Washington Post article, reporter Dan Eggen advanced the falsehood that Obama said that he will seek a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter who demonstrates "empathy" and not a commitment to follow the law. In fact, Obama has said he will seek potential candidates who demonstrate both qualities. Eggen wrote that "[a]n early line of attack" for conservative groups "emerged last week when Obama told reporters that his eventual nominee would have, among other characteristics, a 'quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.' " Eggen then quoted Wendy Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, saying, "What he means is he wants empathy for one side, and what's wrong with that is it is being partial instead of being impartial. ... A judge is supposed to have empathy for no one but simply to follow the law." But even though Eggen quoted Obama's May 1 citation of "empathy" as a desirable quality in a justice, Eggen omitted Obama's very next sentence, in which he said he would "seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."

As Media Matters for America noted, in a May 6 Washington Post article, staff writers Scott Wilson and Robert Barnes did not note Obama's statements when they wrote that "[a]s White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it, Obama is looking for 'somebody who understands how being a judge affects Americans' everyday lives.' Congressional conservatives have reacted anxiously to that qualification, fearing that it means a nominee who is more interested in making the law than in interpreting it."

From Obama's May 1 statement:

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Moreover, several former Republican senators, including Strom Thurmond (SC), Al D'Amato (NY), and Mike DeWine (OH), have previously cited "compassion" as a qualification for judicial confirmation.

From the May 8 Washington Post article:

Conservative groups concede that they have little chance of derailing Obama's choice, barring a scandal. But Supreme Court nominations have long been a rallying point and a fundraising opportunity for interest groups, particularly on the right. And now, at a time of ideological drift among Republicans, a loose coalition of conservative organizations has begun mapping strategies.

The goal, they say, is to fire up supporters and shake up the debate in the Democratic-controlled Senate, in part as preparation for other court fights to come.

[...]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who played a lead role in promoting the Roberts and Alito nominations, acknowledged that Republicans "have our work cut out for us," saying: "We have fewer senators. We have fewer staff. We have fewer resources, without the White House or the Department of Justice."

Nonetheless, conservatives say, they are pushing ahead with plans to use the Internet, cable television appearances and a limited amount of advertising to get their message out. An early line of attack emerged last week when Obama told reporters that his eventual nominee would have, among other characteristics, a "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Wendy Long, chief counsel of the Judicial Confirmation Network, a small Manassas-based group that has been active in conservative judicial battles, immediately pounced on the remark. "What he means is he wants empathy for one side, and what's wrong with that is it is being partial instead of being impartial," said Long, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. "A judge is supposed to have empathy for no one but simply to follow the law."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (May 08, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
      2  
      Maybe cons like Wendy Long have forgotten about the 'spirit of the law' in order to follow the 'letter of the law'

      We don't need more emotionless robots like Justice Thomas in the courts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 08, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
           
        Thomas has emotions, but they're the emotions of a nine-year-old.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ewl94232 (May 08, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
        4
      MMFA is dead wrong on this one and the sooner you drop it the sooner you'll stop embarrassing yourselves. If you take a more careful look at Obama's statement:
      - "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."
      Constitutional law differs from all other forms in that it is solely concerned with interpreting the Constitution. It is all about "abstract legal theory" and nothing about the "footnote in a case book." It is also nothing about people's feelings, whether they can make a living or care for their families. That is the view of an "activist" who wants to change the Constitution by Judicial fiat to suite the politics of the day.
      - "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes."
      Because ...? What is the importance of this unless it is that this empathy will cause them to rule differently than they would have otherwise? Consevatives are right to be worried by such a statement.
      - "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process ..."
      You are right that this sounds good. But preceeded and followed by inappropriate statements it is of dubious value.
      - "... and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
      "Appropriate"? I used the word and so did the President. But how different our beliefs in what is appropriate are. Barak has advocated the doctrines of a "Living Constitution" and "The Positive Bill of Rights." Both are direct assaults on the integrity of the Constitution and the intentions of our founders. It is silly for you to allege that our fears are not founded or that this statement was in any way not a re-enforcement for those fears.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (May 08, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
        3  
        Riiiiight ... And Scalia & Thomas would NEVER interpret the law in any way that benefits their ideology!

        What a crock.

        I am just amazed at how well the conservatives have framed this idea that there are SC justices in the mold of Scalia that treat the Constitution as wholly immutable and not to be interpreted yet always seem to find a way to make exceptions in favor of socially conservative ideas and big business.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 08, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
        3  
        The sooner you stop pretending you know more about constitutional law than the man who was EDITOR of Harvard law review and who TAUGHT constitutional law the sooner you will stop embarassing YOURSELF.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jkempter1296 (May 08, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
           
        Maybe President Obama should have referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper".
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace