Post still advancing falsehood that Obama doesn't want justice committed to rule of law
SUMMARY: The Washington Post again advanced the falsehood that President Obama said he would seek a Supreme Court nominee who demonstrates "empathy," rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, Obama said his nominee will demonstrate both.
In a June 3 article about the role Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will play in Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, The Washington Post advanced the falsehood that President Obama said he would seek a nominee who demonstrates "empathy," rather than a commitment to follow the law. Staff writer Philip Rucker wrote of Sessions, "As someone who supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he believes that no judge should be swayed by personal or political allegiances, and he takes issue with Obama's statement that judges should have 'empathy ... with people's hopes and struggles.' " Rucker added, "Sessions called this a 'postmodern infection' that threatens law." Rucker then quoted Sessions saying, "We need to articulate why it's important that judges show restraint and that every American can believe that when they call that ball a ball and that strike a strike it was an honest call, not because they were pulling for one side or another." In fact, immediately after saying in a May 1 statement "empathy" was a quality he sought in a justice, Obama said he would select someone "dedicated to the rule of law."
From Obama's May 1 statement:
OBAMA: 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), previously cited "compassion" as a qualification for judicial confirmation.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the Post has repeatedly cited conservatives' concerns about Obama's "empathy" comments while omitting his statements about the "rule of law."
From the June 3 Washington Post article:
Sotomayor, facing pressure from lawmakers to explain her comments from 2001 that her Latina identity matters in how she reaches conclusions, told Democratic and Republican senators yesterday that she would follow the law.
But it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who pressed her most directly to clarify her remarks. Leahy said that she told him, "Of course one's life experience shapes who you are," but that she added: "Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their upbringing has been."
Sessions said Sotomayor -- who will resume her visits with lawmakers today -- used similar language with him, but he conceded, "I don't know that we got into that significantly." Rather the two spent more time discussing "the moral authority of laws and judges." He said he "enjoyed the conversation."
[...]
His steady handling thus far of the Sotomayor nomination has earned praise from across the aisle.
"We may well disagree on the final outcome of the nomination, but I think he's handled it in a very statesmanlike fashion," Leahy said.
Sessions's courtroom experience lends credibility to his arguments, his Republican colleagues said. As someone who supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution, he believes that no judge should be swayed by personal or political allegiances, and he takes issue with Obama's statement that judges should have "empathy . ..." Sessions called this a "postmodern infection" that threatens law.
"We need to articulate why it's important that judges show restraint and that every American can believe that when they call that ball a ball and that strike a strike it was an honest call, not because they were pulling for one side or another," he said.
The Supreme Court needs to look more like umpires. Our courts are supposed to evaluate the game according to established rules. We don't adjust the "strike zone" if we feel sorry for the team at bat. I don't want an umpire to decide "safe or out" based onhow bad they may feel for the runner. The law is the law, just like rules are rules. The role of the courts is to be as unbiased as possible. Asking for empathy in our judges is asking to remove the blindfold from Justice.
Your baseball analogy is a good example of sympathy, however.
Unfortunately, I have no analogy to give an example of empathy at this time.
At the same time when the law says pass a test and you get promoted and then ex post facto the test is voided, that goes beyond empathy to supporting a racially motivated illegal policy. Similarly allowing a quasigovernmental administrator to blackmail a property owner to give up property, then forcing the transfer of the same is bad law.
of course according to solon I have my right to speech removed by lacking the correct paper credential. Thank God for libs protecting my rights...wait there are no absolute rights, posters on here say so...err, my privileges.
We live in a republic where all are expected to understand and interpret the laws. The idea of trusting anyone to think for you is folly; to trust someone not known personally to you, to think for you, is beyond folly. I do not, I will not regard credentials as a minimum for my thought and commentary nor will you.
When did I say the supreme court was wrong? as I recall I said a prospective justice was wrong in saying the bill of rights does not apply to the states. Did I miss something, because I would really like a creche down on the circle this december
By the way what are the qualifications for a federal judge? Hint: I satisfy all of them