(Cartoon) – When empathy is applied to justice…


Empathy


Category: , ,

RSS feed

13 Comments Leave a comment

Now this is a comic worthy of being published in a newspaper...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 3:00PM EST (link)

not saying that your other ones are not good; however, this one ranks up there with a great political commentary comic of this news cycle.

 

Simple, Biting Commentary

MetaCosm (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 3:19PM EST (link)

Perfect.

~ MetaCosm

 

Sam Alito appreciates the value of empathy

mikeymike (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 5:44PM EST (link)

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html

Hey Mikeymike lets look at the whole excerpt here, if you will and lets have everyone judge...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 5:54PM EST (link)

for themselves if he relates to Miss Soto…

“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.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person”

Let us see if everyone agrees that Alito was describing empathy or was talking about the application of law? Notice the second paragraph everyone.

 

Mikeymike...you should have included the whole quote...

Aaron Gardner (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 6:01PM EST (link)

That’s ok…I will quote it with some bolding of my own and for context this was in response to Sen Corburn and it was a puff question about speaking from the heart:

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.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

His point was that as a human he, naturally, has empathy and many experiences that have shaped him as a person, but as a Judge “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“.

See the difference a little context makes.

Try again.

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat


 
 

I think this is the money quote...

Vegas_Rick (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 6:01PM EST (link)

“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.”

Which is a lot different than “We set policy on the Appeals court…hee hee, no we don’t hee hee …is this being recorded?

Hmmmm?

“God is great, beer is good and people are crazy.”- Billy Currington

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.

 

Sotomayor said she thinks what you claimed she doesn't think

mikeymike (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 7:47PM EST (link)

You observed that a judge should interpret, not make policy, but Sotomayor said, in the same speech, in a paragraph that you excluded,

“Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It’s interpretation. It’s application.

http://www.law.duke.edu/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor

Mikeymike, reply to this is your friend...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 7:54PM EST (link)

but there is a good video of her… here you go

 

So? I'm trying to see how that negates the fact that Sotomayor openly confessed ...

Martin Knight (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 8:08PM EST (link)

… to seeing her role as a judge to include that of being a policy maker – It’s right there on tape and thank goodness, YouTube. The fact that she later on calls it “interpretation” doesn’t change that.

Which probably explains why 6 out of the 7 decisions she’s written for the 2nd Circuit that were appealed up to the Supreme Court were reversed, and the 7th that made it through was only agreed to in its ruling while the reasoning behind it was rejected.

Face it; your Alito quote was beyond stupid – he was asked what experiences have shaped him as a person, and he answered the question. At no point did he say he would allow his judgment to be swayed due to the ethnicity or gender of the plaintiff or defendant.

Unlike Alito, Sotomayor’s speeches, writings and record as a judge shows that she believes in bending the law to favor the side she is sympathetic to based on gender and ethnicity, rather than applying the law as is without fear or favor.

Thing is...others agree that the court of appeals make policy

mikeymike (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 8:24PM EST (link)

The Oxford C’ompanion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005):

The courts of appeals have also gained prominence because of the substance of their caseload. For their first twenty five years, these courts dealt primarily with private law appeals. Diversity cases (suits between citizens of different states), bankruptcy, patent, and admiralty cases made up most of their work. However, as federal regulation increased, first during the Progressive Era, then during the New Deal, and finally during the 1960s and 1970s, the role of the courts of appeals changed as appeals from federal administrative agencies became a larger part of their caseload. Other developments that increased these courts’ policy making importance were the increased scope of federal prosecutions, especially those dealing with civil rights, drugs, racketeering, and political corruption, increased private litigation over various types of discrimination; and litigation concerning aliens’ attempts to gain political asylum. Also adding to their importance were their post 1954 use to oversee school desegregation and reform of state institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals, along with controversies like that over abortion.

Mikeymike, we heard this argument yesterday...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Wednesday, May 27th at 8:32PM EST (link)

why yes the appeals court does indeed provide the interpretation of court policy not the policy of law, that is interpretation. That video I provided to you is in fact an indictment of herself that the court is able to make policy that is bend the law not provide policy for the lower courts. This argument was tried yesterday and it is a distractin to really what this woman believes, and I would say that Justice Ginsberg would agree with her. Enough said, laughing about saying what she said indicates that is indeed what she meant. BTW, previous courts bending of their Constitutional authority does not indicate that this practice should continue.

All together, why don’t you have a talk with our resident lawyer Gamecock Devine. I am sure he can school you a little better than I can, besides the Executive Branch makes policy and the Legislative Branch well legislates, I do not see how policy can be made by the court without exceeding the consitution restrictions imposed on them by that document that you seem willing to forget.

 

That's policy with regard to lower courts, i.e. establishing guidelines for interpretation and rules of procedure for District Courts.

Martin Knight (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 6:18AM EST (link)

It’s what the SCOTUS does with regard to all courts below it. That’s not the issue here. That’s not policy.

Seriously, are you an idiot? These little throw-away lines that you strip out of context with no understanding of what they’re about is all you’ve got?

Sotomayor is arrogating to herself the role of the legislator – which means she comes up with the ruling she wants and then she works her way backwards to come up with the reasoning. Which often leads to legislation being “re-interpreted” to do the exact opposite of a legislatures’ intent.

Which explains exactly why she’s been reversed so often by the SCOTUS, often with the liberal Justices joining in.

 

Again?

evanm (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 9:01AM EST (link)

1. A Google search does not a legal scholar make.
2. The Oxford Companion to SCOTUS didn’t follow up the comment with:

…and I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t “make law,” I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m . . you know.