This is hilarious. Gee, I hope the umpire tonight has an empathetic strike zone as opposed to a sociopathic one. This has to be a new one in terms of loony Leftist arguments, positions that demand impartiality may open the door for sociopaths.

“Second, let’s not point out, as commenter George did, that Bush 1.0 referred to Clarence Thomas as having empathy, or that Justice Alito said the same kinds of things about bringing his background to work in his confirmation hearing that Sotomayor said at Berkeley”

These are two different things. One is talking about the quality of the individual. Of course any nominee is going to want to showcase their life, ‘parent/grandparents were hard working immigrants, family member had some disability, I learned a lot through various life experiences.’ The other thing is using “empathy” to reach a conclusion not based on the law but how you feel which pretty much defeats the purpose of the the entire legal system. The problem is that Obama and Sotomayor slipped up a bit and were a little too candid about how they feel. And that’s why the Left wing media is going to be on the warpath until she is confirmed, even a hint of opposition will be met with hysteria. And I gotta admit, I did not see the “sociopath” line of argument coming, that’s definitely creative.

“People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.”

They could go to the old “activist judge” line, but that doesn’t work for Sotomayor, once you examine her record - and especially when you look at the current Justices’ records (the 5 “conservatives” vote to overturn far more than the 4 “liberals”). That’s a tired red herring, too, another 60s leftover that no one gives a damn about anymore.

Going after her personally is a big loser - except for Rush & Co, who’ve called her a racist, and decried her background and her heritage, through their usual fear-mongering. But that will fly only in the vast echo chamber that is Wingnutia, not anywhere else.

So they can’t attack her qualifications, and calling her an activist is stupid, and they can’t attack her personally - so what’s left? How about something the President said in regards to her - that is, that she has empathy. Of course, it has the double benefit of attacking Obama too, albeit indirectly. That’s the only reasoning I can see that has any kind of rationality behind it - its the least crappy argument they have. Nonetheless its a stupid argument, and, as Steven has shown, carried to its logical end, is a patently ridiculous argument. Yet it gets made anyway!

Which makes me believe gary’s point in the last thread is probably right.

Let me put this in a more basic way. I am neither saying that those who are against Sotomayor are sociopaths or want sociopaths on the bench. Rather, I am suggesting that the latter result is the logical end of what they are supposedly against, because you can’t ask anyone to divorce themselves from who they are. If they don’t really expect that, and of course they don’t, then pouncing on her for saying that is just a bullsh*t tactic.

That’s it.

Nobody is decrying the human nature of empathy itself. To twist that and imply that your political opponents are sociopaths, or are demanding sociopaths be put in as judges is truly beyond the pale, even for your low standards. That’s what I was referring to.

“That’s why the whole “empathy” outcry is a sham”

Yeah, the whole “empathy” thing is a sham. It’s something that will be used when convenient.