"If progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup"

By GottaLaff

Interesting piece. The Rushpublics' attacks on Sotomayor may be what George Lakoff calls a "coordinated stealth attack":

There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup. [...]

Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing?

Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. [...]

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. [...]

President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. [...]

In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. [...]

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." [...]

But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general. [...]

The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture. [...]

What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. [...]

The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. [...]

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. [...]

Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.

There was much, much more. Please go read

Empathy=Strength: Goofus and Gallant edition

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Would the Rushpublics dare to defy Gallant?

VIDEO-- Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook

By GottaLaff



Here's the video of the Alito quote that Keith Olbermann referred to last night:

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…

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.

Do I smell empathy? Ruh-roh.

“Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor’s alleged ‘empathy’ problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned,” writes Glenn Greenwald.

Alito must be a racist, albeit an empathetic one.

Later in the hearing, Alito referenced his father’s experience as the basis of his view on district reapportionment:

GRASSLEY: Some have questioned your 1985 statement regarding the electoral reapportionment, that is how districts are drawn. They suggested that you’re hostile to the principle of one person, one vote. Clarify for me, nowhere in your ‘85 statement did I find that you wrote that you ever disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote. Did you?

ALITO: I never disagreed with that principle, Senator. What I disagreed with when I was in college was the application of the principle in some of — the elaboration of the principle in some of the late Warren court decisions. And this grew out of my father’s work with the New Jersey legislature. He had been the secretary to the state constitutional convention of 1966, which redrew the provisions of the state constitution relating to the composition of the legislature in an effort to bring it into compliance with the one person, one vote standard.

These provisions, however, because they tried to respect county and municipal lines, as I recall, resulted in population deviations of under 10 percent, but those deviations were much higher than the ones that the Supreme Court said in the late decisions that I’m talking about would be tolerated regarding congressional districts. There was a belief that that principle would be applied across the board, both to congressional districts and to legislative districts, and that would have wiped out the plan that had been adopted.

And I was quite familiar with all of this. And it seemed to me an instance of taking a good principle, which is one person, one vote, and taking it to extremes, requiring that districts be exactly equal in population, which did not seem to me to be a sensible idea.

Quote of the Day

How long before GHW Bush gets kicked out of the party?

"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

AUDIO-- Alberto Gonzales: "‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying 'I Don’t Care What The Law Says'"

By GottaLaff

Every time Gonzo opens his mushy little mouth, bubbles fly out:



Is there no end to the Rushpublic hypocrisy?

Appearing on NPR’s Tell Me More yesterday, Gonzales claimed that he is “worried” that judges with empathy would make “decisions based on what they think makes them feel good” [...]

Gonzales is not in a strong position to criticize others who supposedly “don’t care what the law says.” During his many years of service to President Bush, Gonzales earned a reputation for “dogged obedience to the President, which often has come at the cost of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law.” While serving Bush, Gonzales advised him that the Geneva Conventions were “obsolete” and may have lied to Congress about the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Pop! Bubbles burst. See you in prison.