"She lacks the judicial ???intellect??? to be a Supreme Court justice."
Where did Rush graduate from again?
He didn't--he dropped out of Southern Missouri State University.
The source of his legal erudition is unclear.
Same with Rove right? He dropped out also no?
"And former Bush political strategist Karl Rove questioned on Fox News Tuesday evening whether Sotomayor has the ???broad intellectual powers??? to be an influential justice.???
Have you ever read a legal opinion before? Find me one that is devoid of empathy.
This is a ridiculous statement, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. And there are many that are recognized by their authors as reaching what the court consiiders to be an unfair or cruel result because the law required it.
Okay, dude, if you want to point out hundreds of thousands of cases decided purely on procedural grounds that's fine, but show me some significant Supreme Court decisions or even appellate decisions where there's no empathy.
look for yourself or stay misinformed, im busy and don't care enough.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
apparently unfamiliar with the fact that thousands of orders and opinions each year come from "equity courts" and by "equity judges".
empathy is part of the job requirement
This is one of those instances where I know you are too smart to not be intentionally misleading. I am not advocating the position that there are NO opinions that are based on empathy. I'm merely refuting the position that ALL are based on empathy.
This is one instance where Obama's penchant for the symbolic has also resulted in a pretty decent substantive outcome. Sotomayor isn't a good jurist by any means, but she is nowhere near as bad some of the others who were touted for the nomination.
Have you ever read a legal opinion before? Find me one that is devoid of empathy.
This is a ridiculous statement, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. And there are many that are recognized by their authors as reaching what the court consiiders to be an unfair or cruel result because the law required it.
I guess those judges didn't care much about justice.
Please understand what you're saying. Surely you are not so dense as to miss the implications of having judges who pick and choose which laws they will abide by based on their own personal sense of what is just, and why a nation where such a practice prevailed would have no business calling itself a nation of laws.
Have you ever read a legal opinion before? Find me one that is devoid of empathy.
This is a ridiculous statement, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. And there are many that are recognized by their authors as reaching what the court consiiders to be an unfair or cruel result because the law required it.
I guess those judges didn't care much about justice.
Please understand what you're saying. Surely you are not so dense as to miss the implications of having judges who pick and choose which laws they will abide by based on their own personal sense of what is just, and why a nation where such a practice prevailed would have no business calling itself a nation of laws.
I never said judges should pick and choose which laws they will abide by based on their own personal sense of what is just.
Saba said that hundreds of thousands of legal decisions are unfair or cruel.
Once again, that is not what I said. What I said was that hundreds of thousands of opinions are devoid of empathy for one of the parties, and that many - not all, not most, but many - of those opinions recognize that the result may not be fair.
So, you have successfully refuted a straw man argument nobody is making, but have failed to refute mine.
Once again, that is not what I said. What I said was that hundreds of thousands of opinions are devoid of empathy for one of the parties, and that many - not all, not most, but many - of those opinions recognize that the result may not be fair.
So, you have successfully refuted a straw man argument nobody is making, but have failed to refute mine.
Better luck next time.
What you said was:
And there are many that are recognized by their authors as reaching what the court consiiders to be an unfair or cruel result because the law required it.
I made no attempt to refute your statement.
All I am saying is that justice is not unfair or cruel.
I absolutely believe you that many decisions are "devoid or empathy for one of the parties" and "unfair or cruel".
Comments
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22992.html
"She lacks the judicial ???intellect??? to be a Supreme Court justice."
Where did Rush graduate from again?
Shitheel U, summa cum dumbfuck
He didn't--he dropped out of Southern Missouri State University.
The source of his legal erudition is unclear.
Same with Rove right? He dropped out also no?
"And former Bush political strategist Karl Rove questioned on Fox News Tuesday evening whether Sotomayor has the ???broad intellectual powers??? to be an influential justice.???
This is one of those instances where I know you are too smart to not be intentionally misleading. I am not advocating the position that there are NO opinions that are based on empathy. I'm merely refuting the position that ALL are based on empathy.
P.S. Barbri is long and lame.
Shaking my head
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smh
Please understand what you're saying. Surely you are not so dense as to miss the implications of having judges who pick and choose which laws they will abide by based on their own personal sense of what is just, and why a nation where such a practice prevailed would have no business calling itself a nation of laws.
I never said judges should pick and choose which laws they will abide by based on their own personal sense of what is just.
Saba said that hundreds of thousands of legal decisions are unfair or cruel.
Justice is neither unfair or cruel.
So, you have successfully refuted a straw man argument nobody is making, but have failed to refute mine.
Better luck next time.
What you said was:
I made no attempt to refute your statement.
All I am saying is that justice is not unfair or cruel.
I absolutely believe you that many decisions are "devoid or empathy for one of the parties" and "unfair or cruel".