Republican Senator promises to filibuster Obama judges if they have "empathy"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

“He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix.

...

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/o...03/daily77.html

[rebeccajo 14]

Oh goodie.

Already drawing lines in the sand.

[S and S 12]

Hmmm, sometimes empathy can be good, but others it can be bad. Not sure what to say on this one.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The new GOP litmus test: you can only be a judge if you don't give a #######.

[S and S 12]

The new GOP litmus test: you can only be a judge if you don't give a #######.

Seems to already be the case at NVC and USCIS, lol.

[IAMX 3,055]

I think only people in Arizona take Jon Kyl seriously. He's pretty symbolic of the uneducated redneck bunch.

Anyone remember Mr. "Up or Down vote" Kyl? Wonder where he went:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/ja...udges_4-25.html

SEN. JOHN KYL: Well, exactly the opposite. For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster.

SEN. JOHN KYL: Well, as a member of the bar, it's not my inclination to criticize justices by name or even decisions that they've rendered except on the merits. I don't agree with all the decisions of the Supreme Court. But it is wrong to believe that because people of faith happen to disagree with pronouncements of the Supreme Court and choose to call some of those decisions arrogant to therefore suggest that they don't have a part to play in the national debate.

[Niels Bohr 72]

These republicans don't like to coorporate! Please, learn to coorporate people. Consider yourself one of the stupid politicians if any support such views. There's no time to test waters if things are going south.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What happened to the Republican philosophy of judicial candidates deserving an up or down vote in the Senate? Isn't that what they've been demanding for the last few nominees? I suppose that philosophy is only valid when they happen to have a majority and the White House? Sore fcuking losers.

[S and S 12]

What happened to the Republican philosophy of judicial candidates deserving an up or down vote in the Senate? Isn't that what they've been demanding for the last few nominees? I suppose that philosophy is only valid when they happen to have a majority and the White House? Sore fcuking losers.

fcuking??? French Connection United Kingdom?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

and the rule of law is tossed out the window. bravo!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

and the rule of law is tossed out the window. bravo!

[rebeccajo 14]

and the rule of law is tossed out the window. bravo!

Jeez.

I guess it just depends on which trough you care to drink from. But here's the rude awakening for you.

Kyl is pounding his chest over a pointless issue. He's grandstanding for political gain. By the time a attorney (who is already at the level of judge btw) rises to the level of being up for an appointment to the Supreme Court, they've long ago gotten past the crucible of allowing 'empathy' to enter into decisions. Mindless comments like Kyl's would have the people believe that there is only one 'rule of law' - that there is not an array of past precedents on which judges filter through to come to conclusions.

Whether or not you agree with Benjamin Wittes in this 4 minute video, it briefly explains how politicians use the appointment process in an inappropriate manner.

In "Confirmation Wars: Preserving Courts in Angry Times," Benjamin Wittes examines the process by which nominees are confirmed to the federal courts, compellingly explains that process's descent into partisan acrimony, and warns of the threat to independent courts that the changes threaten. "The Senate," he says, "has created a confirmation process in which it learns little that is useful while pressuring would-be judges to conform to the wills of legislators who do not themselves agree on what results they should demand of nominees."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(great video, RJ....thank you. )

As to the OP:

This is an example of where the mainstream media needs to grow a spine and scrutinize the politician as to just what he means and expose the contradictions of his claims. I'm shaking my head as to how easy it is for a politician to simply release a statement to the press and it gets published. That's not reporting the news, that's turning a very political statement made by a savvy politician into propaganda. There's no challenge to it. I just don't get why this occurs.

[rebeccajo 14]

(great video, RJ....thank you. )

As to the OP:

This is an example of where the mainstream media needs to grow a spine and scrutinize the politician as to just what he means and expose the contradictions of his claims. I'm shaking my head as to how easy it is for a politician to simply release a statement to the press and it gets published. That's not reporting the news, that's turning a very political statement made by a savvy politician into propaganda. There's no challenge to it. I just don't get why this occurs.

I think it's called Freedom of the Press and there's something in the Constitution about it.

The founders were hoping we'd then all use our brains to extrapolate what matters.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(great video, RJ....thank you. )

As to the OP:

This is an example of where the mainstream media needs to grow a spine and scrutinize the politician as to just what he means and expose the contradictions of his claims. I'm shaking my head as to how easy it is for a politician to simply release a statement to the press and it gets published. That's not reporting the news, that's turning a very political statement made by a savvy politician into propaganda. There's no challenge to it. I just don't get why this occurs.

I think it's called Freedom of the Press and there's something in the Constitution about it.

The founders were hoping we'd then all use our brains to extrapolate what matters.

I agree that as consumers of the news, we have to be actively thinking and not just sponges. However, we should also hold the Press accountable when it takes a passive stance on reporting what a politician has said...particular in the context by which it was said. And they need to challenge what gets said, especially from elected officials.