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

[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.

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.

Hmmm.

I don't really want my reporters taking stances on 'what a politician says' by 'contexting' it for me. I'd rather they just give me the quote. The whole quote. Within the whole conversation.

I do believe the media has a right to challenge what an elected official says. But there again, I want my right to understand where the challenge is coming from.

[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.

Hmmm.

I don't really want my reporters taking stances on 'what a politician says' by 'contexting' it for me. I'd rather they just give me the quote. The whole quote. Within the whole conversation.

I do believe the media has a right to challenge what an elected official says. But there again, I want my right to understand where the challenge is coming from.

I think that both can exist harmoniously. For example, Sen. Kyl releases his statement to the Press. A reporter calls the Senator's office wanting to ask him to extrapolate further what he meant, possibly bring up counter points to what the Senator said and then have the published piece contain the unedited statement along with the reporting. What I seem to read a lot nowadays is journalistic commentary based on what the politician said, which is fine but it has it's limits. In this particular case, Sen. Kyl's statement was highly political and begged to be scrutinized.

[Alan and Noemi 0]

“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

Oh great! Now Republicans are claiming empathy is a bad thing. Shouldn't the rule of law be tempered with empathy? It's amazingly twisted thinking. One one had, Republicans try to preach the rule of law and precedence... then want to overturn Roe vs Wade... even though there is precedence.

Get real. If precedence and rule of law was the only thing that mattered.... we would STILL have slavery in the United States, as was the precedence for many many years.

[NickD 203]

“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

Well he should strongly consider getting rid of John G. Roberts, Jr., with his views on the US president breaking laws of the US Constitution.

Been several republicans making threats already even before Obama takes the oath, that if he does this or that, they are going to get him. It's no wonder that they lost a bunch of seats and the presidency. What about doing something now with that oval office guy, he certainly did more than his share of nasty things. These republicans obviously have a dual standard. Should keep a record and vote these jerks out of office as well.