That Koran-burning guy

I'm not bashing Obama (don't care about him enough to bash him). I'm pointing out that he nominated a Supreme Court Justice specifically for an "empathy factor" which he wished to see on the Court. Well, what does that mean? To empathize with someone means you feel for them. And feelings have nothing to do with logic, guilt or innocence. They're emotion-driven.

Well, that's what happened with the first OJ trial. The jurors empathized. Either that, or the prosecution was so incredibly incompetent that the jurors couldn't convict him. I don't know.

The prosecution was incredibly incompetent and doing everything but their jobs. Remember Marica Clark and Christopher Darden? They were allegedly having an affair... etc.

LC wrote:

To empathize with someone means you feel for them.

Don't confuse empathy and sympathy. Empathy means you share and can relate to their feelings. But you don't necessarily feel for them specifically.

LC wrote:

And feelings have nothing to do with logic, guilt or innocence.

Interesting. Isn't that the criticism that Republicans leveled at her based on her unemotional, letter-of-the-law-based ruling in a specific case?

LC wrote:

Well, that's what happened with the first OJ trial. The jurors empathized. Either that, or the prosecution was so incredibly incompetent that the jurors couldn't convict him. I don't know.

Some of both. The jurors wanted to acquit. The prosecution made it possible.

Quote :

Interesting. Isn't that the criticism that Republicans leveled at her based on her unemotional, letter-of-the-law-based ruling in a specific case?

No idea. I don't listen to much the Republicans say, either. I'm sure Sotomayor will do fine.

Quote :

Don't confuse empathy and sympathy. Empathy means you share and can relate to their feelings. But you don't necessarily feel for them specifically.

And don't you miss the forest for the trees. If Obama didn't want a justice to act on empathy, why look for that quality in an appointee? Why mention it? What would be the point?

LC wrote:

If Obama didn't want a justice to act on empathy, why look for that quality in an appointee? Why mention it? What would be the point?

I believe that's exactly what he wants. He wants, and we all should want, a judicial system that, in its interpretation of written law, considers not only the letter but the spirit, too, remembering that laws are of, for, and by the people. Without empathy, you might as well have a computer sitting on the bench.

This is why the system operates with intentionaly ambiguous written law and unambiguous case law, which records specific interpretations in specific circumstances. A lawmaker cannot consider every possible situation under which the law might be tested. That's the foundation of how our system works, based on the centuries-old English legal system, and without empathy and mercy, it could not work.

Great. So there's your answer for why OJ went free. The first time, at least. I guess the second jury wasn't as empathetic.

LC wrote:

Great. So there's your answer for why OJ went free. The first time, at least. I guess the second jury wasn't as empathetic.

Not at all. The second jury had rock-solid evidence. The first one did not. They applied reasonable doubt. Empathy was not a factor.

The connection you're trying to make just isn't there. If you must persist with it, then take the last word with my blessings, and let's move on.

Back to that American woman jailed in Iraq. I see they let her go, but are holding onto the two guys. I do have to wonder, what were they doing hiking in Iraq, anyhow? Was it the scenery?

Probably the intrigue. They wil have best-selling books for sure.