Alberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
Alberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
Following Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s announcement that he planned to retire, conservatives have attacked and mocked President Obama’s statement that he is seeking a replacement who has “empathy” for “the daily realities of people’s lives.” “I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind!” bellowed RNC Chairman Michael Steele last Friday.
Now, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is getting in on the act. 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: I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. I don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good. In essence what you’re saying, I think, is that I’m going to, I don’t care what the law says, I’m going to come out, I’m going to pursue an outcome that I think is fair and just. I’m going to rewrite the law. And I think that’s dangerous.
Listen here:
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick skewered the ridiculousness of “the Republican war on empathy” this past Monday, noting that “When the president talks about empathy, he talks not of legal outcomes but of an intellectual and ethical process: the ability to think about the law from more than one perspective.” Lithwick points out that in their attack on empathy, the GOP is basically arguing for judicial “solipsism“:
Obama may be wrong that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess. But his Republican detractors cannot possibly be right, or even wise, in suggesting that a judge who listens only to herself is preferable to a judge who both listens to others and also considers her impact on others.
Now, if the GOP really wants to run out on a rail anyone with empathy or anyone who values it, far be it from me to object. Democrats will be more than happy to feel their pain. But to the extent that the debate over empathy may shape every Supreme Court discussion we are going to have this summer, let’s just be clear that the opposite of empathy isn’t rigor. It’s pretty close to solipsism, or the certain conviction that everything you’ll ever need to know about judging you learned from your own fine self.
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.
Transcript:
MICHEL MARTIN: I wanted to again cite the president’s words when he said, “I view the quality of empathy of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential quality for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” I wanted to ask you, Attorney General Gonzales, do you think that, do you agree with that? Do think that’s appropriate?GONZALES: Well, I think everyone wants to think that their government officials are kind, compassionate people. And I think someone having that kind of image is certainly helpful in a confirmation hearing. I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. I don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good. In essence what you’re saying, I think, is that I’m going to, I don’t care what the law says, I’m going to come out, I’m going to pursue an outcome that I think is fair and just. I’m going to rewrite the law. And I think that’s dangerous and so, again, I agree that we want our justices to be compassionate, to be kind people, but I think their job as a member of the court, quite frankly, is to apply the law and I think the notion that we worry about the outcome. You know, I served as a justice on the Supreme Court of Texas and sometimes I reached decisons and I didn’t like the outcome, but I felt that I had a duty to my oath of office to respect the words of the statute that I was interpreting.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Funny!
May 14th, 2009 at 2:54 pmSince WHEN did “the Geneva Conventions are quaint” Gonzo care about what the law says?
Solipsism – doesn’t that pretty much sum up the Bush / Cheney administration?
May 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pmGONZALES: I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good.
Like when the felonious five decided to install the boy-idiot?
Or when you decided to make your boss feel good by justifying torture?
May 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pmThis guy was hired by George “the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper” Bush. Priceless
May 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pmLithwick:
Obama may be wrong that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess
Did Obama say it was the most important quality? I thought it was among a list of judicial attributes he described.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pmAlberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I’m sorry for my rudeness but that was funny.
Idiot.
RIP
May 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Gonzo, you’re so right. I have no empathy for you or others in BushCo who tortured because it made you feel good and safe. Torture is illegal and I must apply the law: you hang.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pmGonzales must be silenced. he is against progress and he must be put in jail. I hope Obama packs the Supreme court so he can impose Progress.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pmThis is an example of why I stopped contributing to NPR—though I still check out the website.
Hey NPR, if you want my money to pay for intelligent programming, try providing it a bit more consistently! And stop undermining your best hosts with the likes of Juan Cole, Mara Liasson etc.
You do know that you don’t need to be held hostage by Republican approved federal funding anymore. right?
( sigh ).
May 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pmTroll dropping clean-up needed on aisle 8…
May 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pmIn essence what you’re saying, I think, is that I’m going to, I don’t care what the law says, I’m going to come out, I’m going to pursue an outcome that I think is fair and just.
That’s pretty much what the right wing judges do on a regular basis.
Gonzales and other conservatives prove two things. The first is that they have no idea what empathy really means and the second is that is the reason why none of them have any empathy for others.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pmGONZALES: I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good.
– - The sycophant Fredo made legal decisions based on what made his master, Lord Bush, feel good.
I suppose Gonzales is more like Renfield to Bush’s Dracula than Fredo to Bush’s Michael Corleone.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pmThe All Seeing Eye Says:
Gonzales must be silenced. he is against progress and he must be put in jail. I hope Obama packs the Supreme court so he can impose Progress.
So folks, do we have another “concern troll” here? Or did someone recently get banned and is back with a new moniker?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm5th Estate Says:
This is an example of why I stopped contributing to NPR—though I still check out the website.
Hey NPR, if you want my money to pay for intelligent programming, try providing it a bit more consistently! And stop undermining your best hosts with the likes of Juan Cole, Mara Liasson etc.
NPR is another mess that President Obama needs to clean up. Bush stacked the board with conservatives and what was once a great public radio station has become just another branch of the RNC. I’m surprised anyone contributes to them any longer.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm“I’m going to rewrite the law. And I think that’s dangerous.”
So you don’t like them doing exactly what you did for the Bush administration.
Fuk gonzo
May 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pmI have a feeling that “empathy” will now become a wingnut buzzword similar to “activist judges”. It will lose its original meaning and become a synonym for any judge making any decision the far right doesn’t like — no matter how grounded in the U.S. Constitution it is.
Meanwhile, judges (or Attorneys General) who interpret the law via pretzel logic (to twist around the Constitution) specifically to adhere to the far right agenda will be called “patriotic”, not “empathetic”.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pmA complement to “sociopathy means Dick Cheney saying I don’t care what the law says.”
May 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pmOf all the people in the world to ask a question about judges and lawyers and they pick “I do not recall” Gonzalez. This man has a little credibility as the terrorists in Gitmo.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThe reason Socrates was sentenced to death was because he argued his case based on the facts and refused to be a sycophant (in the modern sense of the word). He knew that he could get off if he dragged his wife and kids in front of the jury, but he had too much dignity for that. Judges who are susceptible to emotional appeals are the kind that let murderers go free while sentencing Socrates to death.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
May 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
So folks, do we have another “concern troll” here? Or did someone recently get banned and is back with a new moniker?
_____________________________________________________________
It’s just Mr. P. He comes back time and again with a new name, but he never varies his moronic writing style. You’d think he’d get a clue.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pmDoesn’t the photo above look like two lovers in love?
Or at least Gonzo looks like that, I’m not so sure about the brainless one.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:17 pmGen. Jack “P” Ripper.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pmSocrates was opposed to Progress! he had to be silenced! All that oppose Progress must be removed. Progress must be achieved at all costs!
I would think re-interpreting the Geneva convention and re-interpreting laws against torture would be regressive
May 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pmWhy do we care what these idiot a-hole republicans think?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pmXisithrus,
May 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pmTo achieve progress, any means necessary must be done. Progress is the important goal.
I guess you forget about Strauss [Father of the lie-o-cons], Bloom and Socrates ‘The Republic’
May 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom#Plato.27s_Republic
Progress will triumph! Progress will rule the world!
May 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
May 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Gonzales and other conservatives prove two things. The first is that they have no idea what empathy really means and the second is that is the reason why none of them have any empathy for others.
___________________________________________________________
The GOP is going to use “empathy” as the Scary Word of the Week, because they believe it will conjure up damaging images of blatant criminal coddling (and counting on their kool-aid drinkers to associate this with dangerous liberals who want criminals to roam free so they can rob us, rape us, and stab us in our sleep). They don’t realize that a judge who is making a ruling with that criminal’s victim (or the victim’s family) in mind is also being “empathetic”.
When President Obama set “empathy for the realities of people’s lives” as a criterion, he wasn’t talking about coddling criminals. He wasn’t talking about thumbing one’s nose at the Constitution. He was talking about keeping in mind that Supreme Court rulings affect people — and that people are important. And that’s a value I can live with in a SCOTUS justice. Too bad Gonzales and Steele can’t.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pmGonzales = another reason why investigation and prosecutions are needed.
It would be nice to see him and his self-righteous brethren convicted and locked up. That would be a great resume builder for them.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pmThe All Seeing Eye Says
May 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Progress will triumph! Progress will rule the world!
_____________________________________________________________
Just phoning it in today, are you?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pmwhatever…
May 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pmI don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good.
Obviously, Gonzales (if not the whole neocon cabal) don’t even know what empathy is. An empathetic judge would not make him or herself “feel good”. This is EXACTLY the mind-set of the neocons but that is not empathy. Empathy is being able to imagine yourself in another’s situation in order to understand that person’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. The goal is to make someone else’s life better (or at least take it into account) by your actions. That is the ESSENCE, the core ingredient, for justice, diplomacy, representation of constituents, policy-making for the general welfare, avoiding wars of choice, and avoiding torture. The lack of empathy is at the heart of why the neocons should not govern.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pmpastcaring,
May 14th, 2009 at 3:29 pmHe will be have faith in Obama. As a real Progressive he will soon arrest those against Progress.
dope…
May 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pmAlberto Gonzales is the legal profession’s version of a ten dollar whore.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pmHe helped Bush/Cheney to rip up the Constitution and wipe their asses with it.
He should go to prison with the rest of the war criminals.
PFWoody488 Says: Alberto Gonzales is the legal profession’s version of a ten dollar whore.
Can he remember if he got paid?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pmI guess you forget about Strauss [Father of the lie-o-cons]
———
Huh? … Leo Strauss was a political philosopher, classicist and academic.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:34 pmI realize your parody, So I ask, you were against Bush for spreading democracy into Iraq…isnt that a form of progress?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pmThe noble lie.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Xisithrus,
May 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pmI was against the Iraq war because Bush is a Republican. If he was a Progressive, I would support him. Also Iraq is Muslims and Muslims are our friends. I stand with Islam against the Christians and Zionists. Progressives and Islam will win! We stand united as in the days of the PLO and IRA!
Pax,
May 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pmWe care what they think because, unfortunately, a lot of people
are still believing what the regreedicans say. These people also
vote.
We need to gently show them the truth.
The eye is truely lame at this…
May 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pmAlberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
Well, if that’s what right-wingers have been taught as the definition of “empathy” it would certainly explain why they steer themselves well clear of it.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pmGen. Jack “P” Ripper,
May 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pmStrauss was a Zionist and against Progress. I hate him.
The original statement by President Obama about selecting a Supreme Court Justice:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/05/01/The-Presidents-Remarks-on-Justice-Souter/
May 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949)I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the
defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.
Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Quotation: Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trails
May 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pmOkay Mr P. We have been thru this before. Zionism was started by Hetzl, an atheist, its about a Justice, not religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic and therefore of the same GOD. The Koran calls Jesus Isaa. And in fact both the Judaists and the Muslims dont see Yeschue as a Messiah or GOD.
I am not siding with any group, as your imagination wrongly tells you, and am therefore against religious war. There are no winners or losers in peace.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pmLet’s review the progress in GOP re-branding efforts so far this year:
1. The Party of NO
May 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm2. The Party of Torture
3. The Party of… Indifference? Antipathy? Sociopathy?
Does Gonzo realize he is damning himself as being empathetic if this is his definition as to how it relates to the law?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pmDoncha just love the look of adoration in Fredo’s eyes in the photo?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pmSooner or later, Alberto Gonzales is going to be standing in front of a judge.
With just the slightest bit of luck, a judge with little or NO empathy for his war crimes.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pmThe All Seeing Eye Says:
Gen. Jack “P” Ripper,
Strauss was a Zionist and against Progress. I hate him.
Levi Strauss? Your posts are tres lame.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pmceltic cynic Says:
Doncha just love the look of adoration in Fredo’s eyes in the photo?
He is the definitive boot licker.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pmSomebody toss the Privacy Center a few coins please to shut their dumb asses up. Sesli Chat is more interesting and I can’t even understand it…
May 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm‘Democracy’ says one doesn’t lie to those who elected one’s boss.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pmThat won’t work, dbadass. Privacy Center is like a pigeon. or a troll. If you feed it you’ll never get rid of it.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pmdbadass Says:
Somebody toss the Privacy Center a few coins…
Cool.
Have they heard about the Borgen Project?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pmSomeone please remind me:
Why do we care what this little lizard-like being thinks or says???
What makes the aberrant thought processes of War Criminals on non-related issues a news item?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pmThis cannot be true, as Gonzales doesn’t care one bit about the law, and he certainly has no empathy.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm“… the certain conviction that everything you’ll ever need to know about judging you learned from your own fine self.”
makes me think of alito…
May 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pmAlberto Gonzales = war criminal = No credibility.
Nuf said.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:59 pmVanWinkle65, You’d better HOPE that Privacy Center works because I asked the FBI to locate you and interrogate you for terrorism.
You have 15 days head start to start running.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pmGonzo should be behind bars. The longer these WAR CRIMINALS are not prosecuted, the deeper is the deterioration of the USA’s image abroad.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pmNo, Gonzo, you moronic tit. “Empathy” means understanding another’s feelings. No more. No less. It’s not, NOT, a propensity to make emotional decisions.
Alas, 21% of registered voters are too effing stupid to look it up instead of just absorbing whatever BS the Reichwhiners spew.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
The GOP is going to use “empathy” as the Scary Word of the Week
Why do they, Republicans, have to do their best to ruin, yet again, something good? They JUMPED on Obama’s use of that word.
If they truly think that empathy is bad then how about we just feed each case into a computer that would cross reference the Constitution with the Bible and prior decisions and pop out a conclusion for us? Why do we need people as judges at all?
May 14th, 2009 at 5:55 pmEmpathy is the characteristic shared by judges who have supported minority rights, women’s rights, prisoner’s rights etc. Naturally, the current Limbaugh/Cheney led Republican Party does not want judges with empathy for the victims of discrimination/persecution. The white Southern old boys who make up the base of the GOP never did like desegregation etc.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:15 pmAlberto Gonzales get it horribly wrong once again.
Empathy does not come into play when the law is clear; the Judge would come down on the side of the law, no question. Empathy would come into play only when the law is silent on an issue. That is just the opposite of how Gonzales has framed it.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pmVilifying empathy is lobbying for evil.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pmAlberto Gonzales should lots about not knowing or caring what the law says.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:28 pmWhat a creep.
He should keep his mouth shut; he’s still got the reek of Bush’s ass on his breath.
If empathy is code for not following the law, doesn’t that make Gonzalez the most empathetic man on the planet?
http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=1018
May 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pmThanks Alberto. When I think of the people I would want advice from, regarding the Supreme Court, I always think of you.HAHAHAHAHA.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:39 pmKKKarl Rove is probably going to throw Gonzo under the bus tomorrow.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:43 pmA judge with no empathy convicted Rosa Parks. In fact she did not sit in the “white section” of the bus. The driver, tried to kick 4 people out of what was the “black section” even thought it was against the law to do so after people were seated. The signs were movable but the driver was in violation. Regardless, when she wouldn’t move the driver called the police, she was arrested and she was convicted and fined. The judge with no empathy violated the law.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pmGet a job, twit.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:59 pm“Obama may be wrong that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess”.
The President said that?
Guess I need to buy a hearing aid cause I missed him saying that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pmWith all of the servicing of Bush, Cheney and the republicans, Alberto Gonzales should have a job at a leading law firm.
Heck, he should even be president of a leading law firm.
Why haven’t these people gotten him a job?
May 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pmA person without empathy is, by definition, mentally ill.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pmThis controversy can be called the New War on Empathy. Empathy is understanding how another person[s] feel AND letting the other person know that you understand. Sympathy is feeling the same way as the other person. The first is a cognitive function. The second is an emotional one. Empathy is the ability to put ones self in another persons shoes but without losing your own sense of self. In this sense, Mr. Obama is accurate about empathy. Mr. Gonzales is talking about an emotional response to another person. He does not understand the concept of empathy. All the rest is silly bickering about buzz words that set off constituancies and obfuscate understanding.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pmyeah, F***ing Good Samaritan!
F*** him!
Liberal, girly man, socialist show-off!
May 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pmWe all know that gonzales and his boss bush did not care what the law says. When do their trials start?
May 15th, 2009 at 5:42 amIt must have felt good to the right-wingers on the Supreme Court in 2000 to know their personal portfolios were going to grow, regardless of what would happen to the rest of the nation and the world.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:33 amIf that’s the case, the Gonzales is the most empthatic person in the United States.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:09 am“then Gonzales…” sorry about that
May 15th, 2009 at 7:09 amThis is strange coming from a man whose only guiding principle to the law was quite empathic- “How will my boss feel about this?”
May 15th, 2009 at 11:58 amWow! I missed this story in the MSM. Was anyone else injured by the lightening bolt?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pmWhat pseudo-intellectual claptrap this analysis is! First, a solipsism is a philosophical concept which is interesting from an ontological or epistemological standpoint, but is irrelevant to understanding various points of view on constitutional law. Gonzalez, as repugnant as he might be personally, is referring to the proper humility a judge ought to feel when straying from the plain meaning of the constitution according to the strict constructionists. These folks don’t even rely on their own minds, rather they refer to a document and body of law which by design constrains the power of the federal government for guidance. Regardless of where you come out on this issue, they have a legitimate view which deserves consideration if you are seriously concerned with the preservation of our republic. This article is puerile hyperbole of the worst sort, leaving the unsuspecting reader with the sense that they’ve learned something when he or she hasn’t.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm