Grassley Admits That ‘Empathy Standard’ He Finds ‘Troubling’ In Sotomayor Didn’t Apply To Alito
Grassley Admits That ‘Empathy Standard’ He Finds ‘Troubling’ In Sotomayor Didn’t Apply To Alito
During the opening day of confirmation hearings, Judge Sonia Sotomayor came under fire from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) for stating that her experiences as a Latina affects her judicial outlook. “This empathy standard is troubling to me,” Grassley said. “The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
But Grassley never objected when Judge Samuel Alito said virtually the same thing during his confirmation hearing, when Alito testified he “can’t help but think of” his immigrant family when evaluating immigration cases:
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background, or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that in to account.
Then yesterday, Grassley admitted to applying a double standard to Sotomayor during an interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel. Siegel reminded Grassley that during Alito’s confirmation hearing, the judge said his background plays a role in his judicial philosophy — and Alito still managed to secure Grassley’s support:
NPR: By your standard that would be disqualifying. He should have said instead my family, my background counts for nothing.
GRASSLEY: That’s absolutely right. […]
NPR: But you didn’t vote against Justice Alito’s confirmation.
GRASSLEY: No I didn’t.
Listen here:
Also in Alito’s confirmation hearing, the judge referenced his father’s experience as the basis of his view on district reapportionment. The answer was in response to a questions asked by Grassley. Alito’s testimony and subsequent ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano prompted Salon’s Glenn Greenwald to ask in jest: “Did Alito’s Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs?”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
IOKIYAR
July 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pmButt, IOKIYAR, right Grassley?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pmGrassley Admits That ‘Empathy Standard’ He Finds ‘Troubling’ In Sotomayor Didn’t Apply To Alito
– - Ohhhh, so Alito is the robot.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pmNPR: Senator Grassley, can you tell my why your position with respect to these two nominees doesn’t represent a double standard on your part?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I can. Judge Alito has the correct genitalia and pigmentation. Judge Sotomayor, sadly, does not.
NPR: Okay, got it now.
PEACE
July 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pmWhen will Grassley renounce his gold-plated “socialist” health-care policy, provided by the taxpayers?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pmThat’s always the way it works for them; litmus tests are to be applied to The Other, not white men. It’s a core feature of conservatism.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pmWhat’s good for the goose is good for the gander, except in Grassley’s case, apparently. Amazing how unfazed Grassley and other Republicans are with the constant calling of attention to their hypocracy. They must hate Google people.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm.
Of course it’s not being empathetic when a Republican expresses it…
… YES?
.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:27 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 NAZI defendants at the Nuremberg trails
July 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pmGrassley: ‘I’m a Republican, I don’t have to make sense.’
NPR: ‘Doesn’t that bother you?’
Grassley: ‘What?’
July 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pmMy guess is that grASSly’s ethnic background is preventing him from being empathic toward anyone. His narrow world is getting narrower every time he opens his mouth. Good for Alito to be a Repub nominee because it’s hard to believe grASSly is a great fan of Italians either.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pmFake outrage. Fake concern. Obssesion with a rhetoric bone that the GOP threw to the press. Why do they always take the
July 14th, 2009 at 12:33 pmbait?
Grassley: Integrity. Get some.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
spencers mom, I suspect it is even simpler than you suggest. After all, Clarence Thomas has the “wrong” skin pigmentation (the “right” genitalia, though) and presumably he’s got Grassley’s support.
I think it’s simply a matter of, as MCM and Uncle Ho noted right off the bat, IOKIYAR.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pmbackup says:
We should not use our legal system in attempts to right subjective wrongs.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Please define “subjective wrongs.”
I’m going to regret this…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pmAgreed. Do you have some evidence that Judge Sotomayor has a pattern of such behavior on the bench?
Or are you simply extrapolating from the most radically unkind interpretation of a line from a topic-specific speech she gave several years ago to imply such an inclination?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:42 pmDamn Zooey, I was just about to seek the same clarification. I suppose now I will just have to ask backup whether or not Grassley’s comment indicate that Grassley’s subjectivity influences his decision making process…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm.
Oh, I get it…
… Grassley used up his empathy on Alito.
.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pmZooey says:
backup says:
We should not use our legal system in attempts to right subjective wrongs.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Please define “subjective wrongs.”
I’m going to regret this…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
***
you = always wrong.
backup = always right.
…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pmb-cup’s comments should make a particularly interesting test of the new system.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pmSenators Grassley and Sessions , don’t you find it hugely ironic to be asking questions on empathy when you whole-heartedly accepted the very same response coming from a recent Republican nominee for this same appointment , along with questions of perceived racial bias(es) when your very own judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that you’re a huge racist ?
Tip of the hat to Matthew Yglesias for the 2nd part of my paragraph………
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pmGrassley said. “The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
Really? Where? I don’t remember seeing it spelled out that way. I don’t even remember it saying that their rulings had to “be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
Senator Grassley, making stuff up is no way to be persuasive.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pmGround Chuck Grassley: open mouth, insert hoof. Repeat.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pmMaybe he is trying to say that some justices who use subjective empathy feel bad when one of their buddies might lose money?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pmralph, other than an implied excuse making for Grassley, I see nothing too problematic there…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Grassley said. “The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
Cool! Does this mean a judge can be impeached and removed from the bench when they display obvious preferential treatment based on political and/or ideological ‘feelings?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pmbackup why shift to Obama? Why not stick with Grassley’sviews on the subject?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pmUnder article II (Presidential Powers) clause 2 (advice and consent) of the United States Constitution :
He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
There are no qualifications necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. There are no restrictions on age, race, or sex. You do not have to be a member of a state bar, or even a lawyer for that matter
Grassley , being a typical GOP moron , is simply talking out his stupid @ss …………
July 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pmbackup thinks anyone that knows about a subject has no business judging on it
he prefers ignorance
July 14th, 2009 at 12:52 pmbackup says:
That seems contrary to the idea of blind justice.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is not required to be blindly stupid.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pmdifferent strokes for different folks- what the heck- this is the same court that declared Dred Scott was property.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pmdbadass says:
backup why shift to Obama? Why not stick with Grassley’sviews on the subject?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
***
for a racist, obama is
a target rich environment.
>>>
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pmb-cup,
About your definition of “subjective wrongs.” We’re waiting.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pmralph the wonder locust says:
b-cup’s comments should make a particularly interesting test of the new system.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
***
a neat and efficient way to clean up
the sticky goo of backup’s mental masturbations.
:|
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
backup says:
Here’s an example:
Bristol Palin sues a progressive group like Media Matters for libel and the case somehow gets to the Supreme Court.
Should the case be considered solely on the merits of whether the claims are true or not?
Or should her status as a teenage mother be factored in?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
***
can i get that de-railer
for my trail bike too?
:)
July 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
backup, could you just do me a solid and take a stand on Grassley’s comments one way or the other and quit trying to deflect. Thanks…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pmbackup says:
——————————————————————————–
July 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
As opposed to ALL Bush judicial nominees who always invariably wrote or joined opinions significantly limiting congressional authority, protection of individual rights, and access to justice ?
Yeah , good call there……………..
July 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pmObama is making the appointments.
—
July 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pmand Grassley is making decisions on those appointments…
backup says:
Obama is making the appointments.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
***
imperial wizard backup,
grassly is the subject of the post.
:)
or did you forget to read it…?
:|
July 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pmAlong those lines backup, someone sues Faux for libel and it somehow reaches the Supreme Court.
Should the case be considered solely on the merits of whether the claim was true or not?
Or should the fact that 5 of the Justices secretly agree with Faux be factored in?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pmIOKIYAR,
Don’t expect consistency in anything but this.
But the entire confirmation spectacle is just designed to provide a platform for Rethuglican “talking points”; they have no hope of defeating her. It’s a soap-box where they can rail about “judicial activism”, “reverse discrimination/racism”, “they want to take your guns”, and everything else on the ‘talking points’ hit list, to stoke up the base.
Cheers,
July 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
backup says:
Obama is making the appointments.
No, the President has presented a request for appointment to Congress. Congress then decides.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pmInstances where sympathies for alternate ethnicities may be uncalled for, may necessarily exist in non-professional interactions. However, not until the academic subject of history can be fully, and accurately, represented on our university, and library systems’ shelves, classes may be hampering our inter-communication! Presently, a more diverse ‘core’ literature curriculum would begin to help, highlighting the inherent beauty in all, the many cultures there are for students!
July 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pmbackup says:
Or should her status as a teenage mother be factored in?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
It depends on what libel she’s suing them for, b-cup. If she’s suing MM for some libel connected to her being a teenage mother, then not factoring in the fact that she’s a teenage mother would pretty damn stupid, wouldn’t it?
You’re being ridiculous.
Again.
Still.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pmAnybody else think Chuck is losing it? The tweets, some recent bizarre statements – he’s always been a little odd, but it seems to be accelerating.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pmbackup says:
Here’s an example:
Bristol Palin sues a progressive group like Media Matters for libel and the case somehow gets to the Supreme Court.
Should the case be considered solely on the merits of whether the claims are true or not?
Or should her status as a teenage mother be factored in?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
___________
At what point in the proceedings?
See, if the case gets to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer “solely about the merits of the case.” That’s what’s determined in the lower courts.
If a case has made it to the Supreme Court, it’s about whether the laws that were allegedly violated are in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It’s no longer about libel, but a question of whether the rights of Bristol Palin outweigh the rights of Media Matters.
It may be the case that Media Matters’ exercise of their First Amendment rights inhibits Palin’s ability to provide for her child as a teenage mother, something not specifically addressed in the text of libel law, but relevant to the case. In that instance, yes, her status would be a factor the judges need to consider. Or whether it is better for the community as a whole to censor free speech critical of a teenage mother.
So the answer to your question is maybe. It may indeed BE one of the merits of the case.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pmPoor choice of straw-man Captain Mantastic.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pmThis is nothing but political theater. She will get confirmed regardless of what the Repugs say. But I find it interesting, the more the Repugs question her ability and her qualifications, the more they can kiss the Latino vote good-bye. Nothing like badgering a Hispanic woman by a bunch of old white dudes.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pmbackup says:
Obama is making the appointments.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
No. President Obama is sending his nominations to the Senate.
I’m done. Y’all can play with this fool, if you like.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pmThis is a good test for the new system. I am voting down B-Cup’s posts that are off topic. If B-Cup was willing to really get into a discourse about Grassley and what he said, I wouldn’t vote down a post by it. But it’s posting in an attempt to bring the subject of this thread to Obama is spamming so I’m voting it down on that tactic.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pmbackup says:
——————————————————————————–
July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
During ANY trial , isn’t the credibility of any and all witnesses determined before deciding its outcome ?
There is more to arriving to a decision on any case in any court than merely stating that “justice should be blind” and leaving it at that…………
July 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pmGrassly, like other Iowans, should have been a farmer.
Then he could truthfully claim he’s ‘out standing in his field’.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pmP.D. says:
This is nothing but political theater. She will get confirmed regardless of what the Repugs say. But I find it interesting, the more the Repugs question her ability and her qualifications, the more they can kiss the Latino vote good-bye. Nothing like badgering a Hispanic woman by a bunch of old white dudes.
It’s not just kissing the Latino vote goodbye, they are also kissing the woman’s vote goodbye.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm#27 backup:
Sentiments like this seem troubling if you believe that justice should be blind.
Mispelling there. Should say:
“Sentiments like this seem troubling if you believe that justices should be complete farkin’ eedjits raised in their mommie’s basement and unencumbered by any knowledge of the real world whatsoever so as to avoid the possibility of any taint of extraneous knowledge other than what the lawyers [read "zealous advocates"] present to them…. It really pays to have judges that know as little as possible. In fact, Weizenbaum’s ‘Eliza’ might do the trick. She was about as blind as they come.”
No charge for the editing.
Cheers,
July 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pmI see 4 posts up to this point by b-cup voted down in 3…2…1…
July 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pmZooey.
A subjective wrong would be something like this:
If a judge felt that it was wrong that some people had lots of money while others had little. And that judge was deciding a case between a rich person and a poor person.
If the rich person had a stronger case, but the judge favored the poor person due to his or her perception of the unfairness of the inequity; that would be using the law to right subjective wrongs.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pmjoe cantwell says:
you = always wrong.
backup = always right.
…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for clearing that up, joe! :-D
July 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pmBackup say @ #37
July 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pmAw for Pete sakes Backup! Formulate a COHERENT argument for once!
Zooey says:
joe cantwell says:
you = always wrong.
backup = always right.
…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for clearing that up, joe! :-D
July 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
***
obfuscation is backup’s
main talent.
:)
July 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pmBilbo@58, You got that right. As a woman, I’m tired of the Limpballs, the O’Lielly’s and Buchanans of the world constantly questioning her judgement. If it were a white, bread old timer, they would have no problem. But a Latino woman? The horrors!
July 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pmSo, b-cup, when a rich person gets preferential treatment because there are justices on the court who feel poor people aren’t as good as the rich, would your same standard of outrage and question apply?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pmwhy do all back up’s hypotheticals point to standard right wing mythicals?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pmbackup says:
July 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
That is a ridiculous scenario, halfwit. Any ruling like that would be overturned in a higher court, and any good judge knows it — especially since the rich person has the resources to take the case to the higher court.
In today’s SCOTUS, the rich person (or corporation) is sure to win.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pmScrewball of the Day, winner and still champion …
Empathy? What would a man who called for AIG executives to commit suicide know about empathy?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pmIn other words: What Jim Wolf359 said!
July 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pmdbadass says:
why do all back up’s hypotheticals point to standard right wing mythicals?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
***
propaganda is the chief crop and export
of backuplandia.
:|
**
July 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pmBackup, you are going to have to change with the times and start posting responsibly.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pmBTW I wasn’t greedy and left the two other -9 comments alone so as to someone else feel the pleasure of removing one of Backups comments.
Reggie says:
# 37 – backup says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Backup, you are going to have to change with the times and start posting responsibly.
BTW I wasn’t greedy and left the two other -9 comments alone so as to someone else feel the pleasure of removing one of Backups comments.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
***
that will never happen.
:}
…
July 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pmZooey Says:
Reading B-cups posts is nearly as painful as reading those of our resident Trolls. At least with the Trolls, you know whats coming.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pmAll b-cup needs is to get over the mythtaken mythconception of his reading of the Faux News standard. They really are fairly unbalanced.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pmralph the wonder locust says
July 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
b-cup’s comments should make a particularly interesting test of the new system.
____________________________________________________________
I agree with you whole-heartedly on that one. Backup makes for an interesting test subject, because he’s not really a troll.
Posters like backup and Keltoi (where IS Keltoi these days?) come here and post their somewhat conservative opinions in a relatively thoughtful manner. Unlike Mr. P or Trajan in their various guises who come here merely to disrupt and derail.
I’m interested to see if we are using our new toy to vanquish only the obvious troll-turds, or if we are using it to eradicate every last tinge of anybody we happen to disagree with.
I’m going to go with the former, myself. The Mr.P/Trajan posts I will vote down, since they are tiresome and never constructive. The spammers will get voted down by me AND flagged for abuse. But I believe posters like backup add some diversity to the conversation. Most of the time, anyway. Therefore, I’m not going to vote him out of existence unless he posts something I find offensive, or truly stupid on a juvenile level, or obviously troll-like in any other way.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm“This empathy standard is troubling to me,” Grassley said. “The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
typical republican ignorant moronosity. The dolt doesn’t evening know what empathy means. Empathy of course has NOTHING to do with “personal politics – feelings and preferences” – it means merely to see things from another’s viewpoint – a capacity republicans are completely devoid of. Which of course would do not harm at all for a judge who needs to understand the information they recieve from both the victims and accused’s vantage.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pmbackup says:
If the rich person had a stronger case, but the judge favored the poor person due to his or her perception of the unfairness of the inequity; that would be using the law to right subjective wrongs.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
___________
And it would be clear grounds for an appeal.
However, we’re not talking about a judge at the district level. We’re talking about a judge at the highest level in the land. It’s not a matter of who has the stronger case. It’s whether the law itself is right or wrong.
There, inequity does matter. It’s entirely possible that some statute or law would present an undue financial burden to a poor person that would not affect a rich person. A judge with empathy may recognize this, whereas a purely impartial judge may not.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pmmisscoleopteramolly says:
where IS Keltoi these days?
**
the new feature has
him a bit “down”.
:)
:\
:|
July 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pmDo you mean his public option?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pmI’m going to regret this…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm Vote Up | Vote Down | (5) | Report Abuse
July 14th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
misscoleopteramolly says:
I’m interested to see if we are using our new toy to vanquish only the obvious troll-turds, or if we are using it to eradicate every last tinge of anybody we happen to disagree with.
Hopefully we will use it responsibly. I voted down B-Cup’s off topic posts in the hope that will help him learn how the play the game in an intelligent manner.
I will “vote-down” useless posts by attention seeking trolls and off-topic posts only. The others I will leave for us to debate.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pmGrassley got busted and he should apologize to Sotomayor. This just shows how partisan some of these Senators are when it comes to nominations. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:57 pmIn the alternate Bizzaro world of TRUE race/class politics as developed and practiced by the reich-wing rethugs, he, being an old, white, rethug can’t even BEGIN to understand what the fu*k is wrong with this picture.
One more case for term limits.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pmThe primary characteristic of a bigot is unabashed hypocrisy. They will say one thing and do another. They will contradict themselves without hesitation. They will distort and obfuscate to their heart’s delight. Nothing new here.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI’m a little disappointed that b-cup fared so poorly on this thread under the new system. I actually even gave him a couple of votes up in order to try to revive his comments. Gopspit needs to go down. Tracist’s hate-fueled drivel needs to be shunned. But without Keltoi, b-cup’s as close as we’ve got to a reasonable right-winger posting here.
In my opinion, he’s not a troll, although (as I’ve said before) he does have some trollish qualities that emerge when he’s pushed. I have no problem voting down comments that are obvious attempts to derail or distract, but I thought most of b-cup’s comments today were well-meaning, at least to start.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pmAnd the reason you didn’t vote against Alito Mr. Grassley is………….he’s a white guy who thinks like I do.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm. . .
ralph,
backup is the obnoxious a$$hole
you find at every party who drinks
too much, hits on your date and
worst of all, is in love with the sound
of his own voice and doesn’t know when
to shut up. voting him down is genuine
pleasure we’ve all waited a long time to do.
****
July 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pmjoe cantwell says:
I disagree Joe. I think backup tries. I sometimes find him pednatic and stubborn but always TRYING to have a conversation. I think we should encourage anything CLOSE to a reasonable conservative. The trolls need to go down in flames and anyone just regurgitating a rerun of the Rush Limbaugh show along with them but it is a good thing when we can find someone who at least TRIES to give us a reasoned, aligned with reality conservative viewpoint
July 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm