Alarming News

May 27, 2009

Our president is a joke

“We need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

-Obama on why he voted against Justice Roberts.

I guess “because he’s a straight white man” wouldn’t have been as eloquent.

Posted by Karol at 11:41 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

well, he probably realizes there are plenty of straight white men who have empathy and understanding as to what its like to be poor, black, underprivileged, hispanic, gay, disable, or old… John Roberst just doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Posted by: katie g at May 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Based on…what?

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 12:35 pm

And how can a white man have *empathy* about any of those things?

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Good point, Karol. The federal bench definitely lacks people who empathize with white, heterosexual men. I’m sure nobody ever looked out for their interests before.

Posted by: Charles at May 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Perhaps “empathy” shouldn’t be a consideration for a job that requires BLIND JUSTICE.

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 1:15 pm

It’s a ghetto/”projects” mentality in all its best. Our gang against theirs; Latin Kings against Bloods.

Posted by: Tatyana at May 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Yeah, nice jab, Karol.
Looks like Charles and that Obama guy don’t get that a judge isn’t supposed to show empathy—unless it’s empathy for THE CONSTITUTION.
I don’t get why Obama wants to put so much stock in “race,” when it comes to “empathy.”
After all, it was his black/Arab father, and his Indonesian step-father whom abandoned him.
Ironically, it was Obama’s white grandmother who showed him the most empathy, footing the bill to send him to the most expensive prep school in Hawaii, and the outrageously expensive Occidental College in Los Angeles.

Posted by: IamTheWalrus at May 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Yes, if US history is full of anything, it is BLIND JUSTICE!

Posted by: Charles at May 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Affirmative action-and scorched earth Marxism-in practice.

Posted by: Gerard at May 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm

in regards to Sotomayor, let me quote the GREAT Mike Huckabee….
“If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.”
by the way..the GREAT one has endorsed Rubio over charlie christ..great to see.

Posted by: Larry at May 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm

this is a bit off topic, but I have a question that kinda ties in with the hypocrisy of the lunatic left..at least I think it does…if I’m wrong, please correct me…
the criticsm of a creationist is that they don’t believe in/acknowledge science…yet science says that life begins at conception…so if science is the argument; then don’t those who are pro choice support murder?

Posted by: Larry at May 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Yes, if US history is full of anything, it is BLIND JUSTICE!
So we give up on the concept because it hasn’t been perfect in the past?
And Larry, Huck called her “Maria”.

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm

As for your off-topic, Larry, “life begins at conception” is not a settled issue, actually.

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Karol,
Obama called Robert Gates, William Gates…what’s your point?….oh and the “Maria” was quickly corrected on his site.
in regards to the off topic question….is evolution a settled issue?…isn’t it a “theory”?
I’m not a creationist or necessary pro life…I’m just asking….to me the science is much clearer on conception then it is on evolution…until we see something other then a human coming out of a woman; that is.

Posted by: Larry at May 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Larry, I believe life begins at conception but anyone that is pro-choice (and also somewhat rational) believes life begins at birth and it’s not a “baby” until then it’s a “fetus”.

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Karol wrote;
“Larry, I believe life begins at conception but anyone that is pro-choice (and also somewhat rational) believes life begins at birth and it’s not a “baby” until then it’s a “fetus”.”
———–
I know what you’re saying.
Ironically, for pro-choicers, when a woman chooses to carry the conceived sperm & egg to birth, they (and their doctor) always refer to it as “the baby” rather than “the fetus.”
They always say, “I can feel my baby kicking.”
Never, “I can feel my fetus kicking.”

Posted by: Anonymous at May 28, 2009 at 12:06 am

So because we haven’t had blind justice in the past (and now know that’s wrong) then the Senate should confirm someone whose espoused the view that her skin color and ethnicity make her better suited to ruling on the Constitution? Isn’t this basically saying that because Peter’s been forcibly raping Lady Justice we should now let Juan? Because yeah, that’s _totally_ fair…
How about we start making the confirmation process simply a case of the appointee recite the entire Constitution from memory? At least that way we’d know that the idiot had actually read it. Because by this point I’m afraid the Senate is basically ignoring its Constitutional duty to make sure folks who get a _lifetime appointment with very little checks and balances_ don’t say things that, with a little rearrangement, could have come out of David Duke’s mouth.

Posted by: James at May 28, 2009 at 12:30 am

All I can say is payback is a bitch. If these are the new rules I can’t wait until the white guys are back in charge. It’ll be time to do some housecleaning.

Posted by: Eric at May 28, 2009 at 9:05 am

i made that statement based on the Justice Roberts record on the Court…
All I can say is payback is a bitch. If these are the new rules I can’t wait until the white guys are back in charge. It’ll be time to do some housecleaning.
umm, are you kidding? what is it exactly that you “white guys” are so afraid of having someone that represents another ethnicity, and a different gender on the Court? I don’t understand the fear…

Posted by: katie g at June 1, 2009 at 11:09 am

umm, are you kidding? what is it exactly that you “white guys” are so afraid of having someone that represents another ethnicity, and a different gender on the Court? I don’t understand the fear…
You’ll never understand. Sotomayor’s own race and gender, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with it. It’s about her hypocrisy: if someone said he’d hope a white man would arrive at a better decision than a minority woman, that would be decried as racist and sexist. Hell, nowadays you can’t even say “I’d hope a white man educated at Harvard Med would be better at surgery than a Hispanic woman who didn’t finish high school.” It’s true yet would still be decried as “racist.”
It’s about having someone rule not on the basis of what is right, but because she “emphathizes” with someone on the basis of skin tone or economic condition. Tell us something. When a bunch of whiteys and one Hispanic are set for well-earned promotions, do you think it’s wrong to promote them if there aren’t any blacks who are also getting promoted?
It’s the same racism and bigotry that led the city to erect “racially diverse” statues of the three 9/11 firemen, not statues representing the actual firemen who hoisted the flag. Heavens no, they were white.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Post a comment