Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Stuart Taylor speculates on what “empathy” might mean on the court.
… Obama is also right if he is saying that empathy for all of the people affected by a case, in the sense of coming to a sympathetic understanding of their positions, is essential to good judging.
But that’s not always what he seems to be saying. Rather than equal empathy for all, some of the Obama statements quoted above stress special empathy for “the powerless,” for single mothers, for employees as against employers, for criminal defendants, and the like. How does that square with the oath to do equal justice to the poor and to the rich?
In addition, law-making is supposed to be mainly a democratic exercise driven by voters, not a judicial exercise driven by empathy for selected groups. Indeed, our laws as written already reflect the balance of interests — of empathy, if you will — that the democratic process has struck between the powerless, the powerful and other groups.
A leading example is a case often cited by Obama and other “empathy” advocates as showing that the Supreme Court’s conservatives lack empathy for the powerless. That was the 5-4 decision in 2007 against Lilly Ledbetter’s claim that she had been a victim of pay discrimination based on sex, because she did not file her lawsuit until after the expiration of the 180-day time limit for suing that was specified in one of the two laws that she invoked, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In my view, the court’s decision was probably a correct application of Title VII’s unusually short time limit. It reflected the balance that Congress had struck to encourage settlement of employment disputes by negotiation rather than litigation. The time limit was also designed to guard against employees waiting for years to bring a complaint, until after relevant evidence had been discarded and witnesses who would support the employer had died — which happens to be exactly what Ledbetter did.
All this was lost in an explosion of liberal outrage fanned by rampant distortions of the facts by the media, congressional Democrats and President Obama. They claimed, among other things, that Ledbetter had learned that she was paid less than most male colleagues long after all time limits for suing had expired, and that the evidence left no doubt that she had been a victim of gender discrimination. The first claim was flat-out false and the second was highly debatable, as I have detailed in two columns.
The near-deification of Lilly Ledbetter helped push a bill overruling the court’s decision through Congress in January. Whether the result will be to bring better justice for victims of job discrimination or to make employers more reluctant to hire women and minorities who might end up suing them remains to be seen. …
Charles Krauthammer tells us why Pelosi’s hypocrisy matters.
… The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly reelected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions — our blindness to al-Qaeda’s plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama’s own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed “high-value information” — and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat.
And they were right. …
More from Krauthammer’s take.
And Bill Kristol tells us why Dick Cheney is a most valuable Republican.
… When President Obama released the Justice Department interrogation memos a month ago, Cheney denounced him for doing so. He explained why it was inappropriate and unwise to release such documents. But he did more. He didn’t just defend himself and the administration in which he served. He fought back, and encouraged others to do so.
He challenged the president to release CIA memos evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques. He raised the question of whether congressional Democrats–Nancy Pelosi, for one–had known of, and at least tacitly approved of, the allegedly horrifying abuses of the allegedly lawless Bush administration.
Now, a month later, Pelosi is attacking career CIA officials for lying to Congress, and other Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from her. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has pulled back on threats to prosecute Bush-era lawyers, reversed itself on releasing photos of alleged military abuse of prisoners, and embraced the use of military commissions to try captured terrorists. The administration now looks irresponsible when it lives up to candidate Obama’s rhetoric, and hypocritical when it vindicates Bush policies the candidate attacked. …
Jay Nordlinger reminds us of one of the noble campaigns of George Bush.
On Friday, Ramesh recalled that President Bush (43) tried to reform Social Security, and spent political capital in the effort. This awakened several memories in me.
In 2000, Bush campaigned on Social Security reform, which was thought either gutsy or foolhardy — maybe both. Many Bush advisers warned against it. But he would say, “I’m runnin’ for a reason” — publicly, I mean. I must have heard him say that 100 times. And when he said it, he usually meant Social Security. He did not want to be elected president merely to mark time. He wanted to accomplish something, or try to.
Social Security was known as “the third rail of American politics”: Touch it, and you would fry. Joe Andrew, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was quite explicit about this. He promised that Democrats would indeed fry Governor Bush on this rail.
And they almost did. …
Jay also suggests a more proper relationship between the president and the people he serves.
I had a thought on the Notre Dame thing I wanted to share — sort of an offbeat one. A lot of people say, or imply, that other people have a lot of nerve, opposing an invitation to the President of the United States. Why, he’s the President of the United States. What more is there to say?
Well, a fair amount more. I had a memory — had not thought of this episode for a long time. Occurred twelve years ago, in April 1997. Tiger Woods won the Masters, for the first time. And President Clinton immediately invited him to Shea Stadium, to participate in a Jackie Robinson ceremony. Tiger said no-thanks — he had plans to go to Mexico, with friends.
A couple of things went into this, I think. …
Charles Murray gives us a heads up on the rise of illegitimacy rates. This is a blog post that needed an editor.
The New York Times has gotten around to reporting something that has been known for a couple of months, that in 2007 the U.S. illegitimacy ratio (the proportion of live births that occur to unmarried women) reached the truly remarkable, once unthinkable, figure of 40 percent. …
Speaking of illegitimate, Glenn Reynolds comments on the kid’s tax joke.
Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It’s too bad he doesn’t appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America’s tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.
At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU’s point by remarking, “I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.”
Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it’s hard to see the humor. …
And speaking of jokes, Wanda Sykes gets the Hitchens treatment.
As a gnarled and grizzled veteran of the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner (it must be almost three decades since I first tuxed up and attended one), I see no reason to miss the chance to comment on the Wanda Sykes phenomenon. This is because I think it may actually tell us something about the American and international press and its over-ripe relationship to the new president of the United States.
As he showed at the Al Smith dinner last year—the one minor round in the entire campaign that went decisively to John McCain—Barack Obama may be graceful and charming on the podium, but he is not a natural wit. And on May 9 Obama made the same point in a different way: by pausing for a smile-break to mark his every punchline. It may be a fetching-enough smile, but we old stand-up artists learned long ago that if you have to signal a joke, then it is a weak one. Any audience that is being cued or prompted to applaud is also likely to say to itself, “Actually, we’ll be the judge of that.”…
Click on WORD or PDF for full content