LOL. Hilarious. Where do you get this stuff ? From that new liberal website bafflethemwithbs.com ?

You mistated the Ricci case too. It wasn't about testing and what portion testing plays in the evaluation of applicants. No, no. It was about changing the rules of the game after the fact because the outcome wasn't the racially desired one (aka, discrimination).

Roberts sought to game the law by searching for a loophole for the powerful. And you refused to respond to my "intent of the law" point. That's the whole ball of wax.

Quid…."empathy toward the law". Seriously? Empathy towards inanimate and lifeless words…..but none toward a victim/plaintiff?

I think you are confusing empathy with feeling sorry. I don't want judges to feel sorry for anyone before them. But I want judges to be human, you know, with hearts, and be able to "get it" from both perspectives. That takes empathy and human understanding.

And here….

"she doesn't even consistently follow your prescription of following the "plaintives" point of view. Most (in)famously she ruled against the plaintiffs in the New Haven Firefighter Case, thus upholding governmental discrimination on the basis of race."

Soto's a conservative, I think. A centrist conservative. That's the kicker of this whole argument about empathy.

And you're simply asserting, rather recklessly I'd say, that the government was discriminating on the basis of race in the Ricci case. The Ricci case focuses on testing and what portion the testing plays in the overall evaluation of applicants, how the test was chosen, the reason and evaluation of disparate results, and a few other fine points. Soto agreed with the District Court's decision and simply passed in along with another judge on the panel whom, I believe, was a Republican. Soto was first nominated by Bush, the Elder. What's ole' Poppy gonna' have to do now, apologize to Daddy Rush?

As King points out, there is a reason that Lady Justice is portrayed as blindfolded as she balances the scales of justice. Justice is not supposed to be a respecter of persons. Justice is to decide a case by applying the law to the facts. What you advocate is not Justice, but the manipulation of the law to favor certain classes of people on the basis of race and ethnicity.

Although Sotomayor will, absent some unexpected turn of events, be confirmed, she doesn't even consistently follow your prescription of following the "plaintives" point of view. Most (in)famously she ruled against the plaintiffs in the New Haven Firefighter Case, thus upholding governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Republicans do not have a war on empathy. They also believe that Justices should be empathetic. They should show empathy towards the law.

Soto, and I think that's what we should call her, it sounds cooler…..anyway, Soto is deeply experienced in being a,……wait for it…..judge. Soto has more experience being a judge than any nominee in 100 years. Does that, like, not count for anything? And tell me….what the hell did Alito, or Roberts ever do that was so monu-f*cking-mental? Can you name any great rulings, other than Stripsearch Sammy's memorable yes vote for police stripsearching a 14 year old girl?

It's always race with you, larry….but not me. The whiny-ass-titty-baby complaining by white conservative con men is getting annoying. Their white supremacy-laced feelings are hurt because that bad black president nominated a female Hispanic. Sure, white men still run and own most everything, but they reserve the right to bitch if there's the least bit of a movement towards diversity and equality. Odd, that.