1. That she is anti-military. John Kerry has thoroughly debunked this issue. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she had to deal with the fact that allowing military recruiters to use the campus office of career services would violate the university's non-discrimination policy, which antedated Don't Ask, Don't Tell by 15 years. She however allowed them to meet with students in other campus locations. She was chosen to address the cadets at West Point, where she warmly and admiringly acknowledged them for their courage. And always, when greeting a new class of students at Harvard, she gave special recognition to the returning veterans in the class. Opposed to DADT? Yes. Anti-military? Hardly.
2. The fact that she has never held a position as a judge. None other than far-right Justice Scalia said he thought that was a good thing, given that the present court has plenty of former judges; and besides it's not necessary anyway, he said.
But they're Republicans, right? So they can't just shut up and vote against her. They have to grandstand. It's already started.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) says she has "serious deficiencies" and he even hinted at a filibuster.
But Mitch McConnell (R-KY) takes the cake:
"The question before the Senate is whether, given Ms. Kagan's background as a political adviser and academic, we believe she could impartially apply the law to groups with which she doesn't agree and for which she and the Obama administration might not empathize. So far, I don't have that confidence."Now wait a minute. Repeatedly, when it goes from a Republican nominee to a Democratic nominee, they do a complete reversal about what's ok (like how awful that she has no judicial experience and has been a presidential adviser -- yea, completely unlike Harriet Miers, huh?).
But now McConnell is doing a complete reversal from one Democratic nominee to another Democratic nominee by the same Democratic president. Exactly one year ago, you would have thought Obama's comment about Sonia Sotomayor and "empathy" was the worst thing in the world. Now, Kagan isn't qualified because she LACKS empathy?
Of course, we all know what he means. She maybe won't have "empathy" for the fat cat businessmen and Republican power-freaks who want to control our government -- when they are in power, that is.
But wouldn't you think he would have chosen a different word than the one they ridiculed so joyously just a year ago?
Ralph
The reflex opposition is tiring, I expect even for conservatives. It's so forced. And your point about empathy is dead on. There must be a place where some staff generates generic talking points for either side of any issue. It's like the lines from the movie "shipping news:"
ReplyDeleteBilly: It's finding the center of your story, the beating heart of it, that's what makes a reporter. You have to start by making up some headlines. You know: short, punchy, dramatic headlines. Now, have a look, what do you see?
[Points at dark clouds at the horizon]
Billy: Tell me the headline.
Quoyle: Horizon Fills With Dark Clouds?
Billy: Imminent Storm Threatens Village.
Quoyle: But what if no storm comes?
Billy: Village Spared From Deadly Storm.
I've been thinking more about McConnell's choice of words, and it is so blatant and so counter-intuitive that I think it must have been deliberate -- a sort of in-your-face turning your own argument against you.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think it indicates that McConnell really doesn't understand empathy at all. It means being able to put yourself temporarily in the other person's position and sample what they experience. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them or give them what they want. One of the uses of empathy as a professional is to help distinguish "want" from "need" and try to understand why the want feels like a need.
So when he says Kagan and Obama might lack empathy for those they don't agree with, he seems to assume that their not agreeing is an indication of lack of empathy.
Not so.