"...just because they confessed under duress doesn't mean they innocent - does it?"

Did you mean just because they confessed under duress doesn't mean they (their) "confession" wasn't forced to restate the government's lie)- does it?

"If Karl Rove isn't right..."--Elephantman

If KR isn't right, then we are all doomed to repeat the mistakes of every President on the left since Jefferson, like that staunch left President GWB who under the astute guidance of Rove spent our treasure, lives and good name like a lefty socialist/communist.

Like a State of the Union Speech all the world is graced with the immediate "right" perspective from none other than the wise ruler opining/"dicktating" to us the true facts of fighting terrorism in AEI fashion.

Was Gore asked to balance out Bush's policy speech, to thwart the far right policy rhetoric so vociferously and immediately?

That lefty media we hear so much works about so hard to hide their bias, but Cheney and his ilk seem not foiled.

"Sotomayor's ascent from Bronx housing project to Princeton and Yale Law School to Supreme Court nominee -- driven by merit, intellect, talent and diligence -- is nothing short of inspiring."--Glenn

Goes to show you blatant hypocrisy. To satisfy her attackers (who plea thus on principle)--

She would be delegated a magnificent pick to have been selected for her Yankee, privileged, mediocre intellect, incurious disposition of literary (un) acquaintance.

Well, that's how the right picks their Presidents, so the SC position is not a stretch. Who do they really feel promotes the self reliance and work ethic of the conservative principles best?

It gets confusing.

Poor, ethnic, Puerto Rican high achievers with surplus experience are suspect for judging objectively because their empathetic, grueling climb in the legal field is tainted by this virtue.

The monopoly of mostly white, high achievers who were advantaged by the myriad institutionalized benefits of class/race traditions going back to our founding is condoned without any critical introspection.

It is affirmative action at its worst to elevate the former, considered racism against white men and flagrant empathy on her part injected into her decisions, while any deviation from the standard of honored non-ethnic, Ivy affiliations are encouraged by the Federalist club of adjudicators with moderate to right leanings.

Ask Dukakis and Kerry how the technocracy appeal works. Americans aren't comfortable with high achieving just-the-facts-and-arguments-then-decide mode of governing legally and may we say justly?

What a quandary we conflicting citizens who feel warm all over by the beer smooching, six-pack clowns we elevate to our misfortune. we want the brainy, managers with the determination of a da Vinci court jester, but shame them for excelling above our own mediocrity.

Given Sontomayor's "technocratic" impetus for judicial pronouncements she is sure to offend the most emotional, advocates among the clear-thinking analysts within that laudatory think tank called Rovian Parallelerian Universalism.

Ruling on arguments for gay marriage (currently see Olson and Boies on Prop 8)

Abortion rights

* A major underlying fear that corporate power (especially in the Wall Street bailout and energy monopolies) would slide more in favor of the consumer/taxpayer.

The very take-what-your-company-can-and-call-it-capitalism pillars of American resource greed would be threatened if SC justices ruled uncommonly and equitably for consumers and their environment.

Alito and Roberts need a dose of baking soda and chalk to smudge their acidic effect in such matters.

The subtleties and broad application of empathy are apparent in other related legal fields and are necessary for the just application of law covering everyday occurrences.

For instance. Do I want a cop, lawyer, teacher, surgeon and judge to dip into his heart of empathy when they practice within my realm of need? If they're human, they certainly do.

We've all seen the cops without empathy--they are abundant, but before stretching the limits of privacy to make a point about searching my car (whose inhabitants appear to profile for drug types), I want him/her to consider what it would be like to have a brazen, tough cop pull him over and get such presumptuous treatment without sufficient, legal cause for detainment.

When I'm before an empathetic judge I expect her to rule my case based on law and precedent with the accompanying ability to understand that laws are made for the weak, poor, victims and rich of the world, so that justice may prevail for everyone. If they forget that kernel of humanity, one feels cheated and abused.

In the politics of judicial confirmations the right clearly wants empathetic judges that favor an ideological type. The left seeks this as well. So, it seems the pool of mud baths drowns us now.

Empathy in the practice of law is as necessary as the lawyer taking a client's case (where evidence of guilt is ignored with enough skill to defend them), when they put aside bias for the sake of fairness (empathy) for the presumed innocent.

The judge on any court is a human product of the free use of empathy. From the parents who scolded us with the same dose of fair treatment on all the children, to teachers who don't ignore the shy student when the smart vocal ones demand attention, to cops that ask themselves what a frightened, mentally challenged person would feel to be tasered on impulse or when a doctor has enough empathy for his patient that he strives to save them (without considering their wealth, race or insurance status)--the judge benefited and so must show beneficence upon whom they preside.

As the trilogy of fictional characters Kirk, Spock and Bones mentioned by one poster teach us completeness of justice, it is clear that judges, too, without it are less than what we want on our courts.

It's becoming clear from reading the discussions here on various cases that--

it's not that empathy is not and should not be an underlying element/factor when deciding, but--

which side deserves more liberal application of it.