tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post3792344237041145676..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: The Nuance of Empathymike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-38576211833344770372009-05-07T07:30:00.000-07:002009-05-07T07:30:00.000-07:00Annonymous unknown entity:
John Locke.. hmm help ...Annonymous unknown entity:<br /><br />John Locke.. hmm help me out.. Is it the one who said: <br />"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. ?"<br /><br />Or possibly the one who said:<br />"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. ?"<br /><br />Both, to a logical mind would suggest respecting private property rights which would be contrary to Marxism? So I suppose No I am not calling him a Marxist, or accusing him of it.. Have you squirreled away something which proves his opinion that values be equalized through the supreme court?<br /><br />If so.. I am unaware of that.<br /><br />Again.. It would help if you frame your question so that I may answer it appropriately. Are you speaking of property, or natural born rights? Above I have answered (I think) the property question, but if you are referring to natural born rights, they are what they are.<br /><br />Natural rights we have. It is up to us, to protect them. There is no power which equalizes "rights" because they already are equal. (we are born with them) Our government in its very charter was designed to protect them.. Period. Not to parse whether one particular social group's rights are being denied for their thoughts or actions, but whether they have been denied at all.<br /><br />The emphasis on "empathy" is the real issue here.. Because emotions are purely subjective, the same set of circumstances might well produce different results in the courts.. THAT is the WRONG way to approach the activity on the bench. In the end, how might it be fair for one person to see different results from the same type of damage?Jason Gillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936369955945345359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-14326997583339904502009-05-07T06:28:00.000-07:002009-05-07T06:28:00.000-07:00Jason, did you just accuse John Locke of Marxism?Jason, did you just accuse John Locke of Marxism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-40743947939231342192009-05-07T06:24:00.000-07:002009-05-07T06:24:00.000-07:00Of coure, I would. A SC judge should know the law ...Of coure, I would. A SC judge should know the law and interpret the law, period. Frankly, the terms "empathy" wouldn't be framed in regard to the SC by Palin.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-90809450528700471882009-05-07T04:35:00.000-07:002009-05-07T04:35:00.000-07:00Her first paragraph..
"broader vision of what A...Her first paragraph.. <br /> <br />"broader vision of what America should be."<br /><br />Oh.. OK.. I wonder how well that would work if there WAS a stealth homophobic (to reference your later point)justice? Certainly "their view" and life's experiences would matter more than the right for Gay men to anally fornicate. <br /><br />As to "anon's" equity? Hogwash. Balance cannot, or should not be meted out by edict.. Justice has NOTHING to do with mandating equalization. That is purely a Marxist principle. Unless anon is attempting to frame "equity" in a different manner, but is too lazy to pick a name for it.. or to type the words.Jason Gillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08936369955945345359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-80977276370893624412009-05-07T03:26:00.000-07:002009-05-07T03:26:00.000-07:00I wonder if you would be bleating the same old com...I wonder if you would be bleating the same old complaints of Palin was now picking someone who had "empathy" for family values and "real" America.<br /><br />I doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-51629469829764203722009-05-06T21:46:00.000-07:002009-05-06T21:46:00.000-07:00To an extent its important to remember that the Su...To an extent its important to remember that the Supreme Court is not just a Court of Law. It is a Court of Law and Equity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com