TPMDC Saturday Roundup
Obama YouTube: Health Care Must Be Fixed
In his weekly Presidential YouTube Address, President Obama discussed his proposals for health care -- and the urgency to get a new reform bill passed:
"Simply put, the status quo is broken. We cannot continue this way," said Obama. "If we do nothing, everyone's health care will be put in jeopardy. Within a decade, we'll spend one dollar out of every five we earn on health care - and we'll keep getting less for our money. That's why fixing what's wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve - it's a necessity we cannot postpone any longer."
Sessions Decries "Empathy Standard" For Judges
In this weekend's Republican YouTube, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, discussed the pending nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court -- and warned against an "empathy standard" in law:
"I hope that the American people will engage in this nomination process and follow it closely. They should learn about the issues, and listen to both sides of the argument. And, at the end of the day, ask: 'If I must one day go to court, what kind of judge do I want to hear my case?" said Sessions. "'Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome? Or, do I want a judge that objectively applies the law to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits?' That is the central question around which this entire nomination process will revolve."
Obama's Day In France
President Obama spent the day in Caen, France. He met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at 6:15 a.m. ET (12:15 p.m. local time), with a working lunch at 6:50 a.m. ET. At 8:20 a.m. ET, he and First Lady Michelle Obama toured the Visitor's Center at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial. At 9:10 a.m. ET, President Obama delivered remarks to commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day. He and the First Lady departed at 11:20 a.m. ET, headed back to Paris.
Biden's Day Ahead
This evening, Vice President Biden and Jill Biden will attend the Welcome Barbeque at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 17th Annual Mervyn L. & Stephanie Tubbs Jones Memorial Golf and Tennis Classic, in Williamsburg, Virginia. Also, Jill Biden spoke this morning at the Opening Ceremonies of the Global Race for the Cure on the National Mall.
Obama Salutes Memory Of D-Day
In his speech today at the D-Day ceremony, President Obama paid tribute to the troops of that historic battle. "We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true. It's a world of varied religions and cultures and forms of government," said Obama. "In such a world, it's all too rare for a struggle to emerge that speaks to something universal about humanity. The Second World War did that. No man who shed blood or lost a brother would say that war is good. But all know that this war was essential."
Hillary Rejects Israeli Claim Of Secret Bush Deals On Settlements
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is rejecting Israeli claims that the Bush Administration had secretly agreed to expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank. "We have the negotiating record, that is the official record, that was turned over to the Obama administration by the outgoing Bush administration," said Clinton. "There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements."
Obama Calls For Tough Response To Iran, North Korea
Speaking to reporters today in France, President Obama called for a tougher diplomatic response from the international community to Iran and North Korea. "We are not intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation," Obama said of the North Korean situation, adding: "We are going to take a very hard look at how we move forward on these issues."
Obama To Call For Stimulus Spending Goals
President Obama will reportedly ask agency heads to lay out goals for stimulus spending over the next several months, in an apparent effort to speed up the pace of the recovery program. Obama and Vice President Biden will meet with Cabinet members on Monday. This comes in the wake of a Congressional Budget Office report last week, finding that only $24.5 billion of the $787 billion had been spent as of May 22.
Josh
Matt
Eric
re Sessions and empathy standard:
"'Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome? Or, do I want a judge that objectively applies the law to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits?'"
False choice. In order to correctly apply the law and to rule fairly, a judge must have a felt understanding of human nature not merely some idealized abstraction of what the judge was taught by rote.
June 6, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the unabashed, shameless brazen hypocricy that kills me. Sessions and his pals spent the last eight goddamned years insisting that only judges who would allow their social, political and religious views to dictate their outcomes were acceptable. It's the thought of having one who won't that has them buying Depends and smelling salts by the truckload.
June 6, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they are obvious hypocrites. It's not clear to me why that is not being used more effectively against them, unless hypocrisy is simply an acceptable thing in modern politicis.
June 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because their social, political and religious views are viewed by many (and certainly by the MSM) as "normal" or "true".
June 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
normal or true? How can blatant hypocrisy be true, even if it's quite common? How can it be normal when it's antithetical to norms of what qualify as American ideals?
I think your analysis falls short of the mark. Was it just a snark?
June 7, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. The Dems need to start driving home the fact that in order for judges to interpret what laws mean, they need to be able to put themselves in the shoes of people who wrote the laws and they therefore must also be able to put themselves in the shoes of the people who elected those that made the laws (empathy?).
June 6, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still can't believe the admin is playing hardball with Bibi. This is so unbelievably fantastic! How long before Obama ramps up the pressure by casually dropping lines about how much aid the U.S. gives Israel.
June 6, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
i so agree... i've been very pleasantly surprised by the direct, no wink wink statements and the very solid duo of obama and clinton.
and i laugh when i think about all those dark whisperings from certain dc magpies of clinton forming a 'shadow government' if obama gave her the state appt. she's been awesome.
June 7, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but Hillary is doing an excellent job as SoS. It's about time the United States stood up to Israel when their goals conflict with ours. It's been a one-way street for far too long.
PEACE
June 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli attitudes here are really incredible: did they/do they seriously think that a "secret oral deal" with GW Bush is somehow going to be binding on the new Administration? And especially after they've been the ones to publicize it?
Hillary is right (and, FWIW, I agree, she's doing an unexpectedly good job for Obama) - nothing on record, nothing to commit. End of story.
June 6, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine there was a statement of your duties in a personnel file for you. And then there was an addendum clarifying more precisely the actual details on it, and the addendum was copied to other staffers who had concerns about how exactly it all fit. And the whole staff had a couple of meetings about this and everybody went over together who did what and there was clear, common understanding, and the minutes of those meetings are circulated.
Then one day your boss quits. Your new boss wants to hold you to the obligations, but you try to say that you don't have to do what's expected because you had a secret oral agreement that the statement of duties and the addendum copied to everyone didn't matter and the clarifying meetings didn't either. Would this work for you?
June 7, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apples vs. Oranges argument.
June 7, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only partly. U.S. is not a boss. That's all that is wrong with it IMHO.
June 7, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno what your point is, O.This: If I were in the position of an employee whose duties were laid out in a written, distributed-to-all memo, and then tried to pull the "I don't have to do this or that because I had a secret deal with the old boss" routine, I wouldn't expect any boss in their right mind to accept nonsense like that, and would probably expect to get my ass fired. PDQ.
IOW, we agree (I think??)
June 7, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, we're totally together on this. Only concession I'm making (and I guess I misunderstood Beetlejuice's point anyway) is that USA is not anyone's boss, just another country even though pretty goddam influential.
But you and I are on the same page, amigo.
June 7, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Apples vs. Oranges because the deal struck with the first boss is not legally binding on the new boss nor are you, the employee, obligated to expect the new boss to honor the old boss's agreement with you. Here's an example of what you're asking. I've work in places were someone does something a little extra for the client just to keep them happy with the product. When contract renewal time comes around that extra service performed is added to the statement of work, but no additional money is forth coming on the contract for the service. Now the company management is out for blood because to keep the contract at the same fixed rate as requested by the client, they have to perform more work at no additional cost. Otherwise, they have to refuse to bid the contract for the stated priced and take a chance it may be awarded to another bidder more willing to perform the work at the stated price. So the question is an Apple vs. Oranges argument, but you end up with a knock-down-drag-out fight between the client, field reps, and the corporate office. In the case of Israel, they may have a roundabout argument with some merit, but they'll strain their relationship with the US in more ways than you can twist a pretzel. So which would you prefer? The Apple - just let it go and move on, or the Orange - fight for what you believe you are owed and iron out the differences later?
June 7, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're talking past one another. My whole point (perhaps not well expressed) is that an oral agreement with one boss is worth nothing or next to nothing as to the new boss, *especially* if there is a written record of who promised what to whom.
June 7, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I heard Netanyahu's claim, I was reminded of Louis B. Meyer, who famously said,
"A verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on."
June 7, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a basis for that in law BTW, and it's directly relevant here. Contracts pertaining to real estate (applicable here) or a value of $500 or more (also applicable) need to be written down traditionally or they're unenforceable. It doesn't matter if someone can produce e.g. video evidence even that the understanding existed -- that's not the point. For something so important, just commit it to writing, just do it, or don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
June 7, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than taking a side, Obama has decided the US should be a spectator. This way he can offer constructive criticism to both sides without giving the appearance of supporting one over the other. In other words, he's gonna make both sides work out their differences if they both want the US to be their friend and bestest buddy.
June 7, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Session seems to think of judicial empathy as a form of sympathy. Failure to distinguish empathy from sympathy is not uncommon.
The core sense of empathy is understanding the emotions and life situations of others. You can understand a person’s feelings without feeling sorry for them. Conversely, you can feel sympathy without understanding.
Sympathy is an emotion -- the function of a kind heart -- while empathy is cognition regarding the pressures, aspirations, sorrows, joys, loves and hates of others. It is the product of broad life experience and intellect.
Empathy and sympathy can occur together, but it is empathy at work in good judicial reasoning.
The Supreme Court reviews a tiny fraction of the difficult cases appealed to them. Empathy ought to be used in deciding those close cases and perhaps especially in selecting which ones to review.
June 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama to Freeze West Bank Settlements, By Putting Fannie Mae in Charge
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=7376
June 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you go away already?
June 6, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buzz off, spammer.
June 6, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or do the subjects of these Republican response videos seem to get more obscure and less relevant every week?
June 6, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just thinking: the Republicans appear to be so totally screwed. Obama appears to be everything we hoped. One of our very greatest Presidents, knock on wood. It must be wearying being in opposition to that.
June 7, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give em hell Hillary!
June 6, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empathy for RICH WHITE MEN ..... GOP requirement!
Empathy for EVERYONE ELSE ..... GOP nightmare!
June 6, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it.
June 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did nail it. Bay the raving lunatic has empathy for a guy who beat a woman on the street with a karate chop and assailed her with a racial slur. Why? Because she sees the white guy as part of her cohort, and so he (not the victim) is entitled to empathy.
June 7, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that has promotional value (like in an ad).
June 6, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been watching D-day stuff on the History channel. Very interesting. I enjoy watching all things WWII.
June 6, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When I was a prosecutor" Sessions probably got his little comment from the chamber of commerce boys. I wouldn't worry to much about what he says now.I do dread having to hear the asshole during the confimation hearings.
June 7, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama speaks about the cost of healthcare, a problem that a good portion of Americans are facing; the GOP talk about the nomination of Sotomayor, a partisan fight over a nominee who is very much qualified. This is why the Republicans are viewed as irrelevant, no matter how much coverage they get on the news channels. Obama is working hard and fast to get things done for the American people, while the Republicans slowly trod along as the "party of no."
June 7, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"NO WE CAN'T!"
Catchy, huh?
June 7, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Sen. Sessions must have no sense of irony:
". . . another step down the path to a cynical, relativistic, results-oriented world . . . where constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful"
Of course, he did look like he was about to start laughing at that moment.
June 7, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will the Supreme Court be the court where the potential trials of the bush criminal organization be tried? If so, I can see why they don't want the court balanced, but not why they don't see the need for empathy. Also, doesn't Sessions record kind of remove him from any seriousness in this matter?
June 7, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Senator Sessions is actually arguing for activist alien judges rather than real humaing beings.
"Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome?"
Actually preferring people like John Roberts -- ruling with the corporation, ethnic majority or government body 100% of the time?
June 7, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
empathy is what makes a good lawyer -- if you can't put yourself in the shoes of your adversary, you can't anticipate his arguments.
in fact, empathy, to me at least, is the essence of objectivity. quite the opposite of what sessions suggests, empathy is not "allowing [one's] social political, or religions views to impact the outcome," but is rather the attempt to distance/remove one's self from those views temporarily, to consider all interested sides of an argument. that is pretty much the distinguishing feature of objectivity.
so what sessions is really saying is that he (and his ilk) prefers narcissistic, totally subjective, shitty lawyers as supreme court justices. great.
June 8, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Rejects Israeli Claim Of Secret Bush Deals On Settlements
Israel could not be so stupid as to think they were making a SECRET deal with an out-going administration, that could not be discussed in the sunlight and it would be upheld by future administrations.
June 8, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink