North Texas Nonconformist

The authoritarian dimwits who seem to constitute an unhealthy proportion of the conservative base in the USA have gotten themselves all worked up into a frenzy (as usual, aided and abetted by the mainstream media) over a remark by President Obama that one of the qualities he may seek in a future Supreme Court nominee is empathy. They seem to believe that empathy is a Really Bad Thing in a judge - why, it might make the judge sympathetic to one of the parties in a case! They also seem to be of the opinion that empathy is a codeword for what they term "judicial activism", which, based on my attempting to debate the phrase with conservatives, seems to itself be a codeword roughly translated as "judges who make decisions that I don't like".
The trouble with these arguments (as ever) is that they are simplistic, and fall into the trap of a false dichotomy. Where do we begin? How about reminding ourselves of arguments put forward in favour of the nomination of current Supreme Court justices who are generally regarded as conservative. Like Clarence Thomas. As this posting by Susan Bandes points out:

Judicial nominees and their supporters routinely assure Congress that they both intend to uphold the rule of law and are capable of empathy for those less fortunate. Clarence Thomas's controversial nomination to the Supreme Court got a crucial boost when liberal judge Guido Calabresi wrote that Thomas understands "what discrimination really means" and knows "the deep needs of the poor and especially poor blacks." Sen. Danforth (R-Mo.) added his own assurances that Thomas's heart would be with "the ordinary folk" if he were on the Supreme Court. In his confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito sought to reassure those concerned about his capacity to empathize with workers and the poor by describing his Italian-immigrant father and his own upbringing in "an unpretentious, down to earth community."

So, there is nothing new in making empathy a central feature of arguments in favour of judicial nominations to America's highest court.
Another aspect of the hand-wringing about empathy is that empathy is a key diagnostic characteristic for good socialization. A defining characteristic of sociopaths, for example, is their general lack of empathy and bonding with other humans. Arguing against the desirability of empathy takes you down a dangerous road. Are you really in favour of appointing a sociopath to the highest court in the land? Is this really a good idea. Of course, from my amateur viewpoint, it seems to me that a number of the leading figures in the GOP's recent past and present seem to exhibit some of the characteristics of sociopaths. The snarling, dismissive, black-and-white worldview of Dick Cheney and the narcissistic self-centered personal life of Newt Gingrich are not stellar advertisements for lack of empathy.
I therefore have tentatively concluded that the objection to "empathy" is yet another example of coded language, with "empathy" replacing "judicial activism" as another rallying cry for reflexive opponents of President Obama. Of course, it would be nice if those opponents stopped trying to rally around illogical, intellectually defective nonsense like this, but we are talking about the modern USA, where the ability to construct a cogent argument is currently taking second place (at least in the mass media) to fear-mongering, the endemic use of logical fallacies, and general bloviation and hand-waving.

Right now I am getting pissed with President Obama...he has only been in office 100 or so days, and now he is trying to prevent the release of photos which apparently will show detainees being tortured by U.S. military and or/intelligence department personnel.
The fact that torture has occurred does not seem to me to be in dispute, especially when the proponents of and apologists for torture seem to be expending a lot of rhetorical and argumentation energy on advancing the hypothesis that "torture works". If there was any doubt about the reality of past torture, they would still be clinging to the polite (prior) fiction of "we do not torture".
Obama's attempt to prevent the publication of the photos is supported by reasons that, as Lawyers Guns and Money explains, do not even begin to pass any test of logical argument. In short, the justification is flimsy bordering on BS. We also need to remember that this is a legal argument advanced by the Obama Administration to a circuit judge who may or may not be impressed enough by the argument to rule in favour of it. The judge might well decide that the argument is insufficiently compelling, and permit publication of the pictures.
This, of course, may be the outcome that the Obama Administration knows is inevitable; they may simply be going through the motions of objecting to publication so that they can turn round to the military and the intelligence communities and say "we tried...". However, given other evidence of backsliding on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I am becoming increasingly concerned that the Obama team is meeting my worst expectations of a team that, once granted governance power, is seeking to abuse that power the same way that its predecessor abused power. Not a good sign.

A rather disturbing story, from Ed Brayton's blog at ScienceBlogs:

A formerly anonymous blogger who criticized his prominent Southern Baptist pastor has sued police and state prosecutors for revealing his identify to the church even though an investigation showed he had done nothing illegal.

The blogger's blog is here, with updates on the legal action.
As Ed says, I hope he wins and wins big. This sort of covert investigation under the guise of a "criminal investigation" is nothing more than an invasion of privacy, and needs to be clobbered by the justice system, hopefully in a way that humiliates all of the scoundrels who took part in it.

I remember a few years ago, when the GOP still controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives, a prevailing meme that was always used by Republicans when talking about their opponents was "angry liberals". Seemingly, all opponents were vicious, angry, twisted, warped liberals, and since in authoritarian circles, "liberal" is an all-purpose smear, the inclusion of that word alone would be enough to (as they see it) end the conversation.
Now, in 2009, the GOP finds itself in the minority in both national houses of representation, and the President is a Democrat. Is the GOP behaving graciously in opposition? Based on what I am reading about, it would seem that the answer is No. GOP-sympathetic radio and TV hosts are ranting about all manner of perceived indignities, elected representatives are bloviating about "tea parties" and "fascism". And, not to be outdone, the leader of the RedState website has now lowered the bar further. Describing the soon-retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester" not only sets a lower standard for others to aim at (or below), it also seems to me to amply fit the definition of an "angry authoritarian".
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also observe that it seems like the writings of a classless, moronic little shit...but I hate to have to re-state the obvious.

This article by Glenn Greeenwald is a masterpiece (note for the humor-impaired; the article makes extensive use of both irony and sarcasm...). It is good to see mendacious, duplicitous elected representatives being impaled on the consequences of their own contradictions and hypocrisies...like Rep. Jane Harman. It seems that her interview on NPR has not helped her either - but she apparently hasn't got a bloody clue about the law all of a sudden. See Amnesia.
On a related topic...there is a new reference frame being pushed into the public domain by frightened and embarrassed groups in and around the intelligence and surveillance divisions of government. Apparently, programs are now either "legal" or "extra-legal". If you want an excellent example of Orwellian language, here it is in 4 short syllables. It reads like some sort of advertising slogan ("New Improved Extra Legal! Buy it now!").
When are the brave media folk on radio and TV going to ask the blindingly obvious question "Er, is "extra-legal" not simply a bullshit euphemism for illegal?"
UPDATE - Glenn Greenwald goes back on the offensive against the mind-bogglingly hypocritical bloviations from Rep. Jane Harman at a recent APAIC meeting, where she vented against illegal wiretapping. It certainly appears that, as far as Rep. Harman is concerned, wiretapping is acceptable as a national security assurance tactic as long as it is The Other Guy who is being wiretapped...