Empathy VS The Rule Of Law

Several times President Obama has stated that he'll look for a Supreme Court Justice who will bring empathy to the bench. I've written on this before, but what makes this one different is an inconsistency that jumped up and smacked me in the face today. My cheek still stings from that slap. On one hand we have the administration speaking about how we have to adhere to the rule of law and no considerations can be given to circumstances when looking at what the previous administration did. They've released the names and addresses of our CIA interrogators, released classified documents, and are even now considering dealing with the Spanish Judge who wants to try our previous president for war crimes. This is all under the guise of "adhering to the rule of law." And then with the next breath they're saying that we need a Supreme Court Justice with empathy. That a person's situation and experiences need to be considered in any decision. This has me scratching my head a bit.

So which is it? Do we adhere to the rule of law, or do we have empathy? No consideration is being made to the previous administration for the situation they were in or the circumstances they faced. No empathy. So is the current administration saying that everybody deserves empathy except for the previous administration?

What bothers me here is the double standard. Pick a stance and hold it. Stay with it. Rule of law or empathy. But either way, we are sure seeing that according to Obama all men are not created equal.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. - Thomas Jefferson

Punish the Innocent and Protect the Guilty

There's a rule, which most of us know, that states that Congress cannot be prosecuted for any decision they make in the execution of their duties in Congress. They did not pass this law to cover themselves. They did not pass this law at all. It was written into our Constitution. This was done by our founding fathers because there was a history, in Great Britain especially, where the monarch would file civil or criminal charges against Parliament for disagreeing with them. It was used for totally punitive and political reasons. It was a good thing to have in place and a smart thing to put in our Constitution.

Now, in the calling for prosecution of Bush officials for the "torture" issue, has Congress become the Monarchy? This is being called for by certain Congressmen for punitive and political reasons. That's it. So they are now exhibiting the exact behavior that they are Constitutional protected from. This was set up to preserve the integrity of the legislative process. Well where the bloody bloomin' hell as the integrity in our legislative process gone?

They say that this is to preserve the principles on which this country was founded. I'm all for preserving those principles, but most members of our government pick and choose which of those principles to preserve. We don't seem to be worrying too much about personal accountability and that with hard work and determination you can benefit from the fruits of your own labor. Nope, those have gotten tossed out the door. They say we, as a people, don't engage in torture. But there are some anomalies in their standing.

We're awfully worried about how enemy combatants are treated. What is considered humane. The same thing applies to our convicted murderers and rapists. They're so worried about how these people are treated. Concern for our fellow man is a good thing and I don't denigrate it, but it's applied inconsistently. These are the same people who support abortion, including partial birth abortion. No matter your stance on the abortion issue, it's inconsistent to say that we must preserve the life of a serial rapist and yet allow the destruction of someone whose only crime is being inconvenient. And partial birth abortion is indefensible. If you're unaware what it is, the baby is forced into a feet first birth, when nothing but the head remains in the birth canal the doctors hold it in there by force and then suck the brain out. The child has entered the world with everything but it's whole head and it is killed for no medical reason. No reason at all. This is something Obama supports. So these statements that we have to preserve our principles is bogus.

So now, we may punish people for making a legal decision (but of course not Congress for their culpability because they're immune) in order to protect terrorists. In essence, as we do in so many other areas in this country, we are willing to punish the innocent and protect the guilty.

And shame on Congress for hiding behind their Constitutional protection while exploiting an other's lack of the same protection. If you add on their attitude on taxes, their disregard for the voice of the people and their behavior regarding the anti-tax tea parties, you'll find that the 111th Congress is beginning to bear a striking resemblance to King George III. Especially with the insanity they display.