George Lakoff: Conservatives are trying to redefine empathy as irrational personal feeling. In fact, empathy is the basis of our democracy and must be defended.

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack — on President Obama’s central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.

There are several fronts: Empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.

Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama’s success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.

Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let’s start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn’t empathy a good thing? [ READ MORE ]

Over The Top GOP Bigots and Racists — Limbaugh, THIEF Gordon Liddy, FAT
Cheeks Beck, White Nationalist Buchanan ..

Elsewhere:

William Maxwell of Tempe, Arizona writes in The USA Today: Some conservatives are objecting to the insertion of “empathy” into the equation to determine qualifications of individuals for the highest court of this country. Sometimes a synonym for empathy is mercy, a virtue, according to the Bible.

What happens when mercy or empathy is removed from the deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court? You get a ruling such as the Dred Scott decision that stated blacks were “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

That infamous ruling in 1857 had the overwhelming approval of many conservatives in this nation, of the Southern ruling classes and seven of the nine members of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, Roger Taney.

Take away empathy from human life and one not only gets tyranny, but one also gets the cruelest act of all: a denial of the humanity of unprotected individuals.

Craig Cotora of Cape Coral, Fla writes: Judge abilities, not views — As we all know from our civics classes, the federal judiciary, like the executive and legislative branches of the government, was designed to be a separate and equal branch and is critical in the checks-and-balances framework that was laid out in the Constitution.

Consequently, the political views and opinions of any nominee for the federal judiciary, regarding abortion or any other social issue, are irrelevant. Only the individual’s impartiality, judicial abilities and integrity should be considered in the nomination and confirmation process.

Anyone who disagrees with that principle should take it up with the Founding Fathers.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————————————–