"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

So where's he going to find an 80 year old black lesbian with a club foot who is on welfare and got pregnant when she was 15?

Here's why you're doing nothing more than banging your head on the wall:

Neither party limits themselves by thinking they may some day lose power: they don't think they will lose power, they're more interested in grabbing what they can now and they think that in the event the other side does regain power, that they will be deal with that then,

Your arguments appeal to a very small slice of the population, the people who are more interested in 'procedure' over the end result. Most voters care about the end result and don't concern themselves worrying about the process of going from A to B. To illustrate, voters are more upset about 'abuses' on Wall Street than they are upset about Obama abusing the Constitution in limiting executive pay. Thus, Obama's pledge to take empathy into account is shorthand for saying that he's going to give people a justice who will give them the end result they want - and provided he positions his nomination as giving people what they want, there's not going to be a serious public backlash against his pick.

Finally, everybody - on both sides - rationalizes their rulings as being 'constitutional'... not the way you would agree but enough that they're not going to be shamed or pressured into backing away from doing what they want to be doing. You can scream all you want, but they're going to just ignore you.

"So where's he going to find an 80 year old black lesbian with a club foot who is on welfare and got pregnant when she was 15?"

You owe me a new coffee!

It is indeed fortunate that leftists have no interest in the contents of the Constitution of the United States. Were it otherwise, decades of Supreme Court decisions grounded on "penumbras", reems of "hate crime" legislation and limitless dictates of Political Correctness would have been undone before they were done. Consider the carnage if the constitutional rights formerly guaranteed by that document were still in force! One might even be permitted to view terrorists as sub-human, homosexuals as practitioners of aberrant behavior and illegal aliens as being in the country--illegally! And then where would we be!

Wouldn't it be just swell if Obama nominates Bill Clinton?

In all seriousness, I'm neutral on the empathy question. But I would like to see a Supreme Court nominee who has experience outside the judiciary, or at least outside legal academia. I think too much time spent in those particular ivory towers tends to blind a judge to the practical consequences of his rulings.

So where's he going to find an 80 year old black lesbian with a club foot who is on welfare and got pregnant when she was 15?

I'm sure Oprah could help Obama find one. If not, she'd probably volunteer to play the part, just to help out you know.

"...homosexuals as practitioners of aberrant behavior..."

You need to make sure that in 2010, America knows that this is what your party stands for. See where that gets you.

80 year old black clubfooted lesbian activists please report to the White House for debriefing/delousing and new sob story biographies.

Bill Clinton could make a decent Supreme Court pick. Morals aside, he is well educated, experienced, smart etc. It would make it much easier for Hillary to keep track of him as well.

I thought 'profiling' was against the law. Guess it all depends on who's doing the profiling.

Personally, wanting to be 'all inclusive', I think it's time we had a gay gray whale on the Supreme Court.

You know, I was just thinking reading your post, it would give me untold pleasure to see someone like Thomas Sowell (or Walter Williams or Larry Elder) go one on one with Obama in a debate of these very fundamental issues. I like Rush but forget Rush in this case. I would like the average American to see that there are African-Americans who subscribe to a conservative philosophy and eliminate the racist card that liberals are so quick to use as an out for Mr. Obama when he is challenged on his policies. Sorry for going off topic but this president is basically an idiot.

Maybe in the name of "diversity," Obama could nominate Alberto Gonzales? He's a minority, liberal and hates american civil liberties.

Gonzales is a liberal? Or do you mean he liberally smeared feces all over the Constitution?

Gonzalez? Not a chance. Ted Kennedy won't stand for Hispanics in powerful positions. They're "dangerous," remember?

> But before the celebration gets too far out of hand, they should ask themselves a simple question -- when the balance of power shifts again to the right ... are they still going to be comfortable with a standard of "empathy," especially if a President Palin or a President Cantor decides to pick justices who empathize with the unborn, or the terminally ill or handicapped, or the victims of violent crimes, or with those who believe in enforcing existing immigration laws?

Not a problem. When the balance of power shifts, so do the rules for picking and confirming judges. You should know that by now!

More banana republic thinking.

This is what you don't want in a republican democracy--judging "the person" versus the facts and law of the case.

Outrageous that a President, and one who ostensibly taught Con. Law, would utter such claptrap.

Most provocative debate I have seen on the web lately.