But it isn’t. A question that is. It is not a question to the Left, posed by their enemies. It is not a question arising of the Left or from the Left, posed against themselves and others of like mind. It is not a question, whatsoever.

It is not that they are intellectually incapable of understanding that “what goes around, comes around” or that there is a “slipper slope”, it is that they believe it does not matter. They never ask the question because it never matters to them, they are not told that it matters, and they do not have a personal curiosity to find out otherwise.

It cannot be a question when people like Mr. Bookworm simply say to you, after you have posed the question, “you are hallucinating” or even “I don’t remember you asking a question”.

In this sense, communications wise, perceptions matter more than reality.

For furthers examples, consider the mass murderer and sociopath. They get to kill others and have power on them, but does the question EVER ARISE that when the state is in a power to end their lives, that this is just, necessary, or “Right”? No, the question never arises, Suek. It does not exist. Only the consequences of execution or no execution, successful appeal or affirmation, exists.

The question does not, when the question is not asked or recognized.

It is never a question to the narcissist of whether what he does to others is right or wrong, because other people are just inanimate objects to the narcissist. The question of right or wrong never comes up, because they have no meaning in relation to inanimate objects.

It’s a question of whether they’d be willing to accept someone of Sotomayor’s approach who favors a group they do _not_ favor.

Thus, in the end, it is not a question of whether they’d be willing to accept any such thing. But it is a question of whether they expect or believe that they will be held to account for their crimes against humanity. This is what determines whether a person is capable of even considering the fact that something like a “tables turned” will happen. And until they consider that as relevant, other questions will not follow.

The Left never believes their crimes against humanity will ever be exposed, thus they do not believe they will ever have to suffer the consequences of when the pendulum “swings back”. They do not have a long enough vision. They lack foresight, because they lack wisdom.

They are corrupted both by wealth and power into believing that short term results is the only thing that matters.

They will never believe that they will be held accountable for their crimes, either in the eyes of their victims or in the court of God.

Nobody can know everything, Y. At some time, at some point, you have to trust. The trick, of course, is knowing when and whom.

Someone offered this as a discussion point when talking to Lib friends (and spouses!).

Consider someone on the SC like Sotomayor. Good, right? Ok…now assume that this person has Cheney’s political views.

Still good?

You’ll defer to the judgment of anyone with the will and strength to make you their slave and tool. You are not a particularly unique instance of this effect.

You will defer to whomever is powerful enough to control you. I do not lambast you for this, for it just simply means our side must become powerful enough to be the one doing the controlling. War is not fair. It is not just or kind on the innocent or the “neutral”.

The GOP Senators are already making noises that confirmation is assured; and perhaps it would not be politically expedient to oppose her vigorously. Oh my!

There are serious questions that should be debated and forced into the public consciousness. This whole justice by empathy argument is inherently dangerous and intellectually dishonest. As has been said, empathy in a trial judge may be desirable; as long as the judge stays within the law. Injecting human considerations into individual cases seems not unreasonable. The decisions have a narrow application. But, it was also pointed out that empathy has no place on the Appeals Bench or on the Supreme Court. These courts decide issues that may have wide ranging impact, and often modify existing law. Straying willy-nilly from the Constitution and established law is inviting chaos.

The American people need to be educated on the role of courts at the various levels; and the impact of Judging in the manner advocated by the likes of Obama and Sotomayor. This confirmation is a great opportunity to conduct those lessons. Will the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee undertake this task? I am afraid not. So, she will be confirmed without serious dissent because of political cowardice. Another opportunity to argue for principle will be lost and the next nominee will bring more of the same mind-set or worse.

Thus a Sarah Pallin that got a journalism degree from a non-Ivy League, non government affirmative action program, and non-Leftist enabled victim slave group, is considered “dumb” as in “lacking in authority”.

The Left also likes the authority of the bench. Instead of liberty, allowing people to make their own choices, informed or uninformed, they deliberately force the issue so that a judge, an arbitrator or high aristocrat lord, gets to decide issues and then everyone must obey the so called “rule of law” which has now become nothing but the rule of Obama and the powerful Leftist aristos.

And of course, it does make perfect sense that the Democrats and their Leftist allies are the first to call Hitler and Bush authoritarian. As if the “right wing” was authoritarian, or even that Hitler was on the right rather than a left wing nut job that allied with communists and other socially deviant Leftist freaks.

Then they have their talking points.

If you’re compatible with their agenda, then the talking points kick in. If you’re NOT ok according to their agenda, then a different set of talking points kicks in.

In other words, there are _good_ racial/ethnicity talking points, and there are _bad_ racial/ethnicity talking points. Which set of politically correct talking points kicks in depends entirely on whether you further their agenda or not.

Thought not required.

I think we are in an Orwellian time, and it is not just explainable by identify politics. Remember the grilling of Alberto Gonzales and the hysteria over Miguel Estrada. So the point is not just having a so-called minority profile, but having one compatible to the ‘progressive’ left. If an African-American nominee (cf. Justice Thomas) or Hispanic proves to be conservative, then race can often count against them, inciting a sort of furor on the left that such independent thinking individuals are not suitably deferential to liberals for their trail-blazing work.

Or perhaps the liberal mind feels that de facto it is beyond racial reproach, and therefore can engage in a sort of viciousness that exceeds even that shown non-minority conservatives. In short, the inspirational story of a Hispanic is relevant only to the degree that the nominee favors an agenda of the elite progressive left-without that requisite ideology, the candidate is reduced to an ingrate or a victim of false-consciousness, or a traitor of sorts.