Justice Is Bland: "Daily Show" Mocks Souter For Stepping Down, Republicans For Hating Empathy (VIDEO)

Last night, Jon Stewart begged the question, "What part of 'lifetime appointment' does Justice Souter not understand?" Souter, who is 69, announced last week that he would be stepping down from the bench ahead of two of his peers who are also expected to retire during Obama's first term. Stewart mocked Souter for going first, before Justice Ginsburg who has cancer, and Justice Stevens who is 89.

Stewart then moved on to the media, as he so often does so well, taking on talking heads for their anger over President Obama's hope that the new justice will be empathetic. That would be a nightmare.

In the second segment below, Aasif Mandvi looks at Republican paranoia over code words for abortion and gay marriage. (In fact, no matter what Obama says, it's really about abortion.) He then introduced a three-minute confirmation stick that determines where justices stand on abortion with 98% accuracy.


WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Justice Is Bland
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Three-Minute Confirmation Stick
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[BossBabe]

People confuse the quality of empathy with the quality of sympathy. Empathy refers to ones ability to understand another person's feelings and emotions. Sympathy implies agreement with those feelings and emotions. A good jurist absolutely MUST be empathetic, but need not be - and should not display - sympathy.

[brandalucia]

Stewart is like all of the ultra liberal hate mongers on these "political" shows. Where this hate comes from is a very thoughtful question. That liberals love to expouse; on their opinions, their beliefs, their wind...they deman that NO ONE else be heard. And that is what liberilsm is all about...THEIR views 24/7 and in their little, hateful minds...that is fair. Conservatives bat them away with ease and it so irritates the ilk of Stewart, Matthews, Odorman etc.

[Sepulchre]

So what exactly do you think FOX, LImbaugh and the rest do? It is hate mongering at it's finest. The difference is that the liberal news actually has facts in it.

[mindylc77]

God forbid we think about another human being here people! Oh yes, that's better, lets think like Republicans and think ONLY OF OURSELVES, ALWAYS.

[brandalucia]

One thing the liberals have in spades and that is their level of hate...truly something to observe.

[Sepulchre]

Hate. Well for hate you can't beat Hannity, O'Reily, Limbaugh and company. One of the differences is at least the liberal news actually uses facts.

[o4tuna]

I know a part of comedy part setup, and part punchline. But, I think Jon went a little over board on the judge. I would imagine that the average day on the Supreme Court bench is rather dull and repetitive. The man has served. He probably would like to find some peace in his life before he goes. Jon could have cut him a little slack. I understand Jon wasn't really being mean. It was a vehicle for laughs. He could have stopped before he got to the unibomber stuff. Ya, I know, subtext. It just kinda hit me in the wrong way at the wrong time.

[GonzoFactor]

"Three-Minute Confirmation Stick"

Shouldn't that be "schtick"?

[thrugreeneyez]

I am ecstatic that Obama listed empathy as a quality for the new Judge.

The times they are a'changin'!!

[lesterbud]

What a great example our Rushpublicant leaders set for us:

Empathy is evil.

Fair means tilted in favor of the most wealthy.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are "those damn bits of paper".

Torture is enhanced interrogation.

Shaking hands with a foreign leader is treason.

Believing in securing our environment is communist.

And look over there - dear God it's a Gay couple and they are ruining our country!

[brandalucia]

Yet another empty but so hateful, derisive and bitter comment...you love to read what you type don't you.

[Sepulchre]

Awww... are you upset he is right?

[antifluff]

The law does not have empathy. If you are DUI, and caught, you face the law, there should be no special consideration. Empathy allows 'classes' to form, where some people are given preferential treatment based on the judges "feelings", not the law. Because you cannot guarantee the feelings of each person, the law would not and could not be equitable.
Encouraging the court (judges) to be empathetic is to encourage the same to rule the country, not balance the other branches.
I am conservative and before you start the rants, please consider the consequences of having a "far right" judge presiding over a case that involved dem defendants. The results would be similar: people that are not intended to rule, usu rping po wer and taking rights from citizens.

[Talaan77]

The decisions that the supreme court decision is not as black and white as a a dui, and even in such cases the judge uses their judgement to prescribe sentences. The job of the supreme court is to also Interpret the law

[thrugreeneyez]

Good point Talaan, Antifluff's argument is too simplistic.

[bluestems]

so, what part of Separation of Church from State does the republican party not understand with regards to gay marriage and abortions?

[brandalucia]

It is quite obvious that you were educated...and I use that word loosely here...in the public school system. Your reasoning has nothing to do with historical documents...you are emotional and hysterical and so easy to fool. The liberal education system has failed you seriously.

[o4tuna]

The very argument you make is the very reason why we have abortion in this country. To quote wikipedia:

"When weighing the competing interests that the Court had identified, Blackmun also asserted that if the fetus was defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. The Court majority determined that the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not require protection of the unborn.

The Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection was separate from the notion of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." The Court only believed itself positioned to resolve the question of when a right to abortion exists."

The constitution was "silent" on the matter. But the constitution is going to be "silent" on many issues, and cases are always judged on interpretation and intent. Every Judge, even strict constitutionalists, have their interpretation of the constitution and the intent of the "Founding Fathers". If it were as easy as reading the crime, finding guilt, and pronouncing punishment, were would be no need for the Supreme Court.

[Alethea]

You're talking about prejudice and favoritism, not empathy.

It's not surprising you don't know the difference. So let me help you out.

Empathy means that someone can be moved by someone else’s plight into to doing the right thing. Such as providing VA benefits for wounded soldiers or free healthcare for children who would otherwise suffer. Empathy is often very logical since a person is capable of consider differing points of view when making decisions. After all how does it benefit anyone to let a child die from cancer when it's perfectly feasible to use taxpayer dollars to get that child treated?

Prejudice and favoritism is irrational. It's a situation where someone likes or dislikes certain other people simply because they do. It can be because they like or don't like their appearance, their culture, their economic status, etc. But there is definitely no empathy involved. In fact, it's usually selfishness that is the main driver, and when someone can only see from their own point of view that meains that they cannot be objective, and therefore, they are often illogical.

Hope that explanation helps.

[Durango]

OK the Republican Party is officially bankrupt. they have jumped the shark.

They are completely and utterly without any idea. Or any clue.

Because when a political party is reduced to criticizing "empathy" they are at the end of their rope.

They need to bring back the Whigs. Because the Republican Party has lost it completely.

[Kcecelia]

Where this article says, "He then introduced a three-minute confirmation stick.. " I think the word should acutally be shtik. The onlne Free Dictionary defines shtik thusly:

shtik: (Yiddish) a contrived and often used bit of business that a performer uses to steal attention; "play it straight with no shtik."

[quixoto]

No, they mean "stick."
Watch the second clip.

[afgail]

Republicans in general and the religious right are obsessed with issues related to the erogenous zone. The public is easily side tracked by trying to legislate what consenting adults do with their crotch. The crotch related debate sucks all the political air out of discussions on health care, global warming, torture trials, energy independence, ending the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, improving education etc. The GOP even reduced the deficit to the crotch issue of "teabagging". They just cain't hep it.

[brt929]

I just watched the whole episode. Stewart was great, he couldn't have been funnier. I'm so glad he is on our side.

[Brandon Crisler]

"Funny" is code for "Liberal"

[mindylc77]

Funny is code for -HAS A BRAIN IN HIS HEAD!

[The-Gentle-Art]

How ridiculous is the fact that some think empathy is a bad thing?

What if past Justices were able to display a little empathy? For example Plessy v. Ferguson.

Here is a list of other SCOTUS rulings that may have benefited from a dose of empathy.

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=731

[brt929]

How ridiculous is the fact that some think empathy is a bad thing?

You need to understand, it's code for abortion.

[Durango]

See: Dred Scott Opinion.

African Americans were not and could not become "persons".

That's what a lack of empathy on the Courts gets you.

Utterly ridiculous legal opinions.

[apoyo]

Based on the repub's opposition to abortion they should be absolute cheerleaders for gay marriage since no children can be conceived within such a union therefore making the issue of abortion moot.

[Mij13]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Alas, it turns out that they're not so much for protecting the unborn as they are interested in protecting their idea of what the American family should look. That would be white, Christian, circa 1950. In other words, they are at their best when dealing with unreality. Why else would they have stayed true to the Republican party for the past twenty five years while getting nothing but lip service in return?

[brt929]

I'm sorry, I have a different take: it is about controlling women.

You notice, no one suggests legislation for any procedures that men may want.

I remember fighting with my medical insurance about paying for my birth control pills, but they had no problem paying Viagra. There is definitely a double standard.

[PalaceOfWisdom]

Viagra corrects a physical disability while birth control prevents what is technically a normal bodily function. From a sleazy lawyer point of view that's a huge difference. The door would open to elective procedures of all kinds being covered. The real gripe should be why male birth control pills haven't been realized.

[boogiewoman]

Trolls out in force today. Love Jon everyday. Hate rethugs every second of the day.