Wednesday, May 13, 2009


This discussion about whether or not Supreme Court justices ought to be empathetic is pretty ridiculous. The alternative, as this seems to be playing out, is not something like "analytically rational," but rather more like "crassly pragmatic."

Anyway, Dahlia Lithwick does the dismissal work and it's entertaining enough (via Yglesias):
Now, if the GOP really wants to run out on a rail anyone with empathy or anyone who values it, far be it from me to object. Democrats will be more than happy to feel their pain. But to the extent that the debate over empathy may shape every Supreme Court discussion we are going to have this summer, let’s just be clear that the opposite of empathy isn’t rigor. It’s pretty close to solipsism, or the certain conviction that everything you’ll ever need to know about judging you learned from your own fine self.

No comments: