Ruth Marcus attempts to defend Obama's promise to nominate "empathetic" judges to the Supreme Court.

I admit to a bit of wincing at the word "empathize," with its sensitive-new-age-guy aura. If I thought Obama was advocating a pick-your-favorite-side approach, I'd be on the barricades too. But his position is not anything like this absurd caricature. Indeed, it reflects a more thoughtful, more nuanced understanding of the judicial role than Roberts' seductive but flawed umpire analogy.

Sounds more like she was against it before Obama was for it.

Question for Marcus: Does she agree with her "liberal" colleague Richard Cohen (see below), that denying a fireman a promotion because of his race (caucasian) is an unconstitutional violation of his rights as an American citizen? Or is that just a "more thoughtful and nuanced understanding" of how the world works (through racial mau-mauing) "outside the arid confines of the courthouse"?

Meanwhile, Richard Epstein writes that there is a place for empathy, but it's not on the bench.