Empathy... Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

A number of pundits have raised the question of whether Elena Kagen's sexual orientation will or should matter during the consideration of her Supreme Court nomination.  Andrew Sullivan raises the issue in an interesting way...

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.


In a word, this is preposterous - a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It's especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan's possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it?

(hat tip: Allahpundit at Hot Air) The White House so far is ignoring or pushing back on the questions about it. I actually think that's proper, but I think the door for these questions is opened by Obama's "empathy" standard for the justices he wants on the High Court. All of us expect justices to be impartial arbiters of the questions before them, but there's a question as to how much an individual's personal experiences will influence their decision in a case. Obama seems to want (and may well have selected) justices whose decision-making process involves more than just consulting the law -- he wants justices who consult the well of their own personal experience before coming to a final judgement.  Part of the problem with such an approach is that it leaves his nominees open to questions about their personal experiences, and about intensely personal decisions, such as whether to publicly acknowledge one's sexuality.  I don't think the questions should be asked, but I don't think the standard of "empathy" should be the basis for a judge's decision.

Politically, I doubt the question will be asked, because it's just not proper.  But Sullivan, who's a noted proponent of gay marriage, may have another reason for acknowledging this problem.  If the High Court later rules on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, there may be doubts cast on whether Kagen's vote is based on the law, or based on how the decision impacts her own personal life.  That's what the empathy standard tees up as a problem.

What Brown Is Doing For Us

Courtesy of blog reader MS, we've been told that Scott Brown has a petition up to support a moratorium on earmarks.  I knew there was a reason I liked that guy.

Yikes

This is a stat that the press doesn't want to consider when trying to report on the Arizona illegal immigration law: in Pinal County, Arizona, they had 64 police pursuits last month.  Not a single one involved a U.S. citizen.

Does this mean the Arizona law is constitutional or even the right solution?  No.  But it does mean that there's a serious problem in Arizona, and pretending it doesn't exist won't solve it.

Random Question of the Day

I saw The Wedding Singer again for the 50th time the other night, and had this question pop up: Would it have hurt Billy Idol's street cred to be flying first class?

No Tea For You

The Tea Party just kicked an incumbent out of office for the first time...

Once-popular Sen. Bob Bennett fell victim to a growing national conservative movement with his stunning defeat at Utah's GOP convention.


Delegates voted Saturday to bar the 76-year-old senator from seeking a fourth term, making him the first congressional incumbent to be ousted this year and demonstrates the challenges candidates face from the right in 2010.


Bennett was under fire for voting to bail out Wall Street, co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks.


"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," Bennett told reporters Saturday, choking back tears.


"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently, even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."


Bennett told The Associated Press he wouldn't rule out a write-in candidacy. State law prohibits him from running as an independent.


"I do think I still have a lot of juice left in me," Bennett said following his loss. "We'll see what the future may bring."

That would be a mistake, but it's his mistake to make. It's clear that the Washington establishment, including the Democrats, the GOP, the media, and every elite member of the inside-the-Beltway crowd, underestimated the movement. At its core, this is a true grassroots uprising. What should truly frighten the establishment is that it's founded on core principles that both parties seem willing to flout and is based around an idea (limiting the size of the federal government) that basically threatens everything that drives Washington.

The left will spin this as the GOP growing more extreme, by kicking out someone who was willing to work with the other side to try and craft bi-partisan solutions. Yet those who criticize it are basically criticizing democracy at its finest -- Sen. Bennett's most active constituents did not want the stimulus package, nor did they desire his work on a healthcare compromise that eventually mattered little. So they voted him out. Is there something truly wrong about that?

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Three thoughts about this song:

1. Years ago, I remember watching an MTV special where they classified Nelson's "After The Rain" as the worst song of the MTV era -- beating out Milli Vanilli offerings, for crying out loud. What's scary is that this song is exponentially worse.

2. Somewhere, there's a Beavis and Butthead clip where they mock Nelson for looking like a couple chicks. Wikipedia noted that they were mocked for being Ozzy's granddaughters, which would have killed Ozzy if he wasn't drugged up.

3. It really scares me that this song hit #1 in 1990. I mean, people weren't doing nearly as many drugs as in the 1970's or 1960's, yet this crap hit #1?



You're welcome.