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.

Movie Scene of the Day

From the otherwise less than stellar movie "Sleep With Me." My favorite part of this scene is the line where Tarentino says "Kelly McGillis... she's, she's heterosexuality."

In The Navy

I concluded long ago that Bill Maher was either a complete idiot or the television equivalent of a shock jock (except he's not as talented as someone like Howard Stern).  But here's some proof that it's actually the latter...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And no, you don't need to watch the whole thing, because I certainly didn't enjoy suffering through it -- the bit about the Navy is in the first couple minutes.  Maybe he's right, and the Navy is filled with repressed homosexuals (not that there's anything wrong with that).  It's not like the Simpsons hasn't covered this...

John: Homer, what have you got against gays?


Homer: You know! It's not... usual. If there was a law, it'd be against it!


Marge: Oh Homer, please! You're embarrassing yourself.


Homer: No, I'm not, Marge! They're embarrasing me. They're embarrassing America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...


John: Queer?


Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!!

I'll leave it to folks in the Navy to decide if they should be offended or not.  I mean, perhaps the Navy is like the steel industry...



Yes, I'm having way too much fun when I get to reference the Simpsons twice in one post. 

Truthfully, I think Maher's little schtick about not "trying to knock the Navy or any military branch" would go over better if he opted not to generalize from the actions of one former Naval officer to allege that the Navy's filled with repressed homosexuals (again, not that there's anything wrong with that).  I could conclude from the trials and tribulations of Hollywood marriages and the rampant drug use by stars who regularly check themselves into rehab that everyone who appears on-screen in a movie is a philadering, pill-popping, asshole... but that would be unfair, even if it was accurate in many cases.  Of course, perhaps Maher agrees, although saying that might get him banned from hanging out with the celebrities of the world, and leave him stuck on MSNBC.