1.”Empathy is an empty category.” You ask, empathy for whom? For everyone, of course, or, in SC cases, for both parties. Empathy is empathy.

2. Your argument rests on the assumption that empathy and applying the law are to some extent mutually exclusive. I couldn’t disagree more. The Constitution and many of our laws are grounded in empathy. How can you interpret them without it?

3. You assume that there are “formally correct” answers to questions the Court faces. Seldom true.

4. You state that the answer to the question depends on whether you’re the fat man or one of the five workers. So the only consideration is the basest kind of self-interest?

5. All it takes is some character to act against one’s sympathies if one thinks that is the right thing to do. Are we setting the bar so low that we opt for a near psychopath instead of trying to choose people of empathy AND character?

You must be thinking of God. Humans don’t empathize that way. Though, obviously they can give it their best shot.

And, as far as lower-level judges, I’m actually inclined to agree with you that they need a significant amount of empathy.

But the Supreme Court doesn’t judge whether a defendant has shown remorse. They decide large, abstract questions of the law that affect large swathes of society and set binding precedent throughout the lower courts.

Give me the less empathetic justice any day. And an softie when I run a red light.

I think people normally have empathy for situations they are familiar with, and therefore are a little biased towards, and that is the real problem I have with “empathy” in a judge. I would rather a judge be an interpreter of the law only, and that takes a certain detachment, not empathy. The writers of the laws should be the ones with empathy.

sorry, the Constitution is not a “living, breathing document.” It is a set of rules our country is supposed to be governed by, not guidelines up for periodic review like your Homeowners Association.