In a sense, it all comes down to Obama's stating during his presidential campaign that he'd like America's wealth to be more broadly shared--that is, to do something about the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. To many Republicans, this was interpreted as an almost traitorous call to Socialism. But Obama's words were meant only to suggest that the freewheeling and under-regulated form of Capitalism that had become so prominent was actually eroding not only the middle class but the whole notion of this country as a land of equal opportunity. To quote Lakoff again, "President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all."

But unfortunately, many conservatives have taken to re-defining empathy as not about justice at all, but individual bias. To them, empathy is about reacting to the facts of a case emotionally rather than logically. Although I've argued that empathy as such can have only a salutary effect on reason, these GOP spokespersons have reframed the term only to stigmatize it, to remove from it almost any remnant of legality or justice. In their eyes, empathy is subjective, prejudiced, irrational, and undisciplined--and therefore hardly to be trusted. And, following this line of strained political reasoning, it ill befits any Supreme Court justice to be "afflicted" with it (!).