With the honorable Justice David Souter's announcement that he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court, the cheap world of our national punditry has become a much more hysterical place than usual - which, it should be noted, is a truly impressive feat. These are rather exciting times to be alive; it's not every day we get to see the ideological liberals and conservatives in our country bickering and bashing each other. Oh. Wait a minute. We do.
The fact of the matter is this: Souter's departure is not as big an event as the news media, in true Hearst fashion, want it to be. Currently the court votes largely along an ideologically even 4-4 split between liberal and conservative judges with Kennedy (note: that's Kennedy, not Souter) acting as the swing vote. Now, Souter is one of the traditionally liberal justices and President Barack Obama, to whom the noble task falls of nominating a replacement, is a bit of a liberal president - or a pinko-commie, if your name is Sean Hannity.
So, that being said, is there really any question that Obama will appoint a left-leaning replacement? The only question is which one, but whoever is chosen is going to look strikingly similar to the runners-up. The fundamental composition of the court will not change. There is nothing earth-shattering in any of this and, if not for the new levels of shrillness being reached by the pundits, I would be more excited about the upcoming season of Californication.
(Full disclosure: I actually am more excited about that. Watch the show.)
But, as usual, just when I'm on the verge of losing interest in the D.C. happenings - and about to consign myself to the joys of watching David Duchovny charm his way into yet another woman's bed - the cries of our respected "punditocracy" rouse me from my naïve dreams.
It turns out that, when describing what he would look for in a potential replacement for Souter, Obama said something rather scandalous.
He didn't say that he was looking for someone who enjoys long walks on the beach and Richard Gere films - that, you can be sure, would have made me write a very different column - but the reaction is as bizarre as if he had. Obama said that he wants someone with the most terrifying of traits: "empathy." You know - empathy. As in the ability to understand someone else's feelings. Seems innocuous? Think again!
My casual monitoring of the news (three cheers for Google News) has taught me that this is not the simple, harmless - even beneficial - quality you might think. No, empathy means all sorts of wretched things, from a taste for ignoring the law while making decisions to a determined agenda to redistribute wealth. I feel like we've finally crossed the vale and entered the Bizarro America that Patton Oswalt has prophesied for so long.
Empathy…bad? Me no understand.
Actually, I think I do. I think what it boils down to is that, at this point, the right-wing wailers in the media are willing to get hysterically upset over just about anything to do with politics that isn't a Palin candidacy and the mainstream news media has simply run out of things to talk about. I hope Murrow's ghost haunts them all in the night.
Take away points: Souter 2.0 will be liberal; I can't stand loud people; and Californication is a brilliant show.
Eric Chianese is an English senior. His column appears weekly.
