Some things are a result of mixed up reasoning that appear blatantly obvious, but this does not mean they are not problems of large significance.
The current meme is that somehow the fact that breaking the law might (though this has not been shown that well for the issue at hand) work or that you might be tempted to use it somehow means the law was not broken. Or, Pelosi was a hypocrite for covering up when she heard about it (though unsure what exactly was covered up), so well, that answers her claim that torture is wrong or that we need a truth commission. Likewise, many somehow think evolution makes God or morality impossible; we should not ignore btw that forty percent of our population very well might be somewhat in this camp. Simply being wrong is quite popular.
Or, that "empathy" means "favoritism," and is simply an illegitimate (or as one person I respond to on this thread argues, "extralegal"*) thing to seek in a justice. Oh, and, obviously that is somehow all Obama is concerned about. Professor Kmiec, a conservative, eloquently defends the term in judging against such b.s. reasoning here. This includes the apparently hard for some people to understand idea that someone can have "empathy" for both sides. I'd add that denying any give judge uses empathy now, even if they do not directly say so, is not believable either.**
Use of buzzwords promotes ignorance, the obvious deemed uncomfortable. This is helped by the fatuous. For instance, on the thread I linked above, someone asked for some primary legal source that used the word "empathy," as if some legal code (!) had some law in it that said "5(a)(1) to interpret the aforementioned, use empathy." One person explained that "empathy" was in effect playing devil's advocate, having some ability to understand or feel the interests of the other side.
The literalist who wanted to see "empathy" in an opinion called such an argument "intellectual and imaginative gymnastics." Thus, when Justice Brennan is repeatedly mentioned as someone who used empathy in his judging, it is either wrong or we need to find some ruling where he used that very word. Uh huh. That work with intellectual vigor and honesty too? Unless expressly mentioned in a good many legal opinions etc. are they also "extralegal" in nature? Not that words like "sympathy," "compassion," "insensitivity to the human dimension," and so forth (see my responses to pardonme) are not present in multiple judicial opinions.
Contra, when you have to determine what "shocks the conscience," when a "reasonable observer" will deem an act that makes his/her religion matter, the meaning of "evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person," etc., most people will tell you empathy plays a role. Well, the honest ones. Likewise, the Preamble of the Constitution speaks of "justice," which in our system is not independent of the law -- it is clearly a component of it. This too requires some degree of empathy. Again, since judges are human, not machines, it will be shown in some form anyway.
Complaints turn out to be selective or of the "ignorance is bliss" variety, more the former. Some might not like the power and discretion this gives judges, but their way is not really better, even under their (biased) reasoning process. See my debate here, where I let the other person get the last word. There is nothing much more tedious after awhile than debating someone who adamantly insists it is the other side that is deranged (fill in your own negative term).
Anyway, the season finale of Being Erica was pretty good. The show basically had the best plots when family related. OTOH, perhaps we will learn next season why Dr. Tom in effect put Erica in such a tempting situation. If a family member's life was on the line, how did he expect her to act?
---
* This entry works off my replies there; I also recommend Criticalthinkerr's comments.
** This article notes: "The best judges combine empathy with adherence to the rule of law." These things aren't mutually exclusive things, even if selective empathy might be.