Are “Impassioned” Supreme Court Opinions A Good Thing?

So much for objectivity

After this week’s U.S. Supreme Court Affirmative Action decision, coming down on the side of the state of Michigan where voters decided to no longer use affirmative action, the montage above seemed to have infected the entire liberal media.  The talking point was very clear: Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent was “impassioned.”

Which begs the question: Do we really WANT U.S. Supreme Court Justices to write impassioned decisions?

Honestly, it depends on which decisions invoke the passion and on which side the judge is voting.  No conservative has any problem when Justice Anthony Kennedy writes such opinions on third trimester abortion. He is quite clear that the procedure should be banned.  We on the right truly do appreciate when Antonin Scalia takes out his poison pen and obliterates the other side.  In this particular affirmative action decision, he and Justice Clarence Thomas would have gone much farther than the majority opinion in simply upholding a Michigan election.  Why wouldn't it be so with the left and their own justices?

The problem with passion – at least in this context – is that it is misplaced.  Passion should be for topics that are in the right or at least part of the law or natural order of things.  Giving advantage to any individual on the basis of race in a system based on merit is simply not right.  Just because the plea is long and “impassioned” doesn't make the argument legitimate.


This is the problem with championing passion in bench law.  It invites heart over head thinking which should not be a part of the legal system.  It plain and simply should not be.  Doesn't matter who is writing the opinion.