Before reaching his decision in a case, a judge must make an effort to see the claims of the parties before him in their best possible light, which means with as much sympathy as he is able short of actually endorsing any of the positions in question. It is not enough that a judge be an interpretive genius, a Hercules of the law who is able to construct out of the resources of his own intellect a deep and elegant theory to support his decision in the case at hand. It is also necessary that he appreciate what the decision means to the parties and to those who identify with or support them, for how he presents the decision, the words he chooses to explain and defend it and often the content of the decision itself, will depend on his estimate of its meaning to the parties and the groups they represent. This is something no mere comparison of the depth and elegance of different theories can reveal. Only by sympathetically reviewing the case from the parties' own perspectives can a judge gain such understanding. In doing so, of course, he must also maintain his distance from the parties' concerns, and the great challenge in judging is to remain detached while simultaneously exercising a maximum of sympathy toward the parties and their conflicting claims. A judge who fails in the first respect shows bias or favoritism and one who fails in the second, hardheartedness—the twin vices between which every judge must thread his way.
(Anthony T. Kronman, "Living in the Law," The University of Chicago Law Review 54 [summer 1987]: 835-76, at 864 [footnote omitted])
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 