Following a week where a set of Inquirer reporters wrote an amazing, explosive series on the BRT, again proving the necessity of a vibrant local media, Brian Tierney continues to totally embarrass the Inquirer, by giving a platform to noted war criminal and total jackass, John Yoo.

And get this, John Yoo, who will hopefully be disbarred, today is lecturing President Obama on the type of judges he can pick.

Seriously, this is too bizarre to even fully wrap your head around. Any advice from Yoo, who is either an idiot or who willfully tailored his memos to allow for torture, on a Supreme Court selection, is really though the looking glass.

But, it gets better. Because what really bugs him is that Obama said he wanted an empathetic Justice. Johnny Boy is perturbed by that:

In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts compared judges to neutral umpires in a baseball game. Sen. Obama did not vote to confirm Roberts or Alito, but now proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race, and social and economic background of the players. Nothing could be more damaging to the fairness of the game, or to the idea of a rule of law that is blind to the identity of the parties before it.

Empathy has a proper place in other areas of life, such as medicine or charitable work. And the law does take account of a party's identity when necessary - in deciding whether someone has suffered racial or gender discrimination, for example. But judges should not apply these rules differently in individual cases because of the skin color, or sex, or religion of the plaintiff or defendant.

Obama's call for emotive judges contradicts his moderate campaign positions.

First, let's ignore for a second that Yoo is a really bad writer. Second, John Yoo clucking at President Obama about the concept of a judge who has a basic concept of empathy? Hmm, I just cannot figure out why that is too bizarre to be true:

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Ah yes, that is why. John the Empathizer Yoo, who thinks the President can order a child's testicles be crushed, no matter what any law says.

Seriously, Brian Tierney, pal, I know you think you are being edgy here. Instead, what you are doing is embarrassing yourself, and lessening the work that your actual staff does. Can we please end this freak show?