Year in Review: The Five Most Overblown Legal Stories

In this three-part series, Politics Daily's legal analyst Andrew Cohen takes a look back at the year in the law. Part 1 focused on the year's most under-reported legal stories. Part 2 below focuses on the year's most over-reported legal stories. And Part 3 will wrap up the year-end package with a look at major legal events and issues.

The Five Most Overblown Legal Stories of 2010

No. 1. The same-sex marriage judge in California is gay.

We don't talk anymore in America about the integrity of female judges who decide cases involving issues of interest to women. We don't talk anymore in America about the objectivity of black judges who decide cases involving issues of race. But evidently it's still OK in America to cast a shadow about the neutrality of a gay judge who is selected to decide a case involving the rights of gays and lesbians. The sexual orientation of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who declared California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in August, didn't determine the outcome of the case. The fact that Proposition 8's lawyers presented virtually no evidence at trial, and the fact that Ted Olson and David Boies presented an overwhelming case against the measure, did.

No. 2. The continuing search for missing Natalee Holloway.

It's impossible not to feel sorrow for the family of Natalee Holloway. It's impossible not to feel sorrow for the family of any person who goes missing and is presumed dead; the Alabama teenager disappeared during a graduation trip to Aruba in May 2005. But 2010 coverage of the search for Holloway's remains was accompanied by so much hoopla that it reminded me of Geraldo Riviera's infamous opening of Al Capone's vault in 1986. In March, local authorities searched underwater for Holloway's remains after a Pennsylvania couple reported seeing a submerged skeleton. They found nothing. In November, local authorities tested a jawbone that was found on a beach near where Holloway was reportedly seen back in 2005. They found no DNA link to the young woman. The amount of coverage dedicated to these two episodes -- replete with breathless live reporting from Aruba -- was particularly unfortunate in a year marked by one important news story after another.

No. 3. The arrest of Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi.

If you don't know who Snooki is, congratulations, I would like to buy you a Fresca. But you probably do know who Snooki is because her arrest on misdemeanor charges in late July in New Jersey made news all over the world. In fact, a recent Google search for "Snooki" and "arrest" turns up more than 200,000 hits. Why? Because Snooki is a star of the MTV show "Jersey Shore" and thus perfectly placed to fuel the engine that drives the tabloid/gossip industry. Not to be outdone, and perhaps because of those 200,000 Google finds, Snooki's "co-star" on the show, Ronald "Ronnie" Ortiz-Magro, evidently was himself indicted earlier this month for allegedly punching a guy back in 2009. We'll see how he does on Google. And if you still have no idea who I am talking about, just ask your teenage son or daughter.

No. 4. Maricopa County (Ariz.) "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio's work as a politician and fundraiser.

The colorful and quote-worthy "Sheriff Joe" received a great deal of coverage around the country for his campaigning sojourns and fundraising prowess -- sometimes with Sarah Palin, sometimes with Tom Tancredo, usually for the tea party, but always bashing unlawful immigrants. But simultaneously, whatever credibility he may have had left as a law enforcement official was crumbling away at home. He was sued by the Justice Department for civil rights violations, faced a contempt hearing before local officials, as well as being investigated for campaign finance irregularities and political dirty tricks. He may be America's most famous sheriff, but that doesn't mean he's a good one.

No. 5. The search for judicial "empathy" in the Elena Kagan confirmation battle.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After Justice David Souter retired from the Supreme Court in 2009, President Barack Obama said he wanted to select a successor who could "empathize" with the real-world impact of his or her decisions. The Republicans in the Senate immediately seized on the comment, saying empathy should have no role in judicial decision-making, and made the issue the centerpiece of their criticism of Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing in 2009. They did so again this past year during the confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan as successor to Justice John Paul Stevens. The notion that so-called "liberal" judicial decisions emerge from "empathy" while so-called "conservative" judicial decisions do not, or vice versa, is just plain silly. It's an insult to well-meaning judges of all political stripes everywhere.