"Kmiec" on "empathy"

No one could have had any doubt, of course, that an op-ed -- to which Michael P. linked recently -- enthusiastically validating President Obama's call for judges with "empathy" was in the offing from (the post-Romney-exit) Prof. Kmiec.  The pre-Spring-of-2008 Prof. Kmiec, though, would have been quite skeptical of many of the assertions in the piece. 

Put aside the doubts one might have regarding the suggestion that "empathy" yields particular results in cases like Ledbetter and Heller (the latter decision, of course, Pres. Obama claims to agree with).  It continues to disappoint many of us, who regarded Prof. Kmiec as a thoughtful and conscientious lawyer, that he seems entirely unburdened by a felt obligation to admit that, and explain why, he has changed his mind on so many matters having to do with law and policy.  Changing one's mind, of course, is fine; a scholar, though, owes it to himself, and to those who once took the time to read him, to explain the change.  This is particularly true when the change-of-mind is accompanied by an unattractive tendency to mock the very positions (e.g., "originalism") the-one-mocking once held.

For example, with respect to abortion, Kmiec complains that "[c]onservative law professors helping GOP presidential candidates [that is, "conservative law professors" like Kmiec, before Gov. Romney quit the race] would insist that this choice be made criminal."  It has long been Kmiec's (at least, it long was Kmiec's) view that the Constitution requires the outlawing of abortion.  (It does not.)  Most "conservative law professors", though, hold simply that the Constitution permits (but does not require) abortion to be closely regulated.  (It does.) 

With respect to same-sex marriage, Kmiec says, "[i]f the California Supreme Court, for example, chooses to uphold Proposition 8 in a way that validates the selective oppression of one class of citizens, the empathy animating federal equal protection will be put to the test."  To say that Doug Kmiec, until very recently, would have had his doubts about the claim that limiting "marriage" to unions between a man and woman constitutes the "selective oppression of one class of citizens" is to understate things considerably.

I should say that I get no pleasure pointing out, again and again, that Kmiec -- putting aside the question whether or not his current views are right on the merits -- has failed to explain himself, and that he should.  It is uncharitable to those he now sniffs at for him to act as though no one notices that he is cheerily carrying water now that he would, until quite recently, have regarded as skunky.

Michael, what is your view?  You, like Kmiec, have been a constitutional-law scholar for decades.  On several important matters, you have changed your mind, and candidly, powerfully (I think) explained why.  Shouldn't Kmiec do the same?