Legal Commentary

Empathy For Ricci

By Big Tent Democrat

Please allow me to introduce the argument for empathy - for white males - Glenn Greenwald on Charles Krauthammer (see also CAC's analysis of the Ricci case):

[T]his column today from Charles Krauthammer [presents] (a) the right-wing argument that empathy and political opinions have no place in judicial decision-making and (b) the right-wing argument that Sotomayor wrongly decided the Ricci "firefighters" case because what happened to Frank Ricci was terribly unfair and because affirmative action is a bad policy.

[MORE . . .]

Inveighing against Sotomayor's Ricci decision by touting all the sad things that happened to Frank Ricci (Krauthammer: "he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material") is to demand that Sotomayor do exactly that which they claim is so inappropriate and which they accuse Sotomayor of doing: namely, deciding cases based on emotion, empthy and political views about affirmative action rather than the law and judicial precedent.

. . . Either judicial cases -- such as Ricci -- should be decided on the law and precedent about affirmative action and discrimination, or they should be decided based on empathy for Frank Ricci and the alleged unfairness of affirmative action. Which is it?

Glenn knows the answer - it depends on whom you have "empathy" for. White males deserve the empathy, as they have had such a tough time historically in the United States, while non-white males have had it easy forever. Particularly when it comes to the Supreme Court, where only 107 of 111 Justices have been white males.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 29, 2009 (boomark / email).