Charles Krauthammer doesn't want "empathy" to be used by federal judges. He apparently wants its use to be restricted to conservative columnists. It's okay to use it as a weapon against Sonia Sotomayor. But we'd better have none of that caring-for-people nonsense on the bench.
In today's syndicated column (here), Charles Krauthammer tells us why Sonia Sotomayor is such a poor choice for the Supreme Court.
See, she supports the idea of using "empathy" in judicial decisions. Krauthammer explains why this is such a bad idea by telling us the heartwrenching story of Frank Ricci, who overcame significant obstacles to become a firefighter. He worked and studied hard, passed his test for promotion, and then was denied that promotion when the test was invalidated for being racially biased.
Or, to be more accurate, Krauthammer claims Ricci was denied the promotion "because of his skin color". Krauhammer never really tells us much about the decision of the court, other than that Ricci was denied his promotion.
Again and again, Krauthammer tells us this terrible, awful, very bad result happened because of the dangerous and despicable philosophy of being empathic. The decision should have been made only using the standards of logic and blind justice. not empathy. Krauthammer tells us we should all feel sorry for the dedicated and brave Mr. Ricci, and that's why Sonia Sotomayor is a poor pick for the Supreme Court.
Am I the only one who notices the hypocrisy of this argument? Krauthammer spends the opening quarter of his 750-word opinion piece giving us the life story of Mr. Ricci, so we'll feel for his situation, and sympathize with him. Then Krauthammer decries the court decision that went against Mr. Ricci, without providing any of the legal arguments on either side. Then he tells us we should make legal decisions based on "blind justice" rather than on "empathy".
On top of that, Krauthammer lies. Mr Ricci was not denied his promotion "because of his skin color". Nor was he denied a promotion because of "empathy". The process of choosing among the candidates for promotion was found to be flawed because it objectively violated he law - it was clearly producing results that were discriminatory. But Krauthammer doesn't mention this fact. Instead, he tugs at your heart strings.
"Figuratively and literally," he writes, "justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons." Yet the argument Krauthammer uses to advance this notion is a pure appeal to emotion. We're supposed to dislike the idea of "empathy", not because it led to a decision that was in violation of law and precedent (it might have, or it might not -- Krauthammer gives no arguments either way), but because it supposedly hurt Mr. Ricci. Our law is not supposed to be "a respecter of persons" - except when Krauthammer wants it to be.
If he truly wanted to make his point, he should have provided an insightful analysis of the legal arguments that were presented on both sides of this case, leaving Mr. Ricci's personal circumstances out of it altogether, and then shown how the final decision was made based on emotion rather than on logic. Instead, he presents a purely emotional diatribe, devoid of any legal reasoning.
Well, at least no one is nominating Krauthammer for the Supreme Court.