May 31, 2009

Krauthammer one more time

Last Wednesday I mentioned this:
In the meantime, we can all be entertained by the comic spectacle of Faux News "expert" Charles Krauthammer at once decrying the application of judicial empathy generally while publicly pleading for judicial empathy on behalf of the Ricci v. DeStefano plaintiffs.

And, naturally, Dr. Krauthammer's focusing unwaveringly on the result of the case rather than on the process of reasoning employed in reaching it, like all good judicial conservatives invariably do.
Two days later Glenn Greenwald had a bit 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, empathy and political views about affirmative action rather than the law and judicial precedent.
Like I said.

I wonder if Krauthammer the illustrious Faux News "expert" has even read the district court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano.

Or has this local character:
The egregious judicial activism she displayed in Ricci v. DeStefano, in and of itself, is a disqualifier.
Again: judicial activism = result I don't like.

There's a link to the district court's decision (which a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed) in this useful discussion at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

I challenge any of Judge Sotomayor's conservative detractors to describe how her involvement with the case is an instance of "judicial activism," bearing in mind that the race-conscious hiring and promotion policies and directives at issue in Ricci — like them or not — are mandated by federal statutory and administrative law.

You know, that sacred "will of the people" stuff that judges appropriately exercising restraint are not empowered to upset.

No comments: