Blowback in the SCOTUS Wars, Part II
EmailThe New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen responds today to criticism of his piece on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. (See: Blowback in the SCOTUS Wars, Part I.)
Noting that his piece prompted an "energetic response in the blogosphere," Rosen says the headline of his original story, "The Case Against Sotomayor," wasn’t quite right. The story was not intended to be the case against her, but rather "to convey questions about her judicial temperament that sources had expressed to me in the preceding weeks."
Rosen goes on to talk more about his sources — "eminent liberal scholars I know and trust" who "expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grind or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation- – mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her — and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece."
He also touched on his much-criticized "confession at the end of the piece that I hadn’t read enough of her opinions to make a fully confident judgment. Perhaps I conceded too much: I had read enough of her opinions to find them good but not great — like much of the competent but not especially distinctive writing that characterizes most federal appellate opinions."
As one might expect, Rosen’s response has merited myriad strong responses from Glenn Greenwald and others.
– jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Under the bus you go, Jeffrey Rosen.
Do not criticize The One.
Posted by: Scare Force One | May 8, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Wow, what if Rosen had made a case against her? WooHoo.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 8, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
What a surprise. Someone from The New Republic criticizes a potential court nominee. GASP! What’s next, pigs flying?
Posted by: WaterBoardAllConservatives | May 8, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
The New Republic has a history of plaigiarism so I am not surprised that they published a hit piece full of “anonymous sources.”
They couldn’t credibly attack Sotomayor’s outstanding record, so they just called her “dumb.”
Yeah, because only “dumb” people graduate from Princeton and Yale Law School with honors and get appointed to the Court of Appeals.
Rosen is a judical nobody. Who cares about his racist lies.
Posted by: Bubbles | May 8, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
I hope Rosen is never ‘on my side’..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 8, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
818, you are on a roll today.
“GASP! What’s next, pigs flying?”
Swine flu?
That joke just doesn’t get old.
What is wrong with everyone? The Chicago gang has everyone a little jumpy. It’s okay to contemplate, make assumptions and yes, even criticize political decisions. It was certainly okay to do these things under President Bush. Why wouldn’t the same discourse be allowed under President Obama?
Posted by: Skittles | May 8, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
“Yeah, because only ‘dumb’ people graduate from Princeton and Yale Law School with honors and get appointed to the Court of Appeals.”
No, not “only” dumb people. But in the age of affirmative action, “some” do. At least that’s what they said about Clarence Thomas, but maybe it wasn’t true, right?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 8, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
So Rosen pins the headline,”Case against Sotomayor,” and then tries to explain that he wasn’t make a case against her. His poor use of logic to defend himself is like the GOP’s in coming out against the pick of an Obama selected judge before anyone was named. It didn’t really matter what name surfaced, because no doubt, there were some in the media and party laying in wait.
Posted by: kim | May 8, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
I don’t know about this particular case, but very frequently the author of an article plays no part in writing the headline.
But he’s gotta be a right-winger…there’s no other explanation.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 8, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
tanx skittles..
i have to make light of some of this, and i’m very sick..in the head..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 8, 2009, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
It would be profoundly satisfying for women who remember the Clarence Hill hearings for Anita Hill to be appointed as a justice.
Posted by: kim | May 8, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
“It would be profoundly satisfying for women who remember the Clarence Hill hearings for Anita Hill to be appointed as a justice. ”
Why would any intelligent woman find any satisfaction in revisiting Ms. Hill’s obvious lying?
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 8, 2009, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
How can Kagan be considered for the Supreme Court when she has never been a judge or even argued a case before a judge?
Posted by: orpah2 | May 8, 2009, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
“How can Kagan be considered for the Supreme Court when she has never been a judge or even argued a case before a judge? ”
Anyone can become a Supreme Court justice. Law background is not a requirement.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 8, 2009, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
Law background is not a requirement, but non-abrasiveness is? Yeah, that makes sense.
Posted by: orpah2 | May 8, 2009, 7:10 pm 7:10 pm
Does anyone else get the feeling that Rosen’s defense of having talked to his ‘liberal friends,’ without naming a single one, sound a bit like the tried and true, ‘I’m not a racist, I have a black friend,’ or perhaps Joe the Plumber’s ‘gay friends’?
Posted by: Misunderestimated | May 8, 2009, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
Personally, I don’t think he talked to anyone. I think he just made it up.
Posted by: bubbles | May 8, 2009, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
Where would Rosen find liberal friends.. maybe he was buying dinner at an expensive restaurant..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 9, 2009, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm