Blowback in the SCOTUS Wars
EmailSupreme Court fights get ugly. Anyone old enough to remember how "Bork" became a verb knows that.
The first shot fired against U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor came from New Republic writer Jeffrey Rosen, who wrote that he’d "been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative."
Conservatives seized upon this piece, with the National Review’s Mark Hemingway writing of Judge Sotomayor: "she’s dumb and obnoxious. Got it."
The National Review’s John Derbyshire added "Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she’s also female and Hispanic, and those are the things that count nowadays. Get with the program, Pal."
Many others in the mainstream media take what Rosen has to say quite seriously.
The piece was noted by TIME’s Mark Halperin ("Jeff Rosen Raises Warning Flags on Sotomayor") and by The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, who wrote that, "Conservative talk radio hosts have begun impugning Sotomayor’s credibility. And the respectable intellectual center — see Jeffrey Rosen’s case against her temperament and inherent intellectual abilities — is beginning to have doubts."
But others had a different response to Rosen’s piece, particularly because Rosen wrote that he himself had not "read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths."
In The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates said this admission "drips with unintentional irony–Rosen is attacking Sotomayor’s ability to do the necessary intellectual heavy-lifting, while explicitly neglecting to do any of his own. In this instance, His piece reads like a burglar’s brief against rampant criminality. Authored mid-robbery, no less. I mean him no disrespect. I’m sure he is a hard-working, talented writer. Journalism is difficult, and in this age, the urge to immediately have an opinion on everything is quite strong. But this is exactly why that urge has to be resisted. Opinions matter–even ill-informed ones. You don’t get to be the ‘respectable intellectual center’ and then practice your craft in the gossip-laden, ignorant muck. Not for long anyway. You know what this is–Great power. Great responsibility."
And Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, attacking "anonymous smears against Sonia Sotomayor," assailed Rosen’s use of anonymous sources.
"I’m genuinely amazed at how — overnight — she’s been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen’s piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons," Greenwald wrote. "The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she’s stupid and doesn’t deserve her achievements — based on the fact that she’s Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception — is really remarkable."
There’s a lot more out there, some invective and some personal attacks against Rosen (who, after all, allowed some anonymous personal attacks against Sotomayor.)
But rather then go there, I think more interesting and relevant are the comments of Greenwald, a former litigator, who says that of the "countless federal judges with whom I had substantive interaction over more than ten years of litigation, I would place her in the top tier when it comes to intellect. My impressions are very much in line with the author of this assessment of Sotomayor, who had much more extensive interaction with her and — unlike Rosen’s chatterers — has the courage to attach his name to his statements. It’s certainly true that she was very assertive and aggressive — at times unpleasantly so — in how she presided over her courtroom. In the first case I had with her, when she was still a District Court judge and I was a second- or third-year lawyer, I committed some sort of substantial procedural mistake (my recollection is hazy of my specific transgression, but I believe papers I submitted violated her rules and necessitated an adjournment of a hearing), and she very harshly excoriated me in a courtroom packed with lawyers from other cases (the scolding lasted roughly five minutes, though it seemed at the time like five hours). I certainly did not enjoy that, and at the time harbored negative sentiments towards her (who wouldn’t?) , but that behavior — for judges — is the opposite of uncommon."
Others protesting the profile of Judge Sotomayor include American University Law School professor Darren Hutchinson.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
False dichotomies make me tired.
Sometimes there are no 2 sides of the story.
There’s a LIE and then there’s the TRUTH.
Posted by: MysteriousTraveller | May 6, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
Will the Left sink Sonia Sotomayor the way the Right sank Harriet Myers?
Posted by: I Have a Gift, Harry. | May 6, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
Greenwald makes Satomayer sound like Donald Rumsfeld.
He does not mention how much contact he had with her. It is also quite tiresome how quickly he invokes the idea that part of the attack on her is that she’s Puerto Rican.
Is that really the defense of her we want to see? Do we find that intellectual?
Posted by: MayBee | May 6, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
“(a)Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons,”
The above might be a valid rebuttal to the criticism of Sotomayer were it not for the appointments that validate the claim. How many white males have been appointed? Biden doesn’t count.
Posted by: pgrossjr | May 6, 2009, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Maybee,
Granted its not a restoration of the program but Obama has made a proposal that the school in DC will have all its current students graduate.
President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.
The budget documents, which expand on the fiscal 2010 blueprint that Congress approved last month by outlining Obama’s priorities in detail, would provide $12.2 million for the Opportunity Scholarship Program for the 2009-2010 school year. The new language also would revise current law that makes further funding for existing students contingent on Congress’s reauthorization of the program beyond its current June 2010 expiration date. Under the Obama proposal, further congressional action would not be necessary, and current students would automatically receive grants until they finish school.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
why are there no Norwegian-Americans on the Supreme Court? Huh?
Posted by: mesquito | May 6, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
pgrossjr:” How many white males have been appointed? Biden doesn’t count.”
Been appointed to the Supreme Court? Just over 100 white males (a couple women, a couple black men).
Biden has never been appointed to anything as far as I know.
Maybe you’re talking about Obama’s cabinet cabinet, where Obama has taken some criticism from the far left for appointing disproportionately white men to the most powerful positions.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 6, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Anatomy of a smear…
Posted by: Paul Dirks | May 6, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
I think my comment got ‘Borked’.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 6, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
I Have a Gift, Harry,
No, because Sotomayor is very well qualified for the position. Harriet Mayer was not.
She’s a lot more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than Obama is to be president.
Posted by: Keith | May 6, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
“How many white males have been appointed? Biden doesn’t count.”
2 white males for the SC during Bush’s term in office.
Biden has not been appointed anything.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
“She’s a lot more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than Obama is to be president.”
Is this comment supposed to provide comfort? Seems like you should set the bar a bit higher!
Posted by: tjp612 | May 6, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Regardless of who the President selects, the right will fight against that person tooth and nail. And they will justify it by saying, “Well, you did it to us, so fair is fair. Two wrongs make a right”.
Posted by: SearamblerOne | May 6, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
I’m interested in learning the extent of her involvement in the case that negated the test taken for promotions by firefighters.
The results of the test were discarded because no minorities scored high enough for a promotion.
Posted by: mad | May 6, 2009, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
“I’m interested in learning the extent of her involvement in the case that negated the test taken for promotions by firefighters.
The results of the test were discarded because no minorities scored high enough for a promotion.”
And during questioning, Scalia is openly showing empathy for the white firefighters.
I eagerly await the right wing calls for impeachment.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
Rosen simply has to be a right-winger.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
The only African-American on the Court, and the first woman, were appointed by Republican presidents. I’m not sure how many Italian-Americans there were before Scalia and Alito.
And of course under the two Presidents Bush we had two African-American Secretaries of State and two African-American National Security Director, as well as an African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(That’s for all the bean-counters who really think that stuff is important.)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
Obviously Mark Halperin and Marc Armbinder are right-wingers, too.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 6, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
“And of course under the two Presidents Bush we had two African-American Secretaries of State and two African-American National Security Director, as well as an African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
Sorry GOP tokenism is no coverup for their hostility towards minorities.
That is something African Americans have known since Reagan and something Hispanics learned recently.
It should also be noted that the reaction to Powell’s endorsement of Obama has been to savage the man on race.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
And during questioning, Scalia is openly showing empathy for the white firefighters.
I eagerly await the right wing calls for impeachment.
====================================
Ryan C, would you feel the same way about the case if only minorities had passed and all of the white firefighters had failed?
Posted by: mad | May 6, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Scalia is openly showing empathy
==============================
The president said empathy is what he wants in an SCJ.
Posted by: mad | May 6, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
“Ryan C, would you feel the same way about the case if only minorities had passed and all of the white firefighters had failed”
That was Scalia’s question is regards to the DOJ position that the test had a neutral effect in that it hurt both minority and white candidates.
Buts its odd you ask the question since I did not say how I felt about the case.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
“Scalia is openly showing empathy
==============================
The president said empathy is what he wants in an SCJ.”
Exactly and right wingers have been blasting him for it.
Hence the hypocrisy in cheering Scalia’s empathy.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Until I read both posts, I thought you were expressing a need for Scalia to be impeached.
My apologies for mischaracterizing your words.
As for my words being the same as Scalia’s…pure coincidence. Naturally I’ve heard of the case but am unaware of it’s progress in front of SCOTUS.
I find it to be a logical question.
Posted by: mad | May 6, 2009, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
Why not appoint Hillary? She is a lawyer. She has VAST legal experience (everything from questionable landdeals in Arkansas to Presidential impeachment.) Name another lawyer with that kind of experience. She is a woman. She is a feminist. She holds values with Obama (Alinsky, anti-gun, Fabianism, pro-illegal aliens,etc). She favored letting terrorists go free BEFORE it became fashionable. She likes “child rights” (sue your parents, mandatory public schooling, letting government raise your children, etc.) And, lastly, I think the Clintons have some “dirt” on Obama, so it would be a good option for him. Appoint Hillary!
Posted by: Ed | May 6, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
“Until I read both posts, I thought you were expressing a need for Scalia to be impeached.
My apologies for mischaracterizing your words.”
No worries. It was sarcasm and tone does not always convey well via posts.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 6, 2009, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm
“Scalia is openly showing empathy
==============================
The president said empathy is what he wants in an SCJ. ”
therefore the President wants Scalia and ryan can start defending him.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 6, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
“Obnoxious and dumb” coming from a division of a political party with Sarah Palin??????
Posted by: Wake-up before you vote | May 6, 2009, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
“Obnoxious and dumb” coming from a division of a political party with Sarah Palin?
==========================================
pelosi and boxer don’t have a monopoly.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 6, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm
It’ amazing that the repubs would attack this woman, she has not even been nominated yet. The fact that she has been attacked is reason enough for Obama to nominate her.
Posted by: johnnylee | May 6, 2009, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm
Way to quote Ta-Nehesi!
Jake, it’s great to see you giving a shout out to one of the great up-and-coming columnists of our time. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Tungsten | May 6, 2009, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
Content over packaging, please….and someone that pays their taxes would be nice…
Posted by: EGBOK321 | May 6, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
This country is going down the tubes.
Posted by: Jon | May 6, 2009, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
Conservative racists are terrified at the prospect of a Latina American on the Supreme Court. The best they can do is say that she’s “dumb.”
Yeah because only dumb people graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and work on the Yale Law review.
Posted by: Julie | May 7, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
Re: “Sorry GOP tokenism is no coverup for their hostility towards minorities.
That is something African Americans have known since Reagan and something Hispanics learned recently.”
It isn’t something we have learned recently. The same thing has been happening to us, but you are only aware of it now because the media is beginning to cover Hispanics now.
Posted by: Kathy | May 7, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
As Greenwald noted, Rosen’s brother-in-law would be promoted to the position of Solicitor General if one of Sotomayor’s competitors (Elena Kagan) gets the nod.
This conflict of interest is obvious and troubling.
Posted by: Andrew | May 7, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Jake,
You quoted Glenn Greenwald, I might be tempted to do something I swore off a while ago if you keep doing this. Hope in the mainstream media. ABC’s credibility has quietly gone way up, from my perspective, at least.
Jake you are the man!
Posted by: bunk995 | May 26, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm