pageok
pageok
pageok
Greenwald v. Rosen

Glenn Greenwald responds to Jeffrey Rosen's article on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

My perception of Sotomayor is almost the exact opposite of the picture painted by Rosen. I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges -- it's one of the things I disliked most about the practice of law -- but I found her to be extremely perceptive, smart, shrewd and intellectually insightful. The image that has been instantaneously created of her as some sort of doltish mediocrity, based on nothing but Rosen's water-cooler chatter, is, at least to me, totally unrecognizable. 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. . . .

. . . Rosen's gossip has, in many places, already solidified as conventional wisdom about Sotomayor: if Obama selects her, it will mean that he has subordinated merit and intellect to gender and ethnic diversity.

Sotomayor's decades of achievement in the face of overwhelming obstacles just gets dismissed with a few slothful, totally irresponsible smears from Rosen and his invisible friends. But that's how "journalism" so often works -- people are allowed to remain hidden while their views and assertions are uncritically amplified in the loudest venues and bestowed with an authoritative veneer that they absolutely do not merit.

Mystery Guest:
The bar has a generally low assessment of Sotomayor's competence and demeanor. From Almanac of the Federal Judiciary attorneys' entries: "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She if overly aggressive-not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system-as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."
5.5.2009 10:57am
Eric Rasmusen (mail) (www):
It's interesting to hear such variant personal impressions of the intelligence of Judges Souter and Sotomayor in the blogosphere. This might tell us about how hard it is to judge intelligence and ability, or it might tell us about how varied are people's ability to judge it. Any thoughts as to which? (I do *not* mean to induce you to get personal--- I'm interested in the general question.)
5.5.2009 11:06am
Redlands (mail):

Sotomayor's decades of achievement in the face of overwhelming obstacles just gets dismissed with a few slothful, totally irresponsible smears from Rosen and his invisible friends. But that's how "journalism" so often works -- people are allowed to remain hidden while their views and assertions are uncritically amplified in the loudest venues and bestowed with an authoritative veneer that they absolutely do not merit.


Thank God this happened so infrequently to qualified candidates over the last eight years.
5.5.2009 11:10am
paul lukasiak (mail):
Rosen (Jeffrey) is a carbuncle on the professional of journalism. He's supposedly TNR's legal affair's reporter, but he couldn't be bothered reading Sotomayers opinions prior to publishing this hatchet job.
_
I have no opinion of Sotomayer one way or the other, but I do know bad reporting when I see it.... and IMNSHO, Adler erred by providing Rosen's piece with any serious attention to begin with.
5.5.2009 11:13am
rick.felt:
Sotomayor's decades of achievement in the face of overwhelming obstacles just gets dismissed with a few slothful, totally irresponsible smears from Rosen and his invisible friends.

Wait wait wait.

Did Glenn Greenwald just criticize someone for having "invisible friends"?

Thomas Ellers, call your office.
5.5.2009 11:17am
drunkdriver:
Mystery Guest,

I haven't read the entries; I would be interested to know if her court posts oral arguments online, as I'd like to form my own impression. If enough people say that about a judge, there is probably something to it.

I don't know enough about her to say she's 'unqualified.' If she's nominated I'll read a bunch of her opinions and make up my mind how good she is.

On the topic of temperament- as a litigator, I truly loathe those judges who get off on abusing lawyers; it's very unprofessional to basically taunt people just because they have a weak argument. That said, a judge who engages in this behavior is not necessarily unqualified and might be very good at their job, though I personally wouldn't support them for promotion. A good example is Easterbrook on the 7th Circuit, who is extraordinarily bright and hard-working, but is also very arrogant and abusive; his condescending tone comes across in his opinions, and doesn't make him look good in my opinion.
5.5.2009 11:18am
RPT (mail):
We can now rest comfortably knowing that Jeff Sessions is on the case.
5.5.2009 11:19am
tgs (mail):
The "intelligence" discussion is just a distraction from the real problem I see that is, the first requirement needed to fill the open seat seems to be possession of a vagina, something that has nothing to do with the law at all.
5.5.2009 11:20am
Splunge:
Glenn Greenwald, Pot, has issued a statement on the hues of various Kettles. Story at 11!
5.5.2009 11:22am
AF:
IMNSHO, Adler erred by providing Rosen's piece with any serious attention to begin with.

As a fellow liberal gadfly, give me a break. This is a blog. You can't blame them for linking to trashy-but-interesting articles.
5.5.2009 11:23am
Paul A'Barge (mail):

totally irresponsible smears from Rosen and his invisible friends


This from the most infamous sock puppet in the internet?

Bwah hah hah, baby. Bwah hah hah.
5.5.2009 11:24am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

possession of a vagina

Don't forget an abundance of pigment!!
5.5.2009 11:25am
Sk (mail):
"It's interesting to hear such variant personal impressions of the intelligence of Judges Souter and Sotomayor in the blogosphere. This might tell us about how hard it is to judge intelligence and ability, or it might tell us about how varied are people's ability to judge it."

The third, obvious choice is that it tells us about how easy it is to make arguments about intelligence and ability that are based upon the desired political outcome of the debate, rather than upon the actual intelligence and ability in question.

Sk
5.5.2009 11:27am
Even more mysterious guest:
Mystery Guest: Way to post selective quotations from a source that is probably inaccessible to most readers. I can do the same thing:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough." "She is very intelligent."

Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued." "She writes well." "She is a very good writer."
5.5.2009 11:30am
slimslowslider (mail):
Did Greenwald use his "sock puppet" as a source? I honestly don't know. I thought it was just in comments.
5.5.2009 11:38am
Terrivus:
Way to post selective quotations from a source that is probably inaccessible to most readers. I can do the same thing.

Well, since you're both posting selectively from the same source, how about posting the whole thing:


Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough." "She is very intelligent." "She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is." "She has a very good commonsense approach to the law." "She looks at the practical issues." "She is good. She is an exceptional judge overall." "She is smart. She is not as intellectual as some." "It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. I'd say she is in the bottom of this court --but, the competition is pretty stiff." "She is one of the few civil rights lawyers to be appointed to the court. Sometimes I think she is at war with herself. In her heart I think she still thinks from the bottom up. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. If you don't give it, she will rule against you." "I am not too impressed with her. She is bright, but doesn't always get the facts."

Anyone who is familiar with the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary or who practices before the federal appellate courts will tell you that this is NOT a flattering entry. Most AFJ entries are like job evaluations: they are heavy on the positives, light on the negatives. To see this many negatives in the "legal ability" section--even if toned down--is actually fairly unusual.

Actually, even worse is the "writing ability" section:


Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued." "She writes well." "She is a very good writer." "Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

This is most definitely a BAD evaluation, particularly for someone supposedly on the short list for the Court.

I have no horse in this race, but this is the first time I looked at Sotomayor's AFJ entry, and I was really taken aback by it. Surely the Administration can find someone who has "good" legal ability and is more than "perfectly competent" as a writer.
5.5.2009 11:42am
Terrivus:
Whoops. That should be: "Surely the Administration can find someone who has more than "good" legal ability and is more than "perfectly competent" as a writer."
5.5.2009 11:43am
Anon321:
I agree that there's something unfortunate about the fact that most people's first impression of Judge Sotomayor's abilities will come from Rosen's piece, which is neither well balanced nor well sourced. But I'm not so sure that the use of anonymous sources is as clearly and flagrantly wrong as Greenwald thinks.

Current and former 2d Cir. clerks, and lawyers who frequently appear in front of that court, will probably be the best sources for assessing certain aspects of a judge's abilities. If a substantial majority of these people (and perhaps particularly the subset who are ideologically like-minded and therefore not averse to a judge's views just based on the outcomes) believe that a judge isn't particularly sharp or doesn't have the ideal temperament, I think that's highly probative. (Think, for example, of Orin's recent observation that many Supreme Court clerks had concluded their terms with very high opinions of Souter's intellect, work ethic, and character.) But these folks would be extremely unlikely to speak critically for-attribution on the record. Do we really expect, say, a former Katzmann clerk currently practicing in NYC to say on the record that he doesn't think highly of Judge Sotomayor? The information is relevant, but it's probably inaccessible without anonymity.

Of course, the problem here may be that Rosen didn't get a representative sample. It probably would have been better for him to talk to more people, and to tell readers who they clerked for. But if he talked to, say, 30 people who clerked on the 2d Cir. or practice frequently in front of it, and nearly all of them said (candidly, off the record) that Judge Sotomayor was okay but not great, that would seem to me to be newsworthy. It shouldn't have been presented as "The Case Against Sotomayor," which suggests something comprehensive. But I don't see why it shouldn't be passed along.
5.5.2009 11:44am
Terrivus:
Finally, the AFJ on Sotomayor's judicial temperament is awful. I have read a lot of these entries, and I'm not sure I've seen many worse ones regarding temperament.

The AFJ entry as a whole makes me conclude that the Obama administration will NOT nominate her. And, quite frankly, I don't think the liberal left should WANT someone like her as the nominee. It doesn't sound like she's the type of person who will be forging a five-person consensus on tough issues, whether through compelling writing or personal persuasion.
5.5.2009 11:46am
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

The bar has a generally low assessment of Sotomayor's competence and demeanor. From Almanac of the Federal Judiciary attorneys' entries: "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She if overly aggressive-not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system-as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."


More under-sourced criticism of her personality, this time from an anonymous blog commentator! This is more support for criticism of Rosen's piece than anything else.


Bwah hah hah, baby. Bwah hah hah.


I see that Volokh continues to attract substantive arguments from right-wingers.
5.5.2009 11:48am
Dan28 (mail):

This from the most infamous sock puppet in the internet?

Huh? How is Greenwald a sock puppet?
5.5.2009 11:49am
Joe T Guest:
I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges


I think that says a lot more about Greenwald than it does about judges. I tend to distrust anybody who thinks he's smarter than everybody else. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know all that much and probably don't possess the sole right answer to any given question.

Maybe, unlike Greenwald, I'm just stupid...
5.5.2009 11:50am
pedro (mail):
Slightly off topic, but one reason for my opposition to affirmative action has to do with the rather unfortunate phenomenon that Rosen's piece exemplifies: if a minority individual achieves a certain degree of success and status, it is remarkably easy for his or her opponents to publicly assess the individual's merits as inferior, and these suspect assessments, whether arrived at in earnestness or not, are widely regarded as highly plausible.

Reason dictates, in my humble opinion, a completely different approach. If two individuals, X and Y, have similar achievements and qualifications, but X has had to overcome cultural disincentives to reach that level of accomplishment, then X is likely to have more talent rather than less. Unfortunately, the institutionalization of affirmative action undermines the strength of this argument, as it generates reflexive opposition to the notion that a minority individual's success is based exclusively on merit.
5.5.2009 11:52am
Mountaineer (mail):
I can't say that these pieces are telling me much of anything (that's useful to know) about Judge Sotomayor. But the Jeff Rosen piece does make one thing clear - apparently he aspires to be the next Cindy Adams, or perhaps to go work for TMZ.
5.5.2009 11:55am
John P. Lawyer (mail):
Whatever the merits of a sotomayor nomination, the persons whose opinions matter the least are her former clerks. No less a fool is he who sings anything but praise for their former judge. Rarely will you meet a former clerk who speaks honestly (on the record) about his/her former employer.
5.5.2009 12:00pm
levisbaby:
It is interesting that several posters cannot formulate a more persuasive argument against Greenwald's observation other than to note that he engaged in sock-puppetry years ago.

That's weak sauce.
5.5.2009 12:00pm
Terrivus:
More under-sourced criticism of her personality, this time from an anonymous blog commentator! This is more support for criticism of Rosen's piece than anything else.

Huh? The passage was from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which systematically compiles evaluations of judges from practitioners who have appeared before them. No, it's not completely reliable, but it's a decent benchmark that nearly every practitioner uses.
5.5.2009 12:01pm
KenB (mail):
This post ruined a hope I was nurturing. Given that she seems to be the favorite to get the nomination, I was holding out hope that she would be less effective than feared in advancing liberal policy making through the courts. But now it appears she may be quite effective. Alas.
5.5.2009 12:01pm
gerbilsbite:
Dan28: he's clearly confusing Glenn Greenwald with Lee Siegel (another point of professional pride at TNR!).
5.5.2009 12:03pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
But I'm not so sure that the use of anonymous sources is as clearly and flagrantly wrong as Greenwald thinks.
Exactly. Rather, anonymous sources are wrong and should almost never be used... but here, what other choice is there? What practicing lawyer would be retarded enough to insult (even 100% truthfully and justifiably) a federal appellate judge who's on the Supreme Court short list?
5.5.2009 12:08pm
Angus:
it's very unprofessional to basically taunt people just because they have a weak argument
Maybe the purpose is to push them to make better arguments? Or to not take cases where one side has no good argument?
5.5.2009 12:09pm
Federal Dog:
"That's weak sauce."

Past deception is a legitimate consideration when evaluating someone's credibility. It does not automatically mean continued deception, but it does signal a willingness to resort to misconduct in order to manipulate understanding and opinion.
5.5.2009 12:20pm
cboldt (mail):
-- It is interesting that several posters cannot formulate a more persuasive argument against Greenwald's observation other than to note that he engaged in sock-puppetry years ago. --
.
I think it's just a prudent point, as a matter of weighing Greenwald's credibility. IOW, the poster's who observe Greenwald's sock-puppetry aren't making a direct persuasive argument at all. They are attacking the messenger.
.
I personally write off anything Greenwald and Sullivan have to say. I don't lose anything as a result of my blind animosity, as other usually front the same or similar points.
5.5.2009 12:26pm
BRM:
When I was reading through the AFJ to evaluate judges for clerkship applications, I was shocked at how bad Judge Sotomayor's reviews were. The AFJ is like a review scale from 1-10 where nobody ever gets below a 7 and 9 is the median.
5.5.2009 12:29pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
And I thought the most famous sock-puppet on the 'net was Mary Rosh aka John Lott.

Are you claiming that Greenwald engaged in sockpuppetry? Got any evidence of this beyond the usual smear-merchants who trade in unfounded accusations?
5.5.2009 12:37pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Are you claiming that Greenwald engaged in sockpuppetry? Got any evidence of this beyond the usual smear-merchants who trade in unfounded accusations?
I hear that after Al Gore invented the internet, he invented Google; you might want to try that. It's a very esoteric and non-obvious search strategy:

Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet

You can find loads o' links that way.
5.5.2009 12:43pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
Yes, I've looked at a few, and nothing strikes me as dispositive. There's a lot of repeating of the accusation but little in the way of actual evidence.

I'll put it in the "unfounded" category along with the lies about how Al Gore claimed to have "invented the internet".

Sheesh. You guys will believe anything if it's repeated enough.
5.5.2009 12:52pm
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
Huh? How is Greenwald a sock puppet?

See, e.g., this.
5.5.2009 12:57pm
Nunzio:
Rosen is a better writer than Greenwald, as Greenwald's turgid prose shows. I can only imagine how bad Greenwald's brief writing was if this is how he writes for a general audience.

His crack about less than intelligent judges exemplifies his non-sense approach.
5.5.2009 12:58pm
Sigivald (mail):
The idea that it takes courage to openly praise a Federal Judge is an interesting one.

What courage might that be, Mr. Greenwald?

Clem: It's absolutely impossible, short of an admission by Greenwald or with illicit surveillance, to prove that Greenwald sockpuppeted.

However, the evidence and arguments are compelling. Calling it "smears" and "unfounded allegations" suggests you haven't looked at the evidence they present directly, yourself. It's all publicly available and thoroughly linked to - why not actually look at it?

(Or, hey, maybe it was just Greenwald's boyfriend using his same verbal style to defend him on threads he was absent from, while Greenwald defended himself on others? I suppose it's possible - but boy, is that a lot of coincidence!)
5.5.2009 12:59pm
Middle Name Ralph:

The bar has a generally low assessment of Sotomayor's competence and demeanor.


I read your quotes. Not one spoke to her competence.
5.5.2009 1:01pm
D.O.:
Can those who have access to AFJ post comments on a random judge (from the same court, maybe?) for comparison. To benefit the unwashed masses (that is me).
5.5.2009 1:15pm
MarkField (mail):

Slightly off topic, but one reason for my opposition to affirmative action has to do with the rather unfortunate phenomenon that Rosen's piece exemplifies: if a minority individual achieves a certain degree of success and status, it is remarkably easy for his or her opponents to publicly assess the individual's merits as inferior, and these suspect assessments, whether arrived at in earnestness or not, are widely regarded as highly plausible.


Also off topic, but I don't get this as a reason for opposing affirmative action. People who react to all minorities because some have benefited from AA are engaging in racism. I can't see that the policy is bad because racists misapply it. Just to be clear, I'm not defending AA here (it's very off topic), just commenting on this particular argument.


Or, hey, maybe it was just Greenwald's boyfriend using his same verbal style to defend him on threads he was absent from, while Greenwald defended himself on others?


According to Greenwald, it was, in fact, his partner who made the posts.
5.5.2009 1:17pm
levisbaby:
How about a show of hands here?

How many people here who are so troubled by Mr. Greenwald's alleged sockpuppetry _also_ think that Sarah Palin is a great leader of the GOP?

You know, so we can calibrate our credibility meters...
5.5.2009 1:21pm
Downfall:
It's rich that Greenwald criticizes the intellect of federal judges, when he's either unable or unwilling to understand basic logic, and that describing a situation isn't an endorsement of it. See, e.g., this from the very mild-mannered Professor Drezner.
5.5.2009 1:25pm
Anon321:
Here's the full lawyers' evaluation for Sotomayor (it's available on Westlaw):

Lawyers' Evaluation. Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is very good. She is bright." "She is a good judge." "She is very smart." "She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough." "She is very intelligent." "She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is." "She has a very good commonsense approach to the law." "She looks at the practical issues." "She is good. She is an exceptional judge overall." "She is smart. She is not as intellectual as some." "It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. I'd say she is in the bottom of this court--but, the competition is pretty stiff." "She is one of the few civil rights lawyers to be appointed to the court. Sometimes I think she is at war with herself. In her heart I think she still thinks from the bottom up. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. If you don't give it, she will rule against you." "I am not too impressed with her. She is bright, but doesn't always get the facts."
Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."
Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument. "She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared." "She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared." "She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you." "She is active in oral argument. There are times when she asks questions to hear herself talk." "She can be a bit of a bully. She is an active questioner." "She asks questions to see you squirm. She is very active in oral argument. She takes over in oral argument, sometimes at the expense of her colleagues." "She can be very aggressive in her questioning." "She can get harsh in oral argument." "She can become exasperated in oral argument. You can see the impatience." "You need to be on top of it with her on your panel."
Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor is liberal. "She is liberal." "She is broadly inclined in a more liberal direction, but is very careful to follow precedent." "She tends to be liberal." "She is on the more liberal side of things." "She is quite liberal." "She is not necessarily pro-government." "She is not a government pushover. She is fair." "She is trying to move to the right." "She has no discernible leaning."
Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. "Her opinions are O.K, by and large." "She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions." "Her writing is good." "Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued." "She writes well." "She is a very good writer." "Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

This, from the lawyers' evaluation of the Second Circuit, also caught my eye:

Lawyers praised the Court's treatment of lawyers. "Lawyers are treated very well. They are always very good to lawyers." "They all treat lawyers very well. Even when lawyers don't deserve it, they are well-treated." "It is a true pleasure for lawyers to appear before such a fine group of judges." "It is a pleasure to go there. It is what practicing law should be." "They are polite." "They are polite. At the same time, they have a sense of humor." "You are treated well." "They treat lawyers well." "They are courteous." "They do not abuse lawyers--except for Sotomayor."
5.5.2009 1:32pm
Anon321:
And here, for comparison's sake, is the lawyers' evaluation of Katzmann (whom I chose at random):

Lawyers' Evaluation. Lawyers interviewed said Katzmann has excellent legal ability. "He is very, very smart. He is a terrific judge." "He is very, very bright and very thoughtful." "He is very good." "He is very intelligent." "I have a very high opinion of him." "He is bright." "He is a serious jurist. He is a heavyweight." "He is a first-rate legal craftsman." "He is really smart and academic. He is not always practical. He is a deep thinker." "He is bright." "He is very smart. He is on the impractical and theoretical side. He is thoughtful." "He is very high in legal ability." "He is very, very bright. He does good work." "He is thoughtful." "He is very, very smart. He is very thoughtful." "He is smart, hard working and bright."
Katzmann is respectful and polite, according to lawyers. "He is very nice to lawyers." "He always listens respectfully." "He is very polite." "He is respectful." "He is a lovely guy. He is very, very gentlemanly." "He is a gentleman." "He treats lawyers very well."
Lawyers interviewed said Katzmann is always well-prepared and active in oral argument. "He is fairly active in oral argument." "He is active." "He is active in oral argument." "He is open to change his mind. I don't think he has his mind made up. He listens and is totally open-minded. He is active in oral argument." "He is soft spoken. He listens carefully." "He is very active in oral argument." "He is proactive in oral argument. He is very well-prepared." "He is willing to press the lawyers. He is active in oral argument." "He asks the tough questions in a gentle way. He doesn't raise his voice." "He focuses on the issues. He doesn't color his questions or his writing with hyperbole. He is very objective. He doesn't ask as many questions as some of the other judges, but he is active in oral argument." "He does not participate much in oral argument."
Most lawyers said Katzmann is on the liberal side of the court, but is fair and rules on the facts and the law. "He is on the liberal side of the court. He is pretty moderate." "He is the left wing of the Circuit." "He is liberal." "I can't think of any judge on the Circuit who lets his politics get in the way. He rules on the facts and the law." "He is generally on the liberal side on legal or philosophical issues." "He is in the middle. I don't recall him taking positions that are ideological." "He is on the liberal side, but it doesn't show up in his opinions." "Every judge tends to lean toward the government. He is willing to render an opinion in favor of the defense in criminal cases as much as anyone else. He hasn't yet bent the knee to the conservative regime, so he has been swatted down a couple of times. He has stuck by his guns. He is just a straight shooter."
Katzmann writes excellent, carefully prepared opinions, according to lawyers interviewed. "He has written some excellent stuff. He is not doctrinaire." "He writes excellent opinions." "His opinions are carefully prepared. They are very well-written." "His opinions are fine." "He is a good writer." "His opinions are very well-researched and very scholarly." "He is an excellent writer." "His writing is Hemingway style. He uses very short, staccato sentences." "His writing is very clear and can be very moving." "He is a good writer." "He writes beautifully--lucid and clear." "He focuses on the issues and doesn't color his writing with hyperbole. He is very objective."
5.5.2009 1:33pm
Uh_Clem (mail):
However, the evidence and arguments are compelling. Calling it "smears" and "unfounded allegations" suggests you haven't looked at the evidence they present directly, yourself. It's all publicly available and thoroughly linked to - why not actually look at it?

Why not actually look at what?

I asked for a cite, and so far all I've gotten is "Google it", "Al Gore invented the internet" and a cartoon.

The Google hits all seem to be blogs reporting that other blogs have repeated the accusation. James Joyner's blog seems to be the most informative, but it's inconclusive.

[shrugs] I missed this the first time around. Seems to be pretty irrelevant in the greater scheme of things ...time to move on...
5.5.2009 1:38pm
D.O.:
@Anon321: Thanks very much. It seems that given the choice I would select judge Katzmann over Sotomayor. He is even liberal! At least lawyer's opinion makes you uneasy if she will be chosen.
5.5.2009 1:50pm
Downfall:
Uh_Clem: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php
5.5.2009 1:55pm
Downfall:
Sorry, now in 'linky' form:

Note that it's the first result for "glenn greenwald sock puppet" (without quotes) in google.
5.5.2009 1:56pm
BRM:
Here is the AFJ evaluation for Judge Rosemary Pooler, for comparison to Judge Sotomayor:

Lawyers' Evaluation Pooler has very good legal ability, according to most lawyers interviewed. "She is great. I really like her." "She is great. There is a lot going on upstairs. She is very bright. She is a well-rounded judge." "I am very favorably impressed with her. She is quite smart." "She is a good judge. I wouldn't put her in the same category as some others. She is not as strong in terms of her knowledge." "She is careful and plodding." "She is very earnest. Analytically, she is not the strongest on the bench." "She is very good. She does not have as much horse power as most of the other judges on the court." "She is one of the weaker judges on the Circuit. She is disappointing. She goes out of her way to affirm the district court." "She is just not a bright light on the Circuit. She is just not as intelligent."

Lawyers said Pooler is polite and has a sense of humor. "She is really nice. She is very gracious." "She is wonderful to appear before. She is very nice to lawyers." "She is very nice." "She is very cordial and polite." "She is extremely pleasant. She has a sense of humor. She appreciates absurdity." "She has a sense of humor. She asks questions that indicate she has a sense of humor." "She has a grandmotherly demeanor." "She is polite. She is nice."

Most lawyers interviewed said Pooler is well-prepared for oral argument. She does ask questions. "She is very well-prepared." "She will definitely ask questions." "She speaks, but she is a little on the quiet side." "She asks questions. I have never seen her dominate the discussion. Still water runs deep." "She asks very penetrating questions." "She asks precise questions." "She is always very well-prepared and asks very good questions." "Her questions are always very well-thought-out. She doesn't ask questions to hear herself talk."

Pooler tends to be more liberal, lawyers said. "She is about as liberal as you can get on the Second Circuit." "She is good on social issues. She is not pro-government." "She is one of the liberals. She is pragmatic. She wants to find out what is going on in the case." "She can be kind of indignant if she sees injustice, particularly on the part of government." "She is reasonably liberal." "She is politically in the center-to-center left." "She is plaintiff-leaning--more on the liberal side." "The defense bar might not like her. She is generally regarded as one of the best draws for plaintiffs. That doesn't mean she always rules for the plaintiff. She doesn't." "She is middle-of-the-road. I have no complaints."

Most lawyers interviewed said Pooler writes good opinions. "She writes good opinions." "Her writing is very good." "She writes well-written opinions." "Her opinions are reasonably well-written. She doesn't necessarily fully come to grips with the arguments." "Her opinions are workmanlike. They are not analytically brilliant." "Her opinions are workmanlike. They are pedestrian." "Her writing is workmanlike."
5.5.2009 1:57pm
Constantin:
Reason dictates, in my humble opinion, a completely different approach. If two individuals, X and Y, have similar achievements and qualifications, but X has had to overcome cultural disincentives to reach that level of accomplishment, then X is likely to have more talent rather than less. Unfortunately, the institutionalization of affirmative action undermines the strength of this argument, as it generates reflexive opposition to the notion that a minority individual's success is based exclusively on merit.

I agree with this in its entirety. Based on admissions and LSAT statistics, Big Law diversity fetishes, mandates in both political parties to bean count, etc., in the legal realm you are on much stronger ground to use as your baseline assumption that something other than merit accounts for a minority individual's success. Very sad, but that's part of the bargain.
5.5.2009 1:59pm
Joe T Guest:
Uh_Clem, if the point is so minor, why are you beating it to death? The argument boils down to Patterico and others collecting Greenwald's IP address attached to several names, and Greenwald's Richard Pryor defense (Wasn't me, baby... musta been some other guy) that somebody in his house must have used his logon. Doesn't really matter much though, because Greenwald's appeal to experience here (that n his experience most judges are dumb and he's smarter than them) doesn't have a truthful ring to it, or show comprehension of how most courts work. I've found most judges, particularly those in courts of general jurisdiction and at the appellate level - to be good lawyers, intelligent, and decent people. They are generalists, however, and where a judge doesn't have depth of experience in the topic before the bar it is an advocate's job to educate a judge on the law in a particular area. There are dumb judges here and there but most of them are merely overworked and relying on counsel to get them up to speed on the facts, relevant law, the strongest arguments in favor of the client and the weaknesses in the other side's argument.

With a few noteworthy exceptions, *in my experience,* I've found that where a judge seems dumb, it's often because one or both of the attorneys in front of him just committed Epic Fail.
5.5.2009 2:03pm
Officious Intermeddler:
Uh_Clem: here ya go.
5.5.2009 2:13pm
PabloF:
" ' I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges.'

I think that says a lot more about Greenwald than it does about judges."

I agree, Joe T. Guest. I practiced for a number of years in the Southern District, and don't understand how he can say that. Or maybe I'm just stupid too....
5.5.2009 2:23pm
dmv (mail):
I don't know about y'all, but I definitely vote for more of these AFJ evaluations. They're quite a hoot. "She is smart. She is nice." That is exactly the kind of penetrating, insightful commentary about a judge that I am inclined to trust. "He is very active in oral argument." "He does not participate much in oral argument." Indubitably!

Moar!
5.5.2009 2:30pm
Crust (mail):
One can find "loads o' links" (to borrow David M. Nieporent's elegant phrasing) arguing that Greenwald used sock puppets. But that doesn't make it true. And by the way, Mr. Nieporent, Gore never claimed that he invented the internet either.
5.5.2009 2:34pm
sbron:
It doesn't help if someone if endorsed by a blatantly race-based organization such as MALDEF.
5.5.2009 2:41pm
D.O.:
dmv, you have perception of people who actually go before the judge (you might even say, her clients). It is not deep, but tendencies are clear. At least it raises the questions for those who think J. Sonya would be a good pick.
5.5.2009 2:58pm
EC2:
Her merit notwithstanding, I don't think Sotomayor will be nominated. Within the past two or three days, Senators Leahy, Reid, and Specter all have said they hope the nomination goes to someone other than a sitting federal judge. Of anyone talking in the press about the nomination, these three are likely to have an inkling of what the President is thinking, and are likely laying the groundwork for the nominee's rollout. I think we are going to see a non-judge, non-east coast nominee. Also, the nomination is rumored to be coming quickly, so I think we will see someone who has already been vetted. I'm guessing Napolitano. Geographic &professional diversity, well liked and respected, and was easily confirmed (unanimously?) to be DHS Secretary.
5.5.2009 3:01pm
D.O.:
EC2, what do you think about unpredectability? It is hard to say how somebody will judge before they start judging. Should be a concern for Obama.
5.5.2009 3:05pm
Crust (mail):
Downfall:
See, e.g., this from the very mild-mannered Professor Drezner.
In the third sentence of the link you provide, Drezner describes Greenwald as "simplistic and Jacobin". If that's "very mild-mannered", I'd be curious to see an example of only somewhat mild-mannered rhetoric.
5.5.2009 3:07pm
Brian Garst (www):
If the support of a dishonest fraud like Greenwald isn't the kiss of death, than I don't know what is.
5.5.2009 3:11pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I agree, Joe T. Guest. I practiced for a number of years in the Southern District, and don't understand how he can say that. Or maybe I'm just stupid too....
I third this. If he were talking about state court judges, sure. But federal judges in the Second Circuit?
5.5.2009 3:13pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
By "Second Circuit," I meant "Southern District."
5.5.2009 3:13pm
PlugInMonster:
Yeah just what we need on the SCOTUS - Napolitano someone who thinks all right-wingers are "terrorists" and should be put into concentration camps. You people are just ASKING for Civil War 2.
5.5.2009 3:15pm
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
In the third sentence of the link you provide, Drezner describes Greenwald as "simplistic and Jacobin". If that's "very mild-mannered", I'd be curious to see an example of only somewhat mild-mannered rhetoric.

I think the point is that Greenwald drives even mild-mannered Dan Drezner to such a strong reaction, not that Drezner's reaction to Greenwald is mild-mannered.
5.5.2009 3:16pm
Sarcastro (www):
PlugInMonster: Wolverines!
5.5.2009 3:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
One can find "loads o' links" (to borrow David M. Nieporent's elegant phrasing) arguing that Greenwald used sock puppets. But that doesn't make it true. And by the way, Mr. Nieporent, Gore never claimed that he invented the internet either.
Well, not exactly. But not exactly not, either. But in any case, it was a joke.
5.5.2009 3:30pm
Downfall:
In the third sentence of the link you provide, Drezner describes Greenwald as "simplistic and Jacobin". If that's "very mild-mannered", I'd be curious to see an example of only somewhat mild-mannered rhetoric.

P.I. has it right. That post is in the tail end of a series of exchanges where Greenwald was so obtuse (intentionally or otherwise) that even Dan Drezner lost his temper. Glenn is a smart guy, but he has his blind spots and isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His criticism of the intelligence of the federal bench says more about him than it does about them; anybody who refuses to agree with him is routinely branded as stupid, naive, or corrupt by him.
5.5.2009 3:53pm
Middle Name Ralph:
I think EC2 nails it. I have also come to expect Napalitano might be the leading candidate for the exact same reasons EC2 articulates so well.
5.5.2009 3:54pm
jab:
Wow... thos AFJ entries sound a lot like
"Rate My Professor" entries...
5.5.2009 4:22pm
NickM (mail) (www):
I've known one former clerk who went into practice who criticized his/her judge publicly after the clerkship. The judge in question was Andrew Hauk.

Nick
5.5.2009 4:35pm
RPT (mail):
A recent GWU Moot Court with Calabresi, Roberts and Sotomayor is available at CSPAN. She looks just fine. If some of you guys think that she is a mean judge, you have been very sheltered. I've seen much tougher out here in the 9th Circuit, both at the appellate and trial level, not even counting USDC Real. Tougher judges can get more out of the lawyers. Was the ideal conservative nominee Bork nominated because he was charming and a "nice guy'?
5.5.2009 4:37pm
RPT (mail):
...and not even counting former USDC CD Cal Hauk, either.
5.5.2009 4:40pm
MarkField (mail):

I've known one former clerk who went into practice who criticized his/her judge publicly after the clerkship. The judge in question was Andrew Hauk.


Yeah, but that's like getting a snack after Little League -- everybody does it.
5.5.2009 5:02pm
guy in the veal calf office (mail) (www):
What are "Sotomayor's decades of achievement in the face of overwhelming obstacles"?
5.5.2009 5:19pm
pedro (mail):
MarkField: I don't worry about racists engaging broad generalizations but about average people internalizing the narrative according to which a minority individual's success cannot exclusively be a result of his or her merit. The typical minority individual with a high degree of success has had to work harder (or is perhaps more talented) than his or her peers with a similar degree of success, but affirmative action, perversely, provides grounds (faulty, in my personal estimation) for arguing that those individual's merits and talent are suspect. Unfortunately, to a large number of people, many of whom are not racist at all, these arguments (so pervasive these days) seem very compelling.
5.5.2009 5:28pm
pedro (mail):
The hacks at the Corner have already dropped Sotomayor and are moving on to discredit Kagan: smartypants Andy McCarthy "reports" that Obama might nominate a "lesbian."
5.5.2009 5:58pm
RPT (mail):
It's very important for the conservatives to focus on the merits of potential USSC nominees: do they wear their robes well; are they nice to the lawyers who appear before them; what is their sexual preference? Apparently laying the groundwork for Jeff Sessions.
5.5.2009 6:27pm
Officious Intermeddler:
Yes, Crust. It's certainly possible that a live-in companion of Greenwald's, who possessed the same rhetorical tics as Greenwald and a comprehensive knowledge of Greenwald's biography and blog-enemies, ran around the Internet posting the same four pro-Greenwald talking points on various blogs under various aliases.

If that was the case, though, one might fairly wonder why the Magic Boyfriend declined to step up and publicly accept responsibility when doing so could have spared Greenwald the last two years of people snickering at his expense.

So, yeah: the Greater Greenwald Sockpuppet Theory isn't 100% ironclad, but it fits the facts -- including the fact of Greenwald's overweening egomaniacal partisan douchiness -- better than the Magic Boyfriend Theory. Occam's Razor.
5.5.2009 6:41pm
Public_Defender (mail):

Anyone who is familiar with the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary or who practices before the federal appellate courts will tell you that this is NOT a flattering entry. Most AFJ entries are like job evaluations: they are heavy on the positives, light on the negatives. To see this many negatives in the "legal ability" section--even if toned down--is actually fairly unusual.

Although given that she has long been talked about as a potential SCOTUS nominee, I'd take these with a grain of salt. How hard would it be to get a couple dozen very partisan lawyers to make negative comments? Are there any checks against such things.

I have no idea whether she would make a good justice. But I'm suspicious of anonymous attacks asserting unverifiable (or at least unverified) attacks.

So, how do people without direct experience with a nominee find out accurate information about her?
5.5.2009 6:47pm
MarkField (mail):

I don't worry about racists engaging broad generalizations but about average people internalizing the narrative according to which a minority individual's success cannot exclusively be a result of his or her merit. The typical minority individual with a high degree of success has had to work harder (or is perhaps more talented) than his or her peers with a similar degree of success, but affirmative action, perversely, provides grounds (faulty, in my personal estimation) for arguing that those individual's merits and talent are suspect. Unfortunately, to a large number of people, many of whom are not racist at all, these arguments (so pervasive these days) seem very compelling.


I agree with much of what you say here. Logically, this reaction is no argument against AA. Pragmatically, it may be. I'd prefer it, of course, if people could be encouraged not to draw such conclusions and then let the AA arguments play out as they would.
5.5.2009 7:27pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

Yes, Crust. It's certainly possible that a live-in companion of Greenwald's, who possessed the same rhetorical tics as Greenwald and a comprehensive knowledge of Greenwald's biography and blog-enemies, ran around the Internet posting the same four pro-Greenwald talking points on various blogs under various aliases.

If that was the case, though, one might fairly wonder why the Magic Boyfriend declined to step up and publicly accept responsibility when doing so could have spared Greenwald the last two years of people snickering at his expense.

So, yeah: the Greater Greenwald Sockpuppet Theory isn't 100% ironclad, but it fits the facts -- including the fact of Greenwald's overweening egomaniacal partisan douchiness -- better than the Magic Boyfriend Theory. Occam's Razor.


Well, that's certainly definitive. The only thing the Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet scandal has demonstrated, in my opinion, is that right-wingers understand what IP addresses are. So, congratulations right-wingers, on understanding one of the basics of the internet.

Now, can we talk about the point of this post, which is how much Rosen sucks?
5.5.2009 9:29pm
Officious Intermeddler:
It also demonstrates that left-wingers can be relied upon to make feeble, sneering attempts to impugn their betters rather than admit that one of their own was probably engaged in bush-league dishonesty.
5.5.2009 9:41pm
zuch (mail) (www):
IC that a number of commenters here are trotting out the lame "sock puppet" slur against Greenwald. Outside of the fact that such is just ad hominem, it's hardly proved ... certainly not to the extent that the "sock puppet" Mary Rosh has been definitively shown to be none other than John Lott himself. When the RW starts casting aspersions on the credibility of John Lott, maybe we can look to see whether Greenwald actually did such (not that he'd have any motivation to do so), the "sleuthing" of such as Patterico and Ace of Spades (nice pseudonym, eh?) notwithstanding.

People who live in glass houses and all that....

Cheers,
5.5.2009 11:22pm
zuch (mail) (www):
David M. Nieporent:
Are you claiming that Greenwald engaged in sockpuppetry? Got any evidence of this beyond the usual smear-merchants who trade in unfounded accusations?
I hear that after Al Gore invented the internet, he invented Google; you might want to try that. It's a very esoteric and non-obvious search strategy:

Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet

You can find loads o' links that way.
Yeah. Try "earth 6000 years old". That should be instructive. And illuminating. For those that want to be so illuminated.

Cheers,
5.5.2009 11:36pm
zuch (mail) (www):
David M. Nieporent:
What practicing lawyer would be retarded enough to insult (even 100% truthfully and justifiably) a federal appellate judge who's on the Supreme Court short list?
You'll find plenty of insults to sitting Supreme Court justices if you just take the slightest peek around....

Obeisance to power and authority is overrated ... even if favoured by a certain claque.

Cheers,
5.5.2009 11:39pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Officious Intermeddler:Yes, Crust. It's certainly possible that a live-in companion of Greenwald's, who possessed the same rhetorical tics as Greenwald and a comprehensive knowledge of Greenwald's biography and blog-enemies, ran around the Internet posting the same four pro-Greenwald talking points on various blogs under various aliases.Yes, a careful analysis of the kerning of the posts proves it conclusively. And the "rhetorical tics" are even more dispositive. Of course, no actual companion of Glenn's could possibly be knowledgeable as to Glenn's biography and such; that's simply absurd and no one could believe that.... Now can we dispense with the OT (attempted and trite) ad hominem and address the substance of Glenn's post?

Cheers,
5.5.2009 11:46pm
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
Zuch --

Lott's use of the Mary Rosh pseudonym was uncovered by the "RW" - largely by libertarian writer Julian Sanchez. Jim Lindgren, on this site and elsewhere, has also extensively researched some of Lott's research and related claims.

JHA
5.5.2009 11:47pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Prof. Adler:
Lott's use of the Mary Rosh pseudonym was uncovered by the "RW" - largely by libertarian writer Julian Sanchez. Jim Lindgren, on this site and elsewhere, has also extensively researched some of Lott's research and related claims.
Assuming arguendo this is true, so what?

I note that you are not engaging in the argumentum ad hominem of others here, but: What's your beef (if any) with Glenn's post? What about Glenn's links to other criticism of Rosen? But Glenn's main point (and one he's pressed in other posts in other circumstances) is the shabbiness of anonymous (and unverifiable) commentary to discredit someone. Do you disagree with this point of his?

On another note, I find it interesting that some psychic commentators here have determined that it is necessary for any Obama pick to have a vagina. I'd like to hire these people; I could use a nice jackpot in the Powerball....

Cheers,
5.6.2009 12:42am
Officious Intermeddler:
When the RW starts casting aspersions on the credibility of John Lott, maybe we can look to see whether Greenwald actually did such (not that he'd have any motivation to do so), the "sleuthing" of such as Patterico and Ace of Spades (nice pseudonym, eh?) notwithstanding.


Deploying the lamest sort of tu quoque argument definitely enhances the credibility of posts complaining about others' ad hominems.

Now can we dispense with the OT (attempted and trite) ad hominem and address the substance of Glenn's post?


There is no substance to Greenwald's post. Like everything he writes, it's tendentious bad-faith garbage the underlying premise of which is that anybody who declines to agree with Greenwald is stupid or dishonest or evil. Debating the merits of a Greenwald post is approximately as useful an exercise as debating the merits of an Andrew Sullivan post.

It's wank material for left-wing trolls, that's all.
5.6.2009 1:44am
zuch (mail) (www):
Officious Intermeddler:
Deploying the lamest sort of tu quoque argument definitely enhances the credibility of posts complaining about others' ad hominems.
I did nothing of the sort. I just wanted the RWers to address Lott's credibility in the same manner. There's a difference between asking for consistency and asking for absolution. Clear now?
[zuch]:Now can we dispense with the OT (attempted and trite) ad hominem and address the substance of Glenn's post?
There is no substance to Greenwald's post. Like everything he writes, it's tendentious bad-faith garbage the underlying premise of which is that anybody who declines to agree with Greenwald is stupid or dishonest or evil. Debating the merits of a Greenwald post is approximately as useful an exercise as debating the merits of an Andrew Sullivan post.
OIC. I guess the answer is "no" then. At least you made that clear ... sort of. Not sure why you're commenting here then.

Cheers,
5.6.2009 2:55am
Careless:

I did nothing of the sort. I just wanted the RWers to address Lott's credibility in the same manner. There's a difference between asking for consistency and asking for absolution. Clear now?

What the heck does John Lott have to do with Greenwald and Rosen writing about Sotomayor?
5.6.2009 5:28pm
Spitball:
Two points:

(1) Rosen candidly admits that his assessment may not be "complete"; it's a quick blog post, not an exhaustive scholarly article about her. If blogs can't be gossipy, then half of the Internet content will be verboten.

(2) The posters here miss the key point that Rosen raised. What is striking is that the anonymous sources aren't right-wingers or people who aren't familiar with her. Rather, the comments are from liberal Democrats who are familiar with her. There's no ideological axe to grind here, though perhaps these anonymous commenters have an ulterior motive (e.g., they want someone else to be nominated).

Here's the key passage from Rosen's blog posting:

"Over the past few weeks, I've 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...

It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible."
5.6.2009 6:09pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Careless:
What the heck does John Lott have to do with Greenwald and Rosen writing about Sotomayor?
Typo there. That should be "alleged sock puppetry"? Hope that clears things up.

Cheers,
5.6.2009 9:46pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Spitball:
Here's the key passage from Rosen's blog posting:
"It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible."
So says he that so says they. But if we don't know who these people are, and Rosen won't tell us, and he won't give evidence to support his conclusion that "they'd [only] like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible", much less check this claim out independently and verify it, how are we to know? Which is basically Glenn's point.....

Cheers,
5.6.2009 9:53pm
AlanDownunder (mail):
Relax guys. Sotomayor has been successfully smeared. No need to defend Rosen or ad hom Greenwald. America now needs your devoted and resourceful penmanship on other more urgent fronts. For example, this torture furphy is beginning to really get out of hand.
5.7.2009 10:30pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.