Jason F.,

I don't think I have a dog in this fight, but I assume Rosen meant "no agendas other than to help President Obama."

Greenwald responds to the response.

Cheers,

Initially, I thought that the criticism of Rosen's first piece was overblown. Specifically, my view was that extremely valuable information could be gathered from current and former 2d Cir. clerks and from people who practice in front of that court frequently; and that those people would never disclose that information candidly unless granted anonymity. But I had assumed that Rosen had made some efforts to get a representative sample -- that is, had just called a bunch of randomly clerks and practitioners and asked their opinions. It turns out, though, that "eminent liberal scholars . . . [who] were concerned that Sotomayor might not meet that high standard . . . put [Rosen] in touch with others in the same situation."

In other words, everyone he spoke to was underwhelmed by Sotomayor because someone made a point to put him in touch with lots of people who were underwhelmed by Sotomayor. I suspect that you could find a group of people who have serious questions about any candidate's intelligence or temperament or judgment, and if you arranged for a journalist to speak to each of those people, that candidate would come out looking pretty bad. But that wouldn't mean that their perspective is anything other than idiosyncratic.

So Rosen's response actually made me feel worse about the original article.

someone made a point to put him in touch with lots of people who were underwhelmed by Sotomayor.

OMG it's totally cliquishness. What I can't figure out if Rosen talked to the popular kids ("Sotomayor has cooties. She eats paste, for Cripes sake.") or to the unpopular kids ("Sotomayor's a stuck-up bitch.").

Do you think he cares a fig?

no, he doesn't. that is part of the problem. the guy is a jerk. he can't just critique someone's position. he has to insult them too.

Rosen is a sad, pathetic hack. He's certainly not a journalist. He just vomits up musings from anonymous sources and, when he does dare venture into the world of fact, he gets it wrong as Greenwald correctly noted.

continuedfromtop:

Do you think he {Greenwald] cares a fig? no, he doesn't. that is part of the problem. the guy is a jerk. he can't just critique someone's position. he has to insult them too.

I think you're getting confused as to who's who. Glenn criticises people ... and then lays out the ground for criticism. OTOH, Rosen is more into the smear/insult type approach ... and that is pretty much the problem in this instance.

I would note that it may well be insulting to someone to be criticised ... but I don't think you're suggesting that we refrain in such a case ... particularly given your own post here ... right?

But if you think that Glenn's overly insulting and not sufficiently "constructive", please, out with your evidence and make your case.

Cheers,

Jason's right. Rosen says:

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.

So I am supposed to believe Rosen's anonymous sources because Rosen says they have no agendas? Not likely.

Having read the (in)famous footnote through the eyes of a practicing lawyer, I find it fully consistent with a back-handed slap from one judge to another.

In fact, I have a hard time imagining that any practicing lawyer would consider that reading impossible, and I'd expect the large majority of practicing lawyers to consider that reading as reasonable.

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.

I think this is what has upset so many people. The left-wing diversity crowd is about to be hoisted on its own petard.

Let's stipulate that Sotamayor is a competent jurist and amply qualified to sit on the High Court. But she is certainly no intellectual superstar, and not the liberal foil to Scalia that the left is looking for. But that is about to be sacrificed in the name of diversity -- her gender and ethnicity gives her an edge over a white male liberal intellect (like, say, Laurence Tribe.)

Conservatives ought to enjoy the irony

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar;

her gender and ethnicity gives her an edge over a white male liberal intellect (like, say, Laurence Tribe

A lot of candidates have an edge over a white male liberal intellect like Laurence Tribe. Candidates who didn't propose a do-over election in Palm Beach County, with only Gore and Buchanan on the ballot. Guys whose loss at the Supreme Court didn't still rankle three years later. The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore.

I think all of the commentary on Judge Sotomayor has been annoying. A pox on all of them, anonymous critics, proud sycophants, pedantic footnote lovers, and indignant bloggers alike. To hell with all of you.