pageok
pageok
pageok
Rosen on Sotomayor Redux:

Jeffrey Rosen has another short item on Sonia Sotomayor up at TNR. Rosen does not disavow his earlier criticism of Sotomayor, but also claims he never argued she "didn't have the potential to be a fine justice." While acknowledging she "obviously" was not his first choice, Rosen writes that "[n]ow is the time to think more broadly about the role Justice Sotomayor is likely to play on the Supreme Court." According to Rosen, " the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word. "

Anynonyno:
That's a very weak, and not particularly liberal, case for Sotomayor.

Surely the actual best case for her is something to the effect that she's smart and good at her job.
5.28.2009 3:04am
anonfun:
I didn't like his first piece, but I like this one even less. Obama doesn't need lip service from hacks like this.
5.28.2009 7:03am
mls (www):
Rosen's point makes no sense at all. How does having three jobs, two of which are in the judicial branch (trial and appellate judge) and one job focused on the judicial branch (commercial litigator), constitute a range of experience that would cause her to recognize the role played by the political branches in defining constitutional rights?
5.28.2009 8:06am
Steve:
Whatever the strongest case for Sotomayor might be, I'm pretty sure that wasn't it.
5.28.2009 9:02am
LarryA (mail) (www):
Rosen's point makes no sense at all. How does having three jobs, two of which are in the judicial branch (trial and appellate judge) and one job focused on the judicial branch (commercial litigator), constitute a range of experience that would cause her to recognize the role played by the political branches in defining constitutional rights?
It's like Obama's experience as a Chicago politician causes him to recognize the limited role of government.
5.28.2009 9:04am
AF:

Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. My concern was that she might not make the most effective liberal voice on the Court--not that she didn't have the potential to be a fine justice.


Shorter Jeffrey Rosen: My article "The Case Against Sotomayor" should not be used to make the case against Sotomayor.
5.28.2009 9:12am
Joe T Guest:
Rosen's point makes no sense at all.


Yeah, it's really funny how one of those ordinarily liberal journalists would be twisting in the wind and trying to walk back a story deviating from the WH talking points. I know it's not possible, but it's almost like it's coordinated or he's taking directions from somebody, or acting like he'll be cut out of some club or something if he doesn't do it. Weird.

I'm just glad we have free-thinking reporters out there to afflict the comfortable and to comfort the afflicted; we'd be in real trouble if our journalists were marching in lockstep to serve the establishment.
5.28.2009 9:25am
jackson:
Everyone seems to be walking back from initial criticism of Sotomayor. See, e.g., Prof. Somin's posts. The only full-throated criticism is coming from entertainers/professional commentators. She certainly is within the poll of legitimate supreme court nominees. And she saved baseball -- notably by looking beyond the specific parties before her to the greater societal good and showing empathy for the fans
5.28.2009 9:36am
Kevin!:
Why would there need to be a White House-led conspiracy? Every single liberal blog and magazine out there has been calling Rosen a piece of shit ever since he first ran his anonymous hit article. I'm sure he hates being the target of all his friends and colleagues. Now he's about saving his career while not looking like a coward.
5.28.2009 9:50am
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Why is it so difficult for people to say: "Look, I wrote that because I didn't want her to be nominated. When that battle was lost, I got on board with the Administration because I'm a team player, and I think just about any nominee from my party is better than any nominee from the other party."? We all know that's what's going on, so why can't he just admit it?

I wrote some pretty strong posts against McCain during the primary process. I didn't try to weasel out of them after he became the nominee, but focused instead on comparing him with the other option on the ballot, making the case that, despite my significant qualms with him, he was still the best choice.
5.28.2009 9:52am
MarkField (mail):

Why is it so difficult for people to say: "Look, I wrote that because I didn't want her to be nominated. When that battle was lost, I got on board with the Administration because I'm a team player, and I think just about any nominee from my party is better than any nominee from the other party."? We all know that's what's going on, so why can't he just admit it?


I don't think it's hard for ordinary people to do that. I think that Washington insiders have a finely honed attitude that they aren't like "us" and don't have to abide by standards which any decent person (like you) would accept. They think not only that they don't have to pay any price for their errors, but that they shouldn't.
5.28.2009 10:28am
David M. Nieporent (www):
And she saved baseball -- notably by looking beyond the specific parties before her to the greater societal good and showing empathy for the fans
Nah; just by following the law and acting like a neutral umpire.
5.28.2009 10:30am
Joe T Guest:

The only full-throated criticism is coming from entertainers/professional commentators


I mean, it's not like the WH and its allies are making thinly veiled threats toward those who oppose her...

Unless now we think it's appropriate for the WH press secretary to be telling people to watch what they say.
5.28.2009 10:32am
Chico's Bail Bonds (mail):
So Jeffrey Rosen of EvenTheLiberalNewRepublicSays (TM) is walking back his criticism because he doesn't want to be excluded from an email list?

Where can I get some of what you are smoking Joe T Guest?
5.28.2009 10:39am
Anderson (mail):
Don't drive too fast in reverse, Jeffrey, you'll ruin your transmission that way.

... It *is* I think welcome to have a trial judge on the high Court. In fact, we ought to have several.

I wonder why they don't promote straight from the district courts? Surely there are some district judges writing impressive ops who could be tapped ... mute inglorious Learned Hands?
5.28.2009 10:47am
Eli Rabett (www):
Eli heard one of those entertainers/professional commentators moaning about how the court needed someone with experience in commercial law not someone like the former commercial litigator Sotomayor.
5.28.2009 11:08am
erp2 (mail):
Gibbs warned everyone to watch what they say? Rosen was late at the gate that's all.
5.28.2009 11:24am
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

I mean, it's not like the WH and its allies are making thinly veiled threats toward those who oppose her...

Unless now we think it's appropriate for the WH press secretary to be telling people to watch what they say.


I'm surprised you haven't so far managed to work in ACOORN. Please go back to Gateway Pundit where you came from.

As for Rosen, he misses the point of his own first column:


Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. My concern was that she might not make the most effective liberal voice on the Court--not that she didn't have the potential to be a fine justice.


Jeffrey Rosen is awfully clueless. Somehow, he fails to realize that his piece made the opposite point, which is that Sotomayor's personal characteristics are an impediment to her being an effective justice. I don't recall reading in that piece anything that left me with the impression that she wouldn't be an "effective liberal voice" since he barely managed to focus on her actual rulings at all and when he did, got his facts wrong.
5.28.2009 11:35am
Blue:
"I didn't like his first piece, but I like this one even less. Obama doesn't need lip service from hacks like this."


It is a shame when the Fair and Neutral Press do not worg with maximum effort to ensure the Success of our Dear Leader.
5.28.2009 11:35am
Chris Ronk (mail) (www):
Why not look at things through her female/hispanic viewpoint? The Supreme Court won't work unless is has a perspective from all angles.

So long as she is able to stand strong and debate her perspective.
5.28.2009 11:38am
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
Regarding threats, the NYT and the Politico started with them on the first day, attempting to claim that all criticism of her would be anti-Hispanic. Meanwhile, it turns out that she was a member of a far-left group that supports illegal activity and that funds extremists.
5.28.2009 12:24pm
M N Ralph:

Rosen: Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response.


No shit you hack! What do you expect from a hit piece entitled "The Case Against Sotomayor?"
5.28.2009 12:38pm
RPT (mail):
Mr 24, where's the link to Bill Ayers? If you are going to carry the ball for the "she's a terrorist" group, you need to do better than this self-citation methodology.
5.28.2009 12:39pm
Bill reynolds (mail):
As a long-suffering fan of the Baltimore Orioles, I'm not sure I'm happy that she "saved baseball."
5.28.2009 1:07pm
Joe T Guest:
Xanthippas, I linked to an article quoting Gibbs saying critics needed to watch what they were saying. I know that the rules have changed but if citing a factual account of what Gibbs said and then repeating it makes me some kind of nut, then perhaps you ought to consider

Oh never mind. I'll recant. Despite the quotation marks in the article, Gibbs never said that and it would be nuts to think he did. He is not the droids I'm looking for. Similarly, I must have been crazy to think that Rosen appears to have been browbeaten by colleagues and the astroturf brigade into a cringing, incoherent walkback. And we've always been in intensive five party arms control negotiations with Oceana.
5.28.2009 1:16pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
RPT: the technique you're using doesn't really work at sites like this; most people here are too smart to fall for it.

Also, since I posted that comment I've added greatly to the summary of the group she is/was a member of using my dozens of posts about that group going back to 2004 (all of which are sourced).

Note, for instance, that the group she was a member of gave an award to someone who'd made eliminationist comments years before.
5.28.2009 2:29pm
Steve:
Well, the Republican Party honors Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding his eliminationist rhetoric, so I'm not sure that's a standard that will survive much scrutiny.
5.28.2009 2:52pm
RPT (mail):
24:

Yes, and Rick Perry wants to be president of the Republic of Texas. Your point is that she should be rejected because of her past association with a group which gave an award to someone else. Three degrees of Bill Ayers. We went through this during the campaign last year. It was bogus then and bogus now. The fact that Wendy Long and the Swift Boat Vets are back in very well compensated action here is further proof of the lack of merit of these attacks.
5.28.2009 3:17pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
I hesitate to say "hack" because I've never heard Rosen say anything this seemingly disingenuous before, but geez....
5.28.2009 6:41pm
EH (mail):
One wonders what three-degrees of 24Ahead would get us.
5.28.2009 6:41pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
As a long-suffering fan of the Baltimore Orioles, I'm not sure I'm happy that she "saved baseball."
Matt Wieters starts tomorrow!
5.28.2009 7:52pm
Reaganite Republican Resistance (mail) (www):
Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who's motto is "For our race everything- for others, nothing".

Clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he's the one who nominated all these kooks.

What happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn't want to be judged by any of them after what I've heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.

If Obama is going to go on with his "justice" agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
5.30.2009 12:13pm
Leo Marvin (mail):

… as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British…

Does anyone think Obama's "wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British" doesn't deserve it's own thread?
5.30.2009 7:00pm

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.