Jeff Rosen has been raked over the coals for his not-positive assessment of Sonia Sotomayor. What I find remarkable is this -- Rosen was being so cautious and careful that he acknowledged his limitations in passing judgment, a good and responsible thing to do, and his humility is being used as a lacerating strike against him.Maybe. As I've said, the headline was "The Case Against Sonia Sotomayer." The subhed was "Indictments Of Obama's Frontrunner To Replace Souter."
Reihan continues:
Rosen explicitly invited readers to take a different view, and to discount his assessment. Some of Rosen's detractors say, "Well in that case, why did you write anything at all?" Rest assured, most people who weigh in on public controversies of this kind know far less about the subjects of these controversies than Rosen knows about Sotomayor.Right. But, in the age of blogging and 24-hour commentary, that's an appallingly low standard. If all it takes to occupy the "respectable intellectual center" is to know more than your average commenter, than there isn't much respectable or intellectual about the center. Perhaps that's the point.
Having recognized that he was relaying strongly negative assessment, Rosen checked himself before he wrecked himself, which is the best one can do. Should Rosen not draw on the knowledge of legal insiders to sketch out potential criticisms?Reihan is a colleague and one of my favorite writers from across the ideological way. But I don't find this very credible. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Rosen should "not draw on the knowledge of legal insiders." It's helpful to read the damning graph again:
I haven't 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.The very process of journalism is exactly what Rosen said he didn't do. I'm fairly confident that if you turned in a piece with a graph like that to any competent J-school professor, you would fail. I'm not sure why Rosen should be held to a lower standard.
Reihan wants us to lay off on Rosen because he exercised "humility." But "humility" is the floor for a decent writer--not the ceiling. You don't get credit for not beating your wife. You don't get credit for admitting that you didn't do your job.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Ta-Nehisi,
I said very much the same thing over at Reihan's original post; I'm in j-school now and if I turned something in like this, I'd get the gas face. I can't believe that Rosen tried very hard to find people who would actually go on the record, and his "trust me, I know the people who did speak to me don't have an axe to grind" statement does go very far either, especially when he apparently didn't try to find anyone willing to say something good on her behalf.
It's just lazy all around. We don't know who he talked to, so we can't judge their motivations. He didn't do the reading that would allowed him to ask better questions or get an understanding of her legal reasoning. The whole thing is weak sauce.
We don't know who he talked to, so we can't judge their motivations.
That is one of the biggest weaknesses of using unknown sources. Some of these people may be backing a different Justice for a variety of reasons, including a possible clerkship with that Justice on the Supreme Court. People often try to attach themselves to what they think of as rising political stars. Since appointments to the court are fairly rare, I would have to imagine the politicing and jockeying are something fierce.
I just read the whole piece. Reihan is a smart guy, but I don't think his defense of Rosen holds up. There's an interesting couple of sentences in there:
"Many people raised questions about Harriet Miers’ intelligence. Granted, she wasn’t a Princeton/Yale Law graduate, but I think it’s safe to say that plenty of Princeton/Yale Law graduates are dunderheads. Similarly, people raised questions about the intelligence of George W. Bush and, to a lesser extent, Al Gore. No one really raised questions about the intelligence of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush. And that’s not insignificant."
Does Reihan not just admit that attacking someone's intelligence is a good way to bring them down in public? He seems to say that this strategy is effective, but he doesn't remark on why Sotomayor is perceived in this light, or why this strategy would work against her well. Due to the anonymous sources, and both Salem and Rosen's journalistic laziness (or deviance), you never get a good reason as to why this perception is being established. Salem then goes on to say, point blank, that he's in Kagan's camp, making his defense all the more troubling.
Simply dismissing Greenwald's concerns of nepotism can't be done by just calling something "silly." Rosen may very well know 2nd circuit clerks, but that doesn't change the fact that his brother in law would probably get the SG job if Kagan is confirmed.
In the end, I'm not really even sure what Reihan is defending about Rosen's article. It seems to be more of a "give the guy a break" than anything else. To me, it's a conservative (Reihan) looking at his options for who would be least bad for the Republican party. He does this in a calm way, without stoking racism or sexism, which makes him smarter than the NRO. But he still defended journalistic and legal laziness to defend a meme that will help his party.
Similarly, people raised questions about the intelligence of George W. Bush
Because he barely graduated with C's and had he not had the last name Bush, he would have never gone to Yale and with his work ethic may not have even graduated from a state school. He also spoke and answered questions like he wasn't all that bright. Contrast this to Obama's educational record and speaking style and you'll see why it's far more difficult to seriously question Obama's intelligence.
Harriet Miers was shown to be unfit for the court, by her poorly written opinions. If somebody goes to a second rate school, and after school produces low quality work then it's a sign of laziness or unintelligence, but more importantly somebody who's unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Compare Sotomayor's educational and legal record versus Harrier Miers and they are worlds apart.
I think two grafs explain why this is such a shitty post from Reihan
Here Reihan says that because Rosen is "in the family" whatever the fuck that means that he his motivations must be pure. Well thats a crock of shit if I ever saw it. This is basically his strongest defense of Rosen and when you preface a whole post intent on rebutting charges of lazy journalism it doesn't help if you engage this kind of lazy ass circular logic.
Here he gives you directly for writing this tripe in the first place. If he is backing Elena Kagan then its in his best interests to try to make sure that Jeffery Rosen maintains an air of credibility so that when people bring up Judge Sotomayor's name her detractors can pull Rosen's piece out of their ass with a straight face. Fortunately his defense is SO lame as to probably make it worse for Rosen moreso than better. Still its appalling to see Reihan using his platform in this way.
One of these days I am actually going to start using that trusty preview button.
Here Reihan says that because Rosen is "in the family" whatever the fuck that means that he his motivations must be pure.
I think it is clear about what "in the family" means, it is that he is on Obama's side. Hell, his BIL works for the President. As for his motivations being pure, with any political pundit, the motivations should always be questioned.
If you go "outside the family", there is a greater possibility that such a person will push for someone not of your interest. Look at Harry Reid's initial approval of an incompetent like Miers
The only real defense seems to be "I was reporting on the case, I wasn't making the case myself." Which, as our host would say, is weak-sauce.
I also love the aside how some people have questioned Al Gore's intelligence. Now I have heard that people have questioned his ability to suffer fools (you'd think that someone who's had to wait over three decades for his colleagues to catch up with him on something as important as global climate change might grow a bit impatient at times); I have heard that he's a hypocrite, pompous, and has a wooden style at the mike, but that Al Gore, dumb as a post? Not.
That little bonbon was tossed in there along with Reihan's apology for the kid who claimed the dog ate his homework, but is happy to tell his teacher that he'd heard that Desdimona really was running around on Othello; didn't Iago say so?
Side note: TNC mentioned the silly "respectable intellectual center" line. I don't want anyone to forget that one lands at the feet of "our" own Marc Ambinder. That one's not Rosen's fault.
Rosen's piece was lazy, un-journalism, and maybe even biased. But IN AND OF ITSELF, that's not the end of the world. It's the way the rest of the band (both sides) accepted the nugget as Fact, built it, spun it, and of course, demanded that "the other side" engage in the debate as they framed it. (Hence, Ambinder's "where's the defense at?")
I'm a former student of Professor Rosen. He was an excellent professor who demanded real intellectual rigor from all of his students. That said, I think that if submitted the following answer on his final, he would have rightly given me an F:
I haven't read enough cases this semester to have a confident sense of the law, but here's my best shot at an answer.
Can anyone guess what kind of cultures are supposed to be at war here?
A second bonbon also caught my attention:
"My guess is that Rosen knows a very, very large pool of former Second Circuit clerks."
My guess.
Rosen isn't being blamed for "humility." He's being blamed for excusing himself.
Evidently, Rosen is allowed to do slip-shod journalism, and not bother with anything like evidence, if he "humbly" admits that he's doing that. Admitting that you're late to work isn't humility, and the admission does not make you prompt.
In Reihan's world, and in Rosen's, Rosen is allowed to set the expectations for his own performance, and may not be judged by the expectations applied to others.
I think they call that mindset, "entitlement."
One of the commentators over there hit the nail on the head:
Rosen is a law professor, the point of having him write about this is he is qualified to read her rulings and form an opinion about her qualifications.
The "just reporting the controversy" style of lazy journalism is even more egregious for that reason.
Apply the guillotine! Choke 'em out, TNC!
Ahem. Sorry, I've been watching a lot of the Ultimate Fighter recently. (Don't ask.) What I mean to say is, you have made a series of well-pexpressed pertinent points appropriately highlighting the pathetic sophistry of your intellectual opponents, and I applaud you.
Or, TNC by verbal submission in the second round.
Truth be told, I felt like Reihan brought some weak sauce in his new Daily Beast op-ed today as well. Calling Collin Powell a "turncoat" is another example of how the Overton Window keeps shifting for these guys.
Reihan's piece is of a matched pair with the Douthat's NY Times column from earlier this week that John Cole took down deftly here.