The case against Sonia Sotomayer is, at the moment, built on a haphazard reading of her opinions, anonymous quotes, and this amazing admission by Rosen: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.
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.I can't get past that line--mostly because, as Greenwald said yesterday, it 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.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
That's kind of you, TNC, but I do mean him disrespect. He is obviously more concerned about getting something, anything out than actually doing the job he is _paid_ to do.
Not to call our your colleague...well actually I AM calling out Ambinder. What proof does he have that the "respectable intellectual center" whatever in the hell that means, now has doubts about Judge Sotomayor other than one hactakular post on her from Rosen? That would seem to be some lazy journalism as well.
I read Glenzilla's response...and man, he's money when it comes to the smackdown...
no offense to you TNC...but he's giving you a run for your money...
Hah! Dude, when it comes to the smackdown Glenn's in another league. I don't even try to get with him.
He'd have made the Rock circa 2000 blush with that Smackdown.
The most important point Greenwald made, to me, was that the dude is lawyer. Not just a journalist, but a freakin lawyer. He both knows better as a journalist AND a lawyer than to write that piece, so I'm not going to be as generous to him as TNC. Especially considering the recent update Greenwald putting up spelling out a possible conflict of interest--and a big one. Greenwald made the point that Rosen's hit job could have set up Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the open position. Guess whose brother-in-law would be next in line for the SG position if Kagan is selected....
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/index.html
(Update IV)
Note to journalists: when your failure invokes a Stan Lee line from TNC, it's time to retract.
I smiled at yesterday's seamless switch from tea party xenophobia to lamenting the waste of celluloid that is the new Wolverine movie. Now TNC references Spiderman while discussing the search for a new SC justice. It's nice to see a journalist who can walk, chew gum, and nerd out at the same time.
this piece by one of sotomayor's former clerks is thoughtful, detailed, and nuanced. complete opposite of rosen's BS and ambinder's co-sign (though ambinder did link to it -- small mercies).
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/05/on-the-brilliance-of-people-like-judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-barack-obama.html#more
and ambinder's characterization of this as a "defense" of sotomayor as a choice is the wrong lens -- this is undoubtedly "offense" of LeBron magnitude. and it needs to get just as much shine as the shit rosen laid down.
Conservative radio hosts are going to oppose her no matter what, just like liberal pundits wanted democrats to fillibuster Bush's pick. While liberals like to punch at the conservatives, what I think is more interesting is why democrats were anonymously attacking her. Ambinder linked to another piece by her former law clerk, and he hinted at what Rosen flat out stated; that she isn't the one to take on the supposedly evil wing of the Supreme Court.
Maybe this is certain lefties wishing for something that doesn't exist, the perfect liberal who can peform some Jedi mind trick on Roberts and Scalia and turn them into pro-choice, activist judges. I am not sure if liberals held Breyer and Ginsburg to such high standards, or maybe I just don't remember.
Can you name the "certain lefties" you are referring to? I don't count Rosen as a lefty but lets say him writing for TNR leads you to believe he is one. Can you come up with even one other "lefty" who opposes Sotomayor because she isn't some fire breathing liberal? I can give you probably 10 links or more in a matter of minutes to "lefties" praising her and endorsing the nomination should it happen. I know you love equating the left and the right but you and that law clerk couldn't be more off base on this one.
I can't name their names, but Sotomayer's law clerk referenced them in his blog posting defending her. The law clerk is off base? His whole posting was to defend her against such charges. He endlessly praised her. I would imagine he is a little bit more in the know that you or I are on the types of people who are questioning her qualifications. He probably knows them personally.
The people referenced by Rosen were overwhelmingly democrats. Since he used anonymous sources, I can not name names. If you have evidence that these democrats don't exist, are in fact Republicans or that Rosen is flat out lying, I would be interested in hearing about it.
You may think that there is no such thing as backbiting, smearing, and poltical trickery on your side, but it exists, and it is in action right in front of your face.
Also, you are misinterpreting what I and others said, the apparent opposition isn't about her being a fire breathing liberal or a centrist, it is whether she can be a forceful enough voice to shape the court in a liberal way like Scalia has done on the right. More an issue of leadership than ideology.
The law clerk didn't reference anybody. He made a very general statement which he also couldn't quantify if he was called on it. Its funny how you know the people referenced by Rosen are "overwhelmingly" Democrats but you can't name any of them. News flash not all Democrats are liberals. As for Rosen lying see the Glenzilla post which exposes who one of Rosen's sources is "likely" to be, his brother in law who stands to gain if Elena Kagan is selected to the SCOTUS instead of Sotomayor. Again you referenced lefties but you can't name any who opposed Sotomayor because she isn't a liberal version of Scalia. Now if that doesn't translate into firebreathing liberal I don't know what does because most people don't reference Scalia for his "leadership". The smearing of Sotomayor is being done by conservatives and centrists, not liberals so as I said before your conclusions are way off base.
I only know they are democrats because that is what the story stated. If Rosen's source is fellow Democrat who would get a promotion from President Obama, isn't that proof that the smearing isn't just being done by right wingers? Also, Greenwald didn't accuse Rosen of lying. For Scalia, he must have some leadership, the left wing talking point for years was the Thomas votes however Scalia tells him to.
Greenwald also referenced Rebecca Traister and her disagreement with Rosen, yet she states that the the points he made about her being an effective liberal voice are valid concerns:
Rosen points to other perfectly valid concerns about Sotomayor, some broad and some specific, including that former prosecutors have complaints about the tightness and quality of her opinions and that she may not present a "clear liberal alternative" to the conservatives on the court.
I've noticed that Mr. Ambinder posts a lot of things that can be used by the contards in their endless finger wagging.
"See, even liberals like Marc Ambinder think your choice for (fill in the blank) is loony.
Ambinder definitely isn't a liberal. He is a conservative. But he is disenchanted with the GOP.
Glad you linked to Greenwald's most excellent takedown of the noxious fools. From telecom amnesty, to torture, to the vapidity of the MSM that man has done the Lord's work. As far as I'm concerned, Greenwald's blog can't be hyped enough.
Rosen's problem is that he's just so used to airing the prejudices of disgruntled conservative white men as the political center/conventional wisdom, and hasn't quite adjusted to a new world in which the electorate is not only a bit further to the left than he is used to, but also the existence of a vibrant blogosphere out there with sharp cats who's sole mission in life is to ruthlessly seek out, challenge, and destroy weak, unsubstantiated bullshit. I mean Greenwald and Serwer have literally manhandled this man's article---and I'm willing to bet they didn't have to do much to fuck it up.
Good points. I'd also add that demographically, things are changing. The latino population is growing quickly, making it even more likely to get serious push-back
Isn't there a difference here that's likely to be glossed over? Critiques over Bush's picks have been over the legal philosophy, judicial behavior, etc. Or the lack thereof.
Here, the critiques are most specifically NOT about that. Why?
I'd guess there were two factors: There's nothing automatically disqualifying about Sotomayor, (unlike Harriet Meyers), no one's been ambitious enough to do the work, and she's a Hispanic woman, and everyone knows they're crazy and strident.
TNC, props for calling out the true King of the Anonymous Sources Marc Ambinder. The guy is a wanting hack and lines like the one you pulled out about Rosen and his "respectable center" creds just further cement his follower status. Ambinder should work for TMZ.
You were way early and right on this one, my latina daughter thanks you. :P
It has probably begun to occur to Mr. Rosen, unless he is in complete denial, or at the very least it is salutary to wish such a come to Jesus moment, that wisdom trumps intelligence, and the lack thereof sinks reputations.
Ambinder's off his game here. I told him so over there, in more detail. His story was practically Halpernian in how it swallowed and regurgitated the beltway CW, allowing his frat brothers then cite him as a "source" when they did the same.
Ambinder isn't off his game---this is par for the course for him, really. Did you read his blog during the election season? I think I read, maybe, one genuinely original thought during the entire ordeal. Everything else was just mindless stenography of whatever conventional wisdom happened to be farting around Washington that particular week. So I no one should have been shocked to see him doing his level best to keep this phony-ass shitstorm swirling.
"Rosen is attacking Sotomayor's ability to do the necessary intellectual heavy-lifting, while explicitly neglecting to do any of his own."
I don't think that's quite right. Rosen didn't say he didn't read any of her opinions, but that he didn't read enough of them to make up his own mind. If you read between the lines, it sounds like (to me, at least) he read enough to decide he agreed with the criticisms of the various anonymous commenters, but he didn't want to come out and say that publicly. So claiming he didn't read enough of her work to make up his own mind is, the way I read it, more of a dodge than an admission of laziness. Granted, it does leave him open to the charge you make here.
Coates,
keep on this.
And yes, Ambinder needs to be bitchslapped too.
Greenwald's smackdowns have been wonderful.
Where are the Latinos pushing back against this tripe?
Where are the Latino political blogs? I found one on a quick search of Google, Latino Politics Blog, but no mention in the recent posts on its front page about Sotomayor. Maybe you can ask the fellow who writes that blog his opinion.
Update: that fellow said he'd been too busy to blog about Sotomayor but he referred me to a Latina blogger who had posted on the subject, Alisa Valdes-Rodgriguez. She erroneously considers TNR conservative, but she makes the some historical points about oppression and identity that may resonate with readers of this blog.
That's an awesome post, thanks for the link.