After two days of Sotomayor testimony I thought of Jeffrey Rosen’s piece on Sotomayor back in May (before he had to backpedal and support her so as not to embarrass the “team”). I don’t think much of his temperament criticism, but his analysis of her legal and intellectual capabilities seems exactly on the money:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. ”
[. . .]
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Has she said anything to dispel these concerns? Whether examining her verbal skills, her command of the law or her intellectual acuity, I come away thinking she is one of the least impressive Supreme Court nominees to come along in recent memory. Judge Robert Bork was obviously not everyone’s ideal judge, but the man’s intellectual prowess was undeniable and he refused to lie about his views. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frankly charming and sharp-witted in her testimony and could march the senators through the evolution of a number of strains of jurisprudence.
Whether you agreed with their philosophy or not, you had the sense with the Clinton, Reagan, and George W. Bush nominees (yes, I leave Souter off the list) that there was good reason to put them on the Court. You listened for a day or even and hour and said, “Yes, that’s a Supreme Court Justice.” It was hard to dispute, even if you disagreed with one or another on his or her judicial methodology, that the nominee was bringing some intellectual heft.
Does anyone really have that sense from Sotomayor? And all of this is made worse, much worse, by her ham-handed efforts to distance herself from her own speeches and deny her own involvement with PRLDEF.
Rosen was trying to warn his liberal compatriots that they could do “better” than Sotomayor. He was right and should get some credit for his effort. Imagine if Diane Wood or Kathleen Sullivan, both liberal in philosophy but undeniably impressive, had been up there over the last couple of days. I suspect that conservatives would have been staring at their shoes, struggling for reasons to say “no” and grudgingly acknowledging that the nominee was going to add something to the Court beyond her gender.
The question is not whether Sotomayor will get through, but why the president felt so compelled to select her. If he was desperate to find a Latina, he should have found a wise one.
The MSM may find it hard to abandon his prime time efforts since he is their candidate. As they finally go back to regular programming and ignore his flailing attempts to be relevant, his ego will take a major hit. I wonder how he will handle it. There is no there there.
If he believes his own lies is that sincerity or stupidity?
Do you get the feeling that Obama asks himself how much it would cost to save the world? Seriously, what rational leader of the free world would present this budget?
Call it the Messianic Budget. Mike K #1, makes a great point. Obama was the Messiah, the Great Redeemer. When it dawns on him that he is just human and has to work within the confines of reality and not transcend it, how will he handle that?
It must be Wednesday:
Jennifer Rubin reflexively hates whatever Obama did and said Tuesday;
Republicans remain mired in impotent rage;
Almost two-thirds of Americans still love Obama;
Democrats dominate on virtually every major issue of the day;
Alaska’s political news is dominated by yet another ethics complaint against Sarah Palin;
the President is a lock to get everything he wants in his latest legislative effort, in this case, his budget;
Meanwhile, Republicans still have no new ideas and have put forth no realistic alternatives
But not everything’s the same. Democrats again have a solid lead in Rasmussen’s generic ballot. The Dow is within about 100 points of its inauguration day close. Tim Geithner is winning raves for his bank plan. And MSNBC hosts have begun to wish aloud that the Republican Party weren’t so completely irrelevant and disengaged from the actual issues of the day, because America might benefit from a genuine two-party debate.
Teleprompter to Mike #5 – “good job, read that off beautifully!”
Happy days are here again?
What about all those Obamavilles the Ebony reporter asked Potus about last night?
I disagree: I think his press conference was a big success for Obama. Now, I am fully against him — I think he’s a smooth talking radical. A dangerous one. But, last night was supposed to present a boring, ‘don’t be worried, Americans” so that they wouldn’t pay as much attention when he attempts to ram socialism on us (his budget) when most of us aren’t looking. In that, he succeeded. He looked good; answered questions forthrightly (if disingenuously) and said nothing controversial. It was a ruse and it worked.
“Does he actually believe his budget is going to cut the deficit in half? Is he serious that a gargantuan increase in spending and debt is part and parcel of our recovery? ”
He believes it as much as you fail to believe it. Rubin – it’s not like poeple look to YOu or the right-wing in general for credulity on economic policy or fprecasting – you’ve guys have been wrong way too often – and had the reigns of power for far too long to now shrug your shoulders and blame everyone else!
Do you think we’re ALL idiots?
Read number five above. You may not like what he’s saying – but every point is true.
We’ll see. I don’t think Obama will be able to keep his balloon aloft with just reassuring hot air and evasions much longer.
“We’ll see. I don’t think Obama will be able to keep his balloon aloft with just reassuring hot air and evasions much longer”
Good point – if only the stock market would go back up…
If only durable goods orders would rise…
If only home sales would begin to rsie again…
“And MSNBC hosts have begun to wish aloud that the Republican Party weren’t so completely irrelevant and disengaged from the actual issues of the day, because America might benefit from a genuine two-party debate.”
Sorry #9 that we oppose 1) a deficit on steroids 2) abrogating the constitution 3) apologizing to enemis 4) An agenda with the goal of National socialism (Mmm, isn’t that how “Nazi” got its name?).
Yes, we oppose these things. Proudly and without reservations. Now, run along.
The thing is, whatever the cost of O’s budget, no one objecting to it seems to deny its objectives. Do we not need energy independence? Is healthcare not making our industry noncompetitive and Medicare a timebomb? Are we not failing to educate our kids? Is the infrastructure not crumbling (and is it not key to our being the best place on earth to dump cheap goods?)
So, even allowing that printing money leads to inflation – itself not clearly a bad thing since we have to default on our trade debt in one way or another, and our trading partners seem ok with the slowly eroding purchasing power of money they never intend to purchase anything with anyway – just what would opponents of the budget change to make it more “responsible?”
Warpublican writes:
No, but you and fellow trolls are. You come here and are rude to Contention’s Jen and Abe by calling them vile nicknames, talk to yourselves, and don’t change anyone’s opinion on anything. You vent about Joos, neocons, and Republicans.
You can’t find a better venue to express your problems. I’d say idiot is too nice a word for you.
“No, but you and fellow trolls are. You come here and are rude to Contention’s Jen and Abe by calling them vile nicknames, talk to yourselves, and don’t change anyone’s opinion on anything. You vent about Joos, neocons, and Republicans.
You can’t find a better venue to express your problems. I’d say idiot is too nice a word for you.”
#14, this is wrong of you. Unlike the Left, we allow complete free speech. They shut people down. It’s perfectly healthy to have them say exactly what they want here. Let our facts and analyses win the day.
No Seth, most boards are moderated no matter the political perspective. Posting on a blog is a privilege not a right.
This blog can be run anyway its owners want. But you loose good posters when you allow the inmates to run the asylum.
Seth Swirsky -
I agree with the last sentence of your #12. Do you?
I believe in completely free speech, too, but not in all venues. I do want to hear from the Left. I just don’t want to hear noise; I want to hear argument. Ditto, the Right; hence my #13.
I guess when you’re in love, the whole world (or 2/3 of it anyway) must be, too. I presume for the remaining third, a significant portion must really like Obama a lot, but think it’s better if they remain friends. Another portion might be sworn to another, but willing to have a fling with Obama.
Of those in the righteous 2/3, how many are willing to crawl over a mile of broken glass to kiss Obama’s feet? How many would be willing to bear Obama’s children? How many fly into uncontrollable anger when someone says something critical of Obama? How many find themselves unable to focus on work, their thoughts constantly flying to Obama, Obama, Obama…
#17: “I believe in completely free speech, too, but not in all venues. I do want to hear from the Left. I just don’t want to hear noise”
Most all that comes from the left is noise. so, let it be seen and heard FREELY. remember, we are the party of total freedom. let them be rude and crude and cut off debate –censor radio. we have nothing to fear from letting them let it all hang out. it exposes the vacuousness of their arguments.
#16: “No Seth, most boards are moderated no matter the political perspective. Posting on a blog is a privilege not a right.
No it’s not. Free speech is a right. So allow them to freely speak.
“This blog can be run anyway its owners want. But you loose good posters when you allow the inmates to run the asylum.”
Well, we live and will be ruled in their asylum now. To close their right to speak would be silly on our part — then we’d be like them: people who prevent free speech. those that limit free speech do so for a reason: they’ve already lost on all the arguments. The Left cannot beat our arguments.
They will see when they collapse the US economy and everyone’s 401k’s are worthless.. Unfortunately, it’s the price we have to pay when an idealogue gets elected. With Carter, his malfeasance was mostly limited to “Iran” (and a terrible economy, but those always come around).
Seth -
Who appointed you spokesman for “we” or any “party”? Do you think you have walked into the local Republican clubhouse? I’m a Republican on account of there are only two major parties, and I agree more with the Rs than the Ds on most things. But free speech is hardly a Republican virtue. Thats’ a libertarian thing. Are you talking about “We” the Libertarian party?
Meanwhile, your notion of free speech is simply juvenile. Free speech means that anyone can publish anything they want in their blog or their pamphlets. You can stand up on a soapbox in the town square and extol the benefits of pigf-cking till the cows come home. But you don’t have the right to give a speech in the public library, and you can’t shout anything, not just “fire,” in a theater, and there is absolutely no reason why the managers of a blog shouldn’t insist upon and enforce civility on their site.
Free speech is a right only against the government. In a private forum, where we are invited guests, it has no relevance at all.
Look Lawrence, my main point here –and I’ve had so much experience on various political blogs — most liberal blogs, after a while shut down any dissenting talk, especially from those on the right. Conservative blogs don’t. I’ll give you an example. I was asked a few years ago to write for the Huffington Post. I said to them, ‘you’re not going to like what I write because I come straight after the left, who I openly have contempt for. They said, ‘no problem.’ That was until my posts beat out (Arrianna’s posts for “Most Read”. The vitriol in their “comments” only made my points and positions stronger. (Oh, now they print my stuff at 2 in the morning for 1 minute!).
I was just trying to say that it makes us different by allowing them to say whatever they please, because it’s usually rude, crude or stupid.
Somehow, mike, I don’t see rangel, geithner (taxes? what taxes?), b. frank (“there is no crisis”), c. dodd, schumer (“americans don’t care about pork”), the effervescent Maxine Waters (pause button…), and Hillary, gushing with her reset button dominate on every major issue of the day. If reality doesn’t catch up to them in 2010, its because most republicans still don’t now how to cling to even moderate positions on issues of the day (spending, taxes, role of government, etc.). In other words, act like liberal democrat lite (I just want half the big government as opposed to that guy over there).