SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Case Against Sotomayor

POLITICS MAY 4, 2009

The Case Against Sotomayor

BY JEFFREY ROSEN

This is the first in a series of reports by TNR legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen about the strengths and weaknesses of the leading candidates on Barack Obama’s Supreme Court shortlist.

A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor’s biography is so compelling that many view her as the presumptive front-runner for Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. She grew up in the South Bronx, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. Her father, a manual laborer who never attended high school, died a year after she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight. She was raised by her mother, a nurse, and went to Princeton and then Yale Law School. She worked as a New York assistant district attorney and commercial litigator before Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended her as a district court nominee to the first President Bush. She would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, if you don’t count Benjamin Cardozo. (She went to Catholic schools and would also be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court if she is, in fact, Catholic, which isn’t clear from her official biography.) And she has powerful supporters: Last month, the two senators from New York wrote to President Obama in a burst of demographic enthusiasm, urging him to appoint Sotomayor or Ken Salazar.

Sotomayor’s former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. “She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background,” says one former clerk. “She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are.”

Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family--working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

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. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

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.)

Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. “I know the word on the street is that she’s not the brainiest of people, but I didn’t have that experience,” said one former clerk for another judge. “She’s an incredibly impressive person, she’s not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that’s great.” This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. “She commands attention, she’s clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she’s funny, she’s voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way,” she said. “She’s a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?”

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. It’s possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they’re not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they’d like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.

Jeffrey Rosen is the legal affairs editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 642 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

642 comments

What a ridiculous hatchet job. I've seen Sotomayor on the bench, and I've read her opinions, and she's clearly one of the smartest judges on her circuit -- which is really saying something. She is whip-smart. Her questions are extremely incisive. It is almost as though you've written a profile that was 180 degrees off from the truth. Bizarre.

- NY Lawyer

May 3, 2009 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, I appreciate that you're trying to do journalism here. But something has gone badly wrong. I am not a Sotomayor clerk, but I've seen her in action on the bench and my closest friends have clerked for many judges on her circuit (including her). We've all been talking about her since the Souter announcement. In my opinion, the picture you have painted in this article is more than just off the mark -- it's WAY off the mark. Sotomayor is notable among judges on her circuit mainly for being unusually brilliant. She's intimidating at oral arguments not because she's a "bully" (an accusation I find bizarre) but because she prepares so meticulously that quite often she knows the law and the facts better than the oral advocates! You describe her questions as not getting to the heart of the matter. If you had asked me what I thought after watching her at oral argument, I would have said she was notable for the opposite reason: her questions really cut straight to the heart of the matter. She is very impressive. I am somewhat concerned, after reading this profile, about whether some of the people with whom you spoke may be trying to undercut Sotomayor deliberately. If these were their honest impressions, then I'd respectfully query whether those impressions might have been colored a bit by her race or gender. It's hard for me to come up with another good explanation for why you would have heard things that are so completely different from what everyone I know who worked around her says, and for that matter, with what I saw with my own eyes. I'm somewhat taken aback at the portrait you've painted.

- Yale Law '07

May 3, 2009 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is total BS. Sotomayor is one of the sharpest & most impressive judges you will ever encounter -- left, right, or center. Ask anyone who appears in front of CA2. I say that as somebody who's not particularly invested in her being the nominee. Whatever. But I know a hack job when I see one, and this column is one. I don't know if Rosen is the hack, or if he's had some conversations with hacks. But this column just does not ring true. It's especially crazy to state the 'word on the street' that you quote here. On my street, the word is that, yeah, Sotomayor is intimidating -- intimidatingly brilliant.

- JR

May 4, 2009 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm telling you: Salazar.

- dylanposer

May 4, 2009 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is not the Sonia Sotomayor I know, and it absolutely breaks my heart to read this travesty. She is a stellar judge. If she has a reputation for one single thing, it is for asking extremely tough questions at oral argument that cut straight to the heart of the toughest issues in the case. The quotes in this article are bizarre. Nobody I know thinks any of that stuff, and there is just no basis for it. I think you have either (a) stumbled on some sources who don't like her for some reason -- or (b) at best, you've stumbled on sources who don't realize they are unconsciously discounting the strengths of a stunning judge because of factors like her race and gender.

- MA Lawyer

May 4, 2009 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this "report" is not very illuminating and I'm not sure I'm convinced she's not an "intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice." maybe if you referenced some opinions? had less qualifiers?

- spaghetti

May 4, 2009 at 1:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a right-winger, I'm delighted. It means no net loss of conservatives/libertarians, as one intellectually unimpressive and non-influential liberal (Souter), is replaced by another. If this article is correct about Sotomayer's lack of brilliance, then not only will she fail to leave much of an imprint on the court in the long-term, but during her tenure she'll have trouble swinging Kennedy to the liberal side. The problem is, Obama is smart (though not half as smart as he thinks he is.) So the President will likely nominate a Justice who will have a greater influence.

- Brian

May 4, 2009 at 3:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How about a link to an opinion or two by her? She doesn't sound like The One based on your interviews, but who knows - its all heresay as they say. I'd bet the lawyer/judge contingent in Talkback and tthe rest of us mooks would like to judge her depth of understanding of the law for ourselves. The person who said Since when are Supreme Court nominees the smartest?" was frighteningly silly. I already miss Souter.

- WandreyCer1

May 4, 2009 at 6:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love the smell of gossip in the morning...

- SMB

May 4, 2009 at 7:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...smells like modern journalism...

- SMB

May 4, 2009 at 7:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I enjoyed reading the material, I think the headline of the story is misleading. It should be, "The case against already making up your mind about Sotomayer." Or, "No Rush to Judgment on Sotomayer." The need for a strong advocate on the court is worth further investigation.

- Nusholtz

May 4, 2009 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor has been a judge for a long time, so I don't buy Rosen's sketchy criticism of her. Nor do I buy his excuse that he hasn't the time to read her opinions. She either is or is not not well-suited for the Court. If she is a bully during oral argument, then she may provide balance for Scalia. If she is a stickler for grammar and punctuation, then she may provide balance for Roberts. I suspect Rosen is concerned about Sotomayer because she was appointed to the federal court by the elder Bush and may not be a reliable liberal voice on the Court. Maybe not. But, as a liberal myself, I would rather have an effective judge with liberal leanings than an ineffective one who is always the reliable liberal.

- raylward

May 4, 2009 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're really sourcing this with clerks for other judges, and former prosecutors? See any possible bias there?

- J. D.

May 4, 2009 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Jeff--FYI: If the 2d Circuit works anything like the other circuits, panel members circulate memos with both technical and substantive suggestion. If there is a typo in an opinion, you better catch it before it is published. If a judge only focuses on technical edits, that's odd. But if the judge includes technical edits in his/her comments, that's perfectly normal.

- Legal Groupie

May 4, 2009 at 9:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interestingly, this assessment is consistent with the views expressed in the Almanac for the Federal Judiciary, a Zagat's guide of sorts to federal judges. A few comments: "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

- Anonymous

May 4, 2009 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I want my justices unassailably brilliant. What about Cabranes? The hell with the male-female thing.

- Mike

May 4, 2009 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like there are two objections - she is a pushy broad and not bright enough. I think on the evidence presented the first sounds a lot like what women have faced, and on the second we should demand some more than '(legal) street opinion'. Admittedly, its very hard to say what being not up to it intellectually means, but at least one should try.

- DougChalmers

May 4, 2009 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know Judge Sotomayor but I know this kind of innuendo when it comes to Latinos. The point is that they are always too emotional and not cerebral enough. The calculating mind seems always to be white or white by experience (Obama). In times past Liberals have been worse at this than conservatives who simply believe that all Latinos will tend liberal and so they rarely bother expressing more nuance explanations of their qualifications. Yet, it is Latino civil rights lawyers who are at the forefront of real people issues. It is also Latinos who are the forefront of union organizing effectively, and so on and so forth. Sotomayor may not be the best judge and we should get the best, but lets drop the "may not be smart enough" line which is the height of subtle bias that liberals have had against Latinos since they noticed that this group was not willing to simply wait for African Americans to get their rights before they started protesting, or were not as obsessed on cultural issues as were white liberals. If liberals really want to develop a governing majority they are going to have to stop this kind of pigeon-holing of a group of people. If you think I am overreacting, name one Latino that people in liberal magazines such as this have ever praised as "being smart enough"?

- Ignacio M. Garcia

May 4, 2009 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." So don't write the bloody article. Honestly.

- K. Grant

May 4, 2009 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hopefully this is the type of analysis, though more in depth, that Professor Obama will read in making his choice. He hasn't the time to thoroughly canvass her craftsmanship, to divine her mind, but surely it is just as important that be done by minds equal to the task as is the minute sounding of her stands and history. President Obama will have more than one chance to appoint a great to the Court, but as rare as that is, the chance of each proving a true legacy appointment is comparable to the odds of a Cert. grant.

- Staggslaw

May 4, 2009 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A good question is, Would Sonia Sotomayor be regarded as less intelligent or thoughtful if she were a white male?

- DR

May 4, 2009 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This would be a useful piece if directed at someone who is not looking for diversity and a Hispanic above all. If, however, Obama is inclined that way, he won't care -- unless he can come up with a better Latina than her.

- Franz Hal

May 4, 2009 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the below is so, why not wait and do more research before writing such a critique.. And why buried the fact you don't really know... "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. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities."

- Steve

May 4, 2009 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is Sotomayor another of those jurists with a fluff-humanities BA degree or has she actually learned any math or science beyond Baby Algebra and Baby Physics?

- Jimbino

May 4, 2009 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She's not too smart and a bully on the bench. And the liberal New Republic sees that as a negative? She sounds like a cinch for the court, if the above description is accurate. It would make her a mirror image of the guy who occupies the White House.

- Dennis

May 4, 2009 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Instaputz: Jeffrey Rosen, September 19, 2005 issue of TNR: "The truth is that Roberts's nomination as chief justice was a peace offering from Bush to Democrats and a gift to principled liberal and conservative defenders of judicial restraint. Rather than listening to the siren song of ideological interest groups who are urging them to cast a symbolic but futile vote of opposition, Democrats should instead vote to confirm Roberts as chief justice with gratitude and relief." How's that workin' out?

- blogenfreude

May 4, 2009 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In building a new generation of judicial leadership that will influence American law for decades to come, selecting individuals of vision and the highest intellectual and professional talents is critical. I am in no position to make an informed judgment on Judge Sotomayor's qualities in these regards. Clearly, her personal story is a compelling one, and certainly includes qualities that President Obama has highlighted as desirable. But it is also clear that several of the other potential candidates named by the "Great Mentioner" (including women and members of unrepresented or underrepresented minorities) are among the country's most brilliant legal thinkers, and many also have (or are currently accumulating) experiences in other branches of government--experiences especially critical on a Court in which former members of Courts of Appeal are severely overrepresented. There are other sorts of diversity to consider. These are issues that require some ventilation prior to the President's nomination and the confirmation process. I look forward to further articles in this series and the broader discussion that will result.

- The Wise Bard

May 4, 2009 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds like she only got as far as she did because of affirmative action of one kind or another. Ask yourself this: would she be anywhere near this position if she was not a Puerto Rican woman? We need this and similar decisions to be color and gender blind. Otherwise we will get mediocrity and every objectively qualified minority will be suspect.

- ansik28

May 4, 2009 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to respect Mr. Rosen. After reading this piece, I'd place him in the category of poor college daily reporters. This is like the hacket jobs done by the Yale Daily News for the Yale College Council race. Rosen apparently had a deadline (this is an on-going series, after all), and he talked to a few people, he got a overarching theme, and then because of time constraints didn't bother to challenge these assumptions. Understandable, but inexcusable. I actually think that not only should Mr. Rosen be ashamed, but he should write another article — after, perhaps, having "read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them" and having "talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths." After doing so, it might be legitimate to come to the same conclusive. Absent that, this will be hung on my wall of shame for teaching people how not to report.

- Yale Undergrad

May 4, 2009 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I appreciate a thorough examination of any potential candidate, but unnamed sources with possible biases pushing their own unverified- and in some cases, unverifiable- opinions is not very helpful. This would be bolstered with some actual facts to back up all of these opinions.

- colby

May 4, 2009 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've argued before 2-CA many times. The portrait of Sotomayor that Rosen paints in this piece is right on the money. Sotomayor lacks both the temperament and intellectual heft requisite for a Supreme Court justice. She's petty and imperious and widely viewed as something of a lightweight in the judicial community. There are much better candidates out there. Obama just has to be deliberate about identifying the best nominee and not give in to external pressures and conjecture.

- Gaius

May 4, 2009 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a truly awful piece

- Nick

May 4, 2009 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first commenters here do not represent everyone. I worked on a case in front of Judge Sotomayor a few years ago and spoke to a couple of experienced practitioners who had both had negative experiences with her. She can be a bully and closed-minded; her demeanor at oral argument is as described by Mr. Rosen; asking questions that seem designed to show off how tough she is but not to aid in deciding the case. Our experience was the same. And the outcome was much like Ricci. In a complicated case, she issued an unpublished opinion later that did nothing but cut and paste portions of the government's brief and made no attempt to analyze the issues (or provide guidance for future cases). I'm a Democrat and Obama supporter. There are brilliant women on the short lists that have been circulated and I have no qualms about a Latino. But my view on this nomination is ABS -- anyone but Sotomayor.

- dc lawyer

May 4, 2009 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love this country. A journalist who has hardly done any research can just cast aspersions and innuendo with impunity. After reading your article on Judge Sotomayor, I am left wondering why you wrote it. If you have not read her opinions, then why not take the time and read them? You might have leaned something! What a hacket job! And you wonder why the right is sinking?

- iddi adam

May 4, 2009 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." So why did you publish then?

- kelvin

May 4, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On another thread, I endorsed Sotomayor, but only on gender/ethnicity grounds. That is, she's a likely choice. For me, it doesn't matter at all who is nominated. Souter was a fairly reliable liberal vote, and the new person will be as well, only more so. The direction of the Court will not, and indeed cannot change with this pick. If Scalia drops over, THEN you'll have change.

- butchie b

May 4, 2009 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She sounds like a female Obama, but hispanic...Obama isn't that smart either, so this would be a typical pick for him...two not so smart people working together...sounds like his whole administration. This whole White House, Admin are such a stupid liberal lot...2012 can't come fast enough.

- JPTR

May 4, 2009 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ditto the above. I am also at a total loss. As another commentator wrote as well: "You're really sourcing this with clerks for other judges, and former prosecutors? See any possible bias there?"

- Yale Law '05

May 4, 2009 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Mr. Rosen! What a refreshing piece! It's rare to read something where the journalist actually admits to you that he was too lazy to finish the job: "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." Keep up all that good hard work!

- brad

May 4, 2009 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as the new appointee doesn't attempt to legislate from the bench, I could care less what their gender is, their race is, or how much of a struggle it was for them to get where they are. Interpret the law as it was written, not as you would prefer it to be. Otherwise, you're not representing anything more than your own personal agenda, and you're certainly not living up to your oath of office.

- Gristly Atoms

May 4, 2009 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Contrary to quite a few posters here, I'm no legal eagle. That said, I've watched the CA2 en banc appeal in the Maher Arar case. Judge Sotomayor didn't miss a beat: both the government and defense lawyers were peppered with incisive questions that touched both the details and substance of the case. I'll take her whip-smart approach to the cold, analytical, but common sense-free take of Judge Scalia, or the rabid misanthropic hue of Judge Thomas, any day of the week.

- FrancoisT

May 4, 2009 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait until she goes up against a true legal genius like Antonin Scalia. I'll bet he's praying that affirmative action case gets the nod.

- Danielle

May 4, 2009 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is very fine troll bait/red meat for angry white males(TM) who think every non-white female (and male for that matter) got to where she is because of affirmative action. Indeed, some of the comments above reflect this. It will be interesting to see this line of attack if Judge Sotomayor is brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a nominee. I can see some goober senator from Alabama or some place asking her if it's true, based on unnamed sources, that she's actually kind of dumb and a real firecracker. I can't wait. Nice job, Rosen.

- Sami R

May 4, 2009 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How is this serious journalism? "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." Sourcing an article with comments from former CTA2 clerks-- i.e. fresh-faced arrogant kids from the top law schools-- without reading or analyzing any of her opinions or jurisprudence in depth-- hardly strikes me as intellectually rigorous reporting. Shame on you, Jeff Rosen, for doing such a sloppy job.

- Another NY lawyer/ex CTA2 clerk

May 4, 2009 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an American Spectator-y type article. You are left with the impression that this woman is not smart, from a bunch of anonymous remarks. Jeffrey Rosen has his panties in a knot. I love the "an elderly jurist" told her to hush. The attempted portrayal of this woman as a persnickety dumb female who talks too much and had the gall to edit punctuation when asked to review a document, is hilarious. Rosen, you take the cake.

- Becky

May 4, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too many people saying she hasn't the intellectual helt and further has temperament problems is not a good mix for a clean nomination process. Those two qualities (brains and temperament) should never be on the table at a Senate hearing -

- Eli '84

May 4, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this article is a crock pure and simple

- BRL

May 4, 2009 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find this article unbelievable. For one. Sotomayer graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and was an editor of the Yale Law review. Affirmative action did not get her these honors but BRAINS and HARD WORK. Secondly, as for the persons that the author spoke to about Sotomayer, they sound like a group of people who are jealous of her achievements, smarts and confidence. Based on her personal background (from a average working class family),experience on the bench coupled with her strong personality, I see her as a REAL WINNER. Sotomayer is just what is needed on the Supreme Court because she can hold her own and will not be intimidated by those male tyrant conservatives ! From an attorney who recommends Sotomayer !

- LSMaryland

May 4, 2009 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is just sloppy journalism. Sotomayor may or may not have the intellectual rigor we want in a Supreme Court Justice, but there is no way to tell from an article that is based on anonymous gossip from a handful of former law clerks (most for other judges, it seems) and prosecutors and cites to a single panel decision in which no written opinion was issued!

- Dr Mom

May 4, 2009 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a legal scholar, I fall way short since I chose not to attend Law School. As someone who has had to work with court rulings in both civil and criminal law, as well as Constitutional law I do have years of experiance. My only question with regards to Sotomayor is does she respect legal precident. In other words will she decide cases based on previous rulings or try to use a faith based litmus test that goes in violation of the ideals of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Perhaps for those who wish to impose said judgements to rewriting the law, they should look at Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom passed in Febuary 1789 by the Virginia General Assembly. There would be a good place to start any questioning of this individual's legal reasoning.

- idealthoughts

May 4, 2009 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The American people should always get the best individual available for the US Supreme Court!!

- karl anglin

May 4, 2009 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is very fine troll bait/red meat for angry white males(TM) who think every non-white female (and male for that matter) got to where she is because of affirmative action. Indeed, some of the comments above reflect this. It will be interesting to see this line of attack if Judge Sotomayor is brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a nominee. I can see some goober senator from Alabama or some place asking her if it's true, based on unnamed sources, that she's actually kind of dumb and a real firecracker. I can't wait. Nice job, Rosen.

- Sami R

May 4, 2009 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I look forward to the apparently brilliant commenters here explaining how obama (magna, harvard law) and sotomayor (summa, princeton) are 'not smart'. Go on..

- J.06

May 4, 2009 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you're actually complaining about Obama's intelligence when we had 8 years of moron light (not quite up to the moron standard)?

- bob

May 4, 2009 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So based on various hearsay comments from possibly disgruntled clerks, she is either an able addition to the court of a big meanie who is just not that smart. Wow, thanks for the insight. Frankly I would just be happy if she is able to interpret the Constitution and allow our Legislature to dictate policy (the Legislature won't like having to do their sometimes unpleasant job).

- Matt in Chicago

May 4, 2009 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This qualifies as a profile? There's nothing here but anonymous, unsubstantiated personal opinions. Give me a brief, a case- *something* to back up what's being asserted here. I know that journalism and legal practice are very different ballgames- but both require *some* understanding of EVIDENCE. Back to 1L year with you, Rosen- this piece is yellow to its core.

- NothingHereButHearsay

May 4, 2009 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You write, "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." Shouldn't you get the facts first - you just trashed your own article.

- Jerry

May 4, 2009 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the article was not researched well, so therefore is not a good commentary on Judge Sotomayor abilities. For all the judges that I have seen and heard on my visits to courts,many judges can be salty and some times ill prepared depending on the case as well as have great judicial temperament the very next day. For those that say that Obama is not that smart, I think that is some very sour grapes especially to those that have never interacted with the man. To be elected editor of the Harvard Law review takes smarts and other qualities many of us will never experience in two life times. Then to win the presidency, how many of your friends have the smarts to do that? Sotomayor couldn't be any worse than Clarence Thomas, that great intellectual stalwart!

- NSK

May 4, 2009 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why worry about any of this when we can appoint Elena Kagan and be done with it. She's clearly got the brilliance, and she's universally regarded as a bridge-builder. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't find a way to bring Kennedy onto the liberal side of the bench. I feel sure Sotomayor's demeanor will only alienate potential allies.

- Judiciary Wonk

May 4, 2009 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So our lightweight, narcissistic new President is going to nominate a lightweight narcissistic Supreme Court Justice. Cool. It has a nice symmetry to it, don't ya think?

- Eye Doc

May 4, 2009 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A good question is, Would Sonia Sotomayor be regarded as less intelligent or thoughtful if she were a white male?" It wouldn't matter because she wouldn't be considered for the job!

- Mike

May 4, 2009 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen's piece is truly awful. Any capable judge will have enemies, and any judge on the bench for a long period of time will make mistakes. I think if Mr. Rosen had bothered to read a few of the relevant options, he might have more credibility. But no judge with significant experience being could pass the test he lays out - that everyone has to support the judge in question.

- Lost in PA

May 4, 2009 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I feel the need to point out Clarence Thomas, talk about not being the brightest bulb! But, he's a man, so apparently his lack of intellect and abrasive manner are okay. Now, as for "Obama isn't that smart either," commentaries - are you kidding me? Criticize his politics. Criticize his positions on certain issues. But to criticize his intellect demonstrates nothing more than your own failings in that arena. Perhaps you long for the days of that great intellectual George W. Bush?

- Kelly

May 4, 2009 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is unbelievable thoughtless, analytically retarded garbage. "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." Exactly!

- alex

May 4, 2009 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wrong page Mr. Rosen. BO wants demographics, not IQ. The real question her is what flavor woman he will pick. Hispanic, African American, or White. I am betting on AA, but I can't think like David Axelrod (for which I thank the Lord).

- Fat Man

May 4, 2009 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why would other clerks be biased? As an ex-circuit clerk myself, you tend to drink the kool-aid re: your own judge, but you get a decent perspective on the other judges that sit on your panels. I would think clerks working for other judges in the 2nd Cir. would be ideal sources.

- Jim

May 4, 2009 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why not discuss her holdings and opinions. This gossip girl stuff is useless.

- Martin

May 4, 2009 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pardon me for questioning if we need another person with a Catholic background on the court, practicing or not. That is a culture unto itself (no judgment here, just pretty accurate) and I believe that other spiritual cultures ought to be represented along with ethnicities, sexes and experiences.

- rain39

May 4, 2009 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, like a few other people I found this bizarre. Where did Jeffrey Rosen find all these people who want to trash Sotomayor? She has always had a pretty good reputation as far as I've ever heard -- a tough judge, intimidating, but smart. Apparently some people think otherwise and that's who Jeffrey Rosen talked to. I wonder if he goes back through his notes he would see any pattern in who it was that said all this. It's weird that all his sources would say the same thing and it's so out of line with what I hear.

- a lawyer

May 4, 2009 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too many statements from "anonymous" sources to give this piece any credibility whatsoever. Did you just make all this up while you were on the john? Seems so.

- Waiting for facts not heresay

May 4, 2009 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm in no position to speak directly to the substance of this article but can say that Judge Sotomayor's reputation as one of our Nation's preeminent appellate judges has made it out to these parts (Kentucky). I find her personal story compelling and inspiring. The Obama nominee that can most influence the outcome of Supreme Court cases these next few years is the one that can most often persuade Justice Kennedy to vote with her (or him) along with Justices Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg. I do not think it possible to reach the remainder of the Court on the most contentious of issues, regardless of intellectual heft.

- Robert L. Abell

May 4, 2009 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am shocked, shocked, to find that a minority female would face a whisper campaign saying she's not smart. Who ever heard of that before. What an amazing coincidence that the whispers just happen to match the exact stereotypes about her ethnicity & gender.

- shocked

May 4, 2009 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bummer, hit enter instead of return. Apologies if a partial duplicate appears. I sense astroturfing at the top of the thread. I expect that wherever a Sotomayor review appears, wham, a bunch of "lawyers" will show up to sing her praises, never to be seen again. They even use practically the same terms: I've seen her on the bench/every body knows she's brilliant, incisive etc. and btw, you're a racist misogynist hack. The talking points have clearly gone out! As her opinions are more closely examined, it will be easier to assess her fitness for SCOTUS. If she gets to the Senate, I would certainly want to pin down her role in the travesty of Ricci. So far, she seems to satisfy Obama's empathy profile and share his view of law and adjudication as "instruments" of social justice. There will be a clear ideological divide here, between those who agree and those who believe the mandate of the Supreme Court is to interpret existing law where underlying legislative intentions are not clear, and to determine where the Constitution trumps legislation altogether. Lest I be accused of dropping in myself, I have switched from posting under my former screen name as Fithian, in preference to using my own name.

- JM Hanes

May 4, 2009 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The well-oiled conservative machine that gave us both G. W. Bush and the Iraq War is grinding into action. Need opposition to Obama's already moderate pick? The New Republic chugs it out, right on schedule.

- markc

May 4, 2009 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Cheers Jeff. You have made a fool of yourself.

- sy

May 4, 2009 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama needs to find a total gargoyle. Over forty and nasty.

- dphorstick

May 4, 2009 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Laura Ingraham made many of these points in precisely the same way on Fox News Sunday yesterday, it's worth asking if she had advance access to this article, or if Mr. Rosen and she are simply relying on the same provided talking points. Did someone provide you these talking points, Rosen?

- ethan salto

May 4, 2009 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you haven't bothered to read enough of her opinions, or talk to people who have, you should just SU until you have done that. Basic journalism.

- The Frito Pundito

May 4, 2009 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm married to a clerk. This article seems like a load of BS. A similar case could be made against pretty much anyone using a bunch of anonymous quotes from former co-workers.

- anon_blue

May 4, 2009 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>>Obama isn't that smart either, so this would be a typical pick for him<< JPTR, you obviously don't deserve to have an opinion on this. Look, it's one thing to disagree, as I do, with the moves Obama makes. But to say he "isn't that smart" is ludicrous and defies all evidence to the contrary. Whereas President Bush was a legacy entrant into the Ivy League, Obama worked his way through and gained respect from his peers. That doesn't mean he will or won't be a good president. I don't know what he'll do, and what he's done so far has been so-so. But to essentially call him stupid is, in and of itself, a stupid assertion.

- Brendan D

May 4, 2009 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmm. A meritocracy? Why would you leave out being blind to econimc and social class and the connections that come with those. Your descritpion of mediocrity achieving status due to arguably less relevant attributes brings to mind a recent POTUS.

- Kok

May 4, 2009 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is truly the most pitiful excuse for journalism I have ever read in my forty years. It is nothing more than innuendo, a hit piece of the worst kind. This "article" wasn't even good enough for a high school newspaper, and any editor--high school, college or pro--worth his or her salt would never have allowed this unmitigated dreck to see the light of day. I'm embarrassed for you.

- Tony

May 4, 2009 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Enlightening-- Posted by blogenfreude, 26 of 70 "Jeffrey Rosen, September 19, 2005 issue of TNR: 'The truth is that Roberts's nomination as chief justice was a peace offering from Bush to Democrats and a gift to principled liberal and conservative defenders of judicial restraint. Rather than listening to the siren song of ideological interest groups who are urging them to cast a symbolic but futile vote of opposition, Democrats should instead vote to confirm Roberts as chief justice with gratitude and relief.' How's that workin' out?"

- Kok

May 4, 2009 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me add my voice to the chorus protesting the total abdication of journalistic standards in this piece. I clerked on the Second Circuit, for a different judge, and had occasion to read Sotomayor's opinions and memos, and see her on the bench on several occasions. My impression, which I believe to be widely shared among clerks, was that she is as sharp as any judge on that court, and that's saying something. But my anonymous assessment is not a basis for an article about her fitness to serve -- and neither are the opinions from nameless detractors that constitute Jeff Rosen's "research." His failure to give a fair assessment of Sotomayor's qualifications is all the more outrageous given that the profile he presents -- an intellectual middleweight with a sense of entitlement -- plays directly into the "affirmative action set-aside" storyline that opponents of her nomination will do doubt promote.

- former 2d cir clerk

May 4, 2009 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me add my voice to the chorus protesting the total abdication of journalistic standards in this piece. I clerked on the Second Circuit, for a different judge, and had occasion to read Sotomayor's opinions and memos, and see her on the bench on several occasions. My impression, which I believe to be widely shared among clerks, was that she is as sharp as any judge on that court, and that's saying something. But my anonymous assessment is not a basis for an article about her fitness to serve -- and neither are the opinions from nameless detractors that constitute Jeff Rosen's "research." His failure to give a fair assessment of Sotomayor's qualifications is all the more outrageous given that the profile he presents -- an intellectual middleweight with a sense of entitlement -- plays directly into the "affirmative action set-aside" storyline that opponents of her nomination will no doubt promote.

- former 2d cir clerk

May 4, 2009 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not personally familiar with Judge Sotomayor or her opinions, but I find the following sentence remarkable: "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." If you haven't taken the time to read the opinions, and you haven't spoken with enough people to have a "fully balanced picture" of the judge, what makes you think that you are in a position to write an article for publication in a national magazine? I agree with the comment that this is a thinly-disguised hatchet job, either by the writer or by those he has chosen to speak with.

- Richard

May 4, 2009 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have rarely read an article that was so willfully ignorant of the subject being discussed. TNR can take comfort,I suppose, in that the overblown promise of the headline is a common enough trick for the surviving media. Mr. Rosen, come back when you've done the research to write a piece on Judge Sotomayor. Of course, you will have to try extra hard to make up for the credibility you lost with this one. (And kudos to the skeptical commentators.)

- Shocked Reader

May 4, 2009 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't one of the things that they teach you in Journalism 101 is to avoid anonymous sources of possible because of their questionable intent? If people are wondering why print is tanking it is because it is devoid of journalists. I've come to expect journalism to be the bane of political writing, so I wasn't too taken aback by this merde-y-fluff. Besides, the constitution is a living document. If we want to follow through on the intent of the founding fathers we might as well reinstate slavery, take away universal suffrage, and judge your degree of humanity based on race.

- Amused

May 4, 2009 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe I can get a second job here--they don't seem to require any experience. Maybe I can write about "The Case Against String Theory" in physics. It is a subject I know very little about, but I know more about it than Rosen knows about law & justice.

- tomdurk

May 4, 2009 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've argued before her - while it pains me to say it (I share Sotomayor's demographics)she is not terribly smart - simple-minded questions at oral arg - often on irrelevant matters - says woefully inappropriate things off the bench, turning the heads of other panelists and raising eyebrows. Focuses on non-issues and gets snarky with lawyers. If she's nominated, oral argument transcripts are going to come back at her. Plus, her sweeping that firefighters reverse discrmination case under the rug like that (three sentence SO) will cause the whole Senate hearing to focus on her ethics and integrity - and in connection with a political hot potato issue no less. BO doesn't need this - should rather not have his nominee's hearing center around her handling of the case and views on that issue - discrimination against whites and her highly suspect ditching of the case with an uninformative SO so no one (not even fellow judges) knew about it. Judges sweeping stuff under the rug, especially where the effort was unsuccessful - (the Supremes took it on only weeks ago)? Bad ju-ju for a president who wants a nice clean process.

- ELI

May 4, 2009 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is hack journalism that any high-school journalist should be ashamed to submit for the school paper. There may be good reasons that Sotomayor is not the best person for the job, but when they are argued without substance, support, and with blithely admitted ignorance like Rosen does here, it's just sensationalistic, noise of the worst kind. TNR should be embarrassed for allowing this kind of crap to be published. Of course, TNR probably encourages crap like this, as everyone knows that sensationalistic stirring of the pot --> increased viewership --> more cash. Rosen should just skip the downhill slide and get straight to writing "The Case for Nominating Limbaugh" or "The Case for Nominating Lindsay Lohan's nether regions"

- Vince

May 4, 2009 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one is questioning Elena Kagan's intellectual heft or her temperament. Thus the rush to charges of sexism respecting concerns about Sotomayor rings a bit hollow, no? Gender card won't play here.

- ELI

May 4, 2009 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Jeff: I know it's hard to realize that you are never, ever, ever going to be on SCOTUS, but maybe you could just get over it and not be so bitter about people who have a chance. As to the substance of your article, I think it would be clearer if you just said the scary Puerto Rican lady from the Bronx must be dumb, but you wouldn't actually know because you didn't read anything she's ever written, and you haven't spoken to anyone with the balls to speak on the record about her. You are a loser, Jeff Rosen.

- Poor Jeff Rosen

May 4, 2009 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a lazy piece of work. This should never have been published. And if this is the first in your series on the other potential nominees, I can't wait to see if they are all as sloppy as this one. Better you should write about the weather. She may lack the smart speak manner of articulating that some possess but I am sure she is perfectly capable of reasoning, judging, and articulating in a perfectly understandable ordinary manner of speaking that would be very refreshing. Really! Frankly, I like her already. It's about time we have someone with a little "temperament" in the SC. Of course, I kept waiting for the next sentence to read ".... especially during her period...."

- TJ

May 4, 2009 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good to see Rosen upholding the journalistic standards TNR has come to be known for. Grant anonymity to anyone willing to attack the subject of your piece. Then openly admit you, yourself, haven't done enough research to have an opinion. Presto! Instant TNR classic.

- BradyB

May 4, 2009 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is something seriously wrong with Harvard Law credentials when an alumnus has to use a teleprompter at a Rodeo.

- True Observer

May 4, 2009 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well if Ralph Winter's footnote 1 in the Juncal case goes out of its way to suggest that a fellow judge misled litigants that certainly would be "unusual." Maybe not worth putting front and center of an analysis of Sotomayoran jurisprudence but maybe worth something. There's a link to the opinion so let's see what the footnote says. Gee, nothing of the sort. A garden variety distinguishing of a precedent. Either Rosen has no real experience reading appellate opinions or he didn't bother reading the only one he cited. Doesn't make me real interested in anything else he has to say.

- YLS etc.

May 4, 2009 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just have one thing to say about this screed: I hope Obama ignores it. Whether he chooses Sotomayor or someone else, I hope his people are not influenced at all by a screed filled with anonymous, bitter-sounding quotes from supposed "democrats" who unmistakably have it in for this judge. (No way would I say these things about a judge under consideration for the Supremes to a journalist unless I hated her, wanted to promote my own judge, or something else of that nature.)

- policy wonk

May 4, 2009 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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. If you didn't do your research, why are you writing an article about this? Or alternatively, couldn't you have started your article with this disclaimer so everyone would know that you felt you were talking out of your butt here before they read your admittedly uninformed opinion.

- bstroup

May 4, 2009 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, When you HAVE read her opinions and done your job as a journalist, please let us know, so we can take your hatchet job a bit more seriously. Thanks.

- bruce kaplan

May 4, 2009 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What Rosen writes is a spot-on depiction of Sotomayor's reputation within the Second Circuit. She's not well-regarded by either her colleagues or lawyers who know that court well. For those commenters (or is it sock-puppets?) who complain about Rosen's anonymous sourcing -- Do you really expect lawyers to go on record speaking critically of a judge who decides their cases? Get real. Her well-deserved reputation as a mediocrity is an open secret within the Circuit, and needs to be brought into the discussion.

- CA2 Lawyer

May 4, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are commenting that Obama is not very smart, yet he left these right wing sewer rats' party in the dust. Is it any wonder the right is so hated by the majority. None of these impotent vermin could hold a candle to Obama.

- Vile Little Impotent Sewer Rats

May 4, 2009 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, I agree with "yale undergrad" way above at #29. This just does not seem like a well-sourced article, and on a topic like this I would think Rosen ought to feel some kind of obligation to basic standards of journalism to do a more thorough job. What has he got? One footnote that doesn't actually say anything like what he says it says (read it). One current case (Ricci v DeStefano) in which Judge Sotomayor's position is the same as that of the unanimous panel and all the rest of the liberal judges on the 2nd circuit who won en banc by one vote against the conservative bloc of judges led by Judge Cabranes. Probably in the Supreme Court the Sotomayor/liberal side will lose 5-4, so okay, that puts her on the liberal half of the judicial-ideology spectrum, as one would expect given that she's being considered by Obama, but there's no accusation going to competence or intelligence... and then what? Mainly a bunch of disgruntled-sounding quotes from a few people, mostly prosecutors, that -- I hate to say it -- sound an awful lot like just stereotyped language calling a minority female judge as not smart and/or aggressive. Not impressive. Good journalism digs considerably deeper than this.

- policy wonk

May 4, 2009 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, Shorter version: I don't know anything about her but I'll let a bunch of cowards anonymously besmirch her and then I'll print it and qualify it with "I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing." that makes it remotely justified in writing this hit job. As SMB writes above:"...smells like modern journalism." Keep it up Mr. Rosen and you'll get a job with the best of them...Broder, Brooks, Cohen, Friedman or just go for the gold and maybe you'll get to go work for Faux News!

- Patrick in IL

May 4, 2009 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seeing as the nomination is not happening for a while: Why would you not take the time to read her opinions so that you can analyze her merits yourself instead of relying on a random sampling of other people? The article comes off as uncharacteristically lazy and irresponsible.

- Case Not Closed

May 4, 2009 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And I quote: 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. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard. Well if you haven't done your homework then you shouldn't be publishing this screed online should you? This has all the hallmarks of an Affirmative Action hit piece. Clearly the only reason Judge Sotomayor is in contention, Mr. Rosen, implies is becuase of her bio not her ability. No doubt he would say the same about the President himself. This is so beyond pathetic. I can't believe resentful white boys who run TNR are still up to this crap! As for Mr. Rosen, if your too lazy to read the Judge's work to evaluate her as a jurist, then spare us your socioligical attacks. Who cares if she has a bad temperament. Scalia is an out and out bigot but no one seems to ever question his qualifications. Hell that psycho was confirmed with 90 plus votes with acclamation of folks like Mr. Rosen who are dazzled by his entertaining opinion writing and the illusion of intellectual ability--all Scalia has shown on the Court, however, is a provenance for warping the Constitution to fit whatever hateful outcome he wants for that day. But he impresses academics like Mr. Rosen so there you go. This is not to take anything away from Judge Sotomayor's credentials, which are stellar. But before you start purporting to evaluate judges for the High Court perhaps you should lay out a reasonable set of criteria, and then stick to them. And leave the gossip and race baiting to tabloid journalists, which is clearly where this piece belongs.

- Dash

May 4, 2009 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. So since we liberals are motivated only by the desire to find a capable justice, it's completely acceptable to run a column that consists almost entirely gossip and innuendo from people who cannot be bothered to put their names to their opinions. Rosen completely writes off the possibility that any of these unnamed critics are "motivated by sour grapes", but it's impossible for me to imagine that he's able to confidently make such an assertion without investigating in detail the connection of all his various "sources" to Judge Sotomayor. And he prints, without any discretion, complaints about Sotomayor's opinions without even bothering to formulate an opinion of them himself, which strikes me as journalistic negligence (since when do journalists not inform themselves about the subject their investigating, and rely entirely upon the opinions of their interviewees?) As for Sotomayor not being all that "smart", on what basis is this pronouncement made, other than the fact that some of the people he spoke to say so (and others don't)? Seems to me that someone who manages to get themselves on a Federal Court of Appeals has to have some fair amount of intelligence. What a silly column. I prefer the opinions of those who don't hide in anonymity, so that I may judge their credibility and credentials for myself. And Rosen should bother to read the opinions of the next potential nominee that he wants to take a hatchet to. Granted, that's not as exciting as sinking a potential nominee armed only with a laptop and malicious gossip. Supposedly this is first of a series of articles that Rosen will be doing on potential nominees. But if this is what we can expect from the rest, he should just stop while he's ahead.

- What a joke

May 4, 2009 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds like a lot of Harvard types pushing Kagan. She would be the first Hispanic-American justice; a tough no vote for Republicans. She will get 80+ votes Remember--O'Connor was no leagl eagle either!

- Nassau Nell

May 4, 2009 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meet the hispanic Harriet Miers. Can't wait for hearing.

- ROImeetsLOL

May 4, 2009 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is of a piece with the insulting dismissal of David Souter's work that appeared in Saturday's Times. Both seemed based on malicious gossip, willful ignorance, and at least in Souter's case, vindictiveness over a previous slight. I think both TNR and the Times should think twice about running such baseless and hurtful personal attacks. Michael Lottman

- Michael Lottman

May 4, 2009 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So what you're saying is, basically, you couldn't be bothered to actually research her record and instead figured that you'd base your judgment on workplace gossip? Awesome. Good job with the whole "journalism" thing. What were you so busy doing instead of your job? Playing Minesweeper? I don't know whether Sotomayor would be good for the job... and after reading your article, I'm none the wiser. Thanks for nothing.

- R. Bison

May 4, 2009 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a tremendously disappointing piece, not for what it says about Judge Sotomayor -- which, given the "reporting" methodology, isn't much -- but for what it says about The New Republic. As a person of color who graduated with top honors from Harvard Law School, I'm pretty confident that you can *always* find "sources" who will say that a Puerto Rican from the Bronx doesn't have the intellectual chops to hang in there with "the big boys" -- especially when those "sources" get to cast their aspersions anonymously. Also, as a former federal appellate law clerk, I am pretty sure these anonymous sources don't actually know what they're talking about. They're certainly in no better position to form an informed opinion than someone who took the time to *read* Judge Sotomayor's opinions before describing her work as shoddy. If you want to critique Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, her world view or, perish the thought, her opinions (which, again, requires reading them), by all means have at it. If you think she is not sufficiently liberal given this unique opportunity to nominate the next William Brennan, that is a fair critique. But if you're going to smear a leading jurist on one of the country's leading courts for being plain old dumb, you better have a lot more to go on than anonymous quotes from two bit law clerks who never even worked for the Judge. Readers looking for anonymous cheap shots levied at successful minority lawyers can go over to Above the Law. Your readers are looking for actual reporting.

- disappointed

May 4, 2009 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Former prosecutors and law clerks constitute a mere sliver of the federal bar, and their opinions should be given commensurate weight. Frankly, I find it difficult to seriously entertain any assessment that does not include civil practitioners, academics, and criminal defense attorneys (that are not former prosecutors). The fact that no true criminal defense attorney/public defender sits on the Supreme Court is evidence of the Court's lack of professional diversity--not a reason to prefer the opinion of prosecutors past and present.

- Themis

May 4, 2009 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could easily pen an editorial called "The case against Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, & Ailito".. Not only is Justice Thomas one of the worst idealogues in Supreme Court history, his mind if often made up before he hears (assuming he even pays attention in court) a case, as he rarely, if ever asks questions...

- Rich

May 4, 2009 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I obviously can't comment on Mr. Rosen's anonymous sources because I don't know who they are. But he mentions the Ricci case ("controversial," "explosive") and that's something I actually do know about. There are two small but maybe important points where I think this article is taking liberties (or just clueless). Cabranes' beef with Sotomayor in Ricci is ideological. It raises no questions about her competence. Cabranes and the other conservative Second Circuit judges -- along with probably the five Supreme Court justices in the conservative majority -- want to call into question what New Haven did here, which was to throw out its promotion exam to avoid a potential disparate impact lawsuit by black firefighters. For Cabranes and the other conservatives (and yes, I know he was appointed by Bill Clinton, but he turned out to be pretty conservative), that's "reverse discrimination" against the white firefighters and it raises big constitutional questions. For Sotomayor and all the other liberals on the circuit, it's an easier case: the city is allowed to try to avoid disparate impact liability, and that's what it was doing, not discriminating against whites. The liberal side of the Second Circuit thought District Judge Arterton did a careful and good job with these issues. So three of them (including Sotomayor) affirmed Arterton's decision in a short, published per curiam opinion (NOT a "perfunctory unpublished opinion" as this article incorrectly states). When Cabranes complained in his opinion that his colleagues made "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case" (the statement Rosen quotes) that was just ideological bombast to try to get the Supreme Court to take notice. In fact it is routine, as Cabranes is well aware, for the Second Circuit to issue a per curiam opinion praising the work of a district judge and in effect incorporating and adopting her reasoning as their own when they think it is very well reasoned. That is what happened here. So in summary, I think the whole discussion of Ricci really shows nothing except that Sotomayor is liberal and Cabranes is conservative, and everyone already knows that.

- Student who knows the Ricci case

May 4, 2009 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a big fan of Rosen coverage of all things legal, but I think there's a huge disconnect here between how much he personally trusts his sources (which he somewhat tries to convey in this article) and how this piece actually reads. There needs to be some kind of follow up on this because it does not speak well of Jeff Rosen or TNR.

-

May 4, 2009 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At the risk of overreaching, I nonetheless conclude this could be the worst piece of journalism I have ever seen. The title is a complete joke. As someone above mentioned, "I think the headline of the story is misleading. It should be, "The case against already making up your mind about Sotomayer." Or, "No Rush to Judgment on Sotomayer.""

- UPENN Undergrad

May 4, 2009 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Jeffrey has not personally read the opinions, nor does he have any idea if the third hand info he is publishing is actually right. We don't need another dufus like Thomas on the court, but come on, give me something to base an opinion on.

- Brad

May 4, 2009 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are absolutely right. I had the exact same response when I read that sentence. The RESPONSIBLE journalist/legal analyst would have examined a broad scope of her opinions before even beginning to write crap like this.

- JP

May 4, 2009 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a conservative, so it doesn't matter to me who he picks. Having said that, I feel embarrassed for Senorita Sotomayor, in this article no less than 4 times Rosen impugns her "intelligence." First of all, how did she get through two top schools if she wasn't smart. If she did it through 'affirmative action' that is quite an indictment against AA. Actually, I'm surprised The One didn't pick a fire breathing radical lesbian with a biker tattoo on the side of her neck. So I'm grateful.

- Gardis

May 4, 2009 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dude, maybe if you spent less time digging around for blind quotes, you might have the time to "read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them." then, possibly, rather than the vapid, potentially racist piece you have here, you could write something that might be both thoughtful and useful for your readers. Judging from some of the other comments, it seems that if someone called around to some of your readership, they might be able to come up with some blind quotes attacking your intelligence. what's good for the goose being good for the gander and all...

- seriously?

May 4, 2009 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Halperin posts a stupid comment about how white men need not apply. Rosen writes hit piece basically calling Sotomayor stupid and mean. The right wing begins gleefully parroting all this. Oh boy.

- Laurie

May 4, 2009 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, if I still had a subscription to this magazine I would cancel it again. I have no problem with a hit piece, but at least BASE IT ON SOMETHING. What a piece of **** article.

- Bill

May 4, 2009 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on! -- Do you really think that (other judges') law clerks are a useful measure of her stature as a jurist? These catty little twirps get so wrapped up in the cases they're briefing that of course they find flaws in the memos that circulate from someone else's chambers! It has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with the intellectual vanity of a bunch of fresh-out-of-law-school nitwits.

- Andy

May 4, 2009 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, Rosen got reamed in these comments. Somewhat unfairly, I would say. As far as the criticism that Rosen's getting a skewed/biased sampling, what do you want him to do? Do a scientific polling of random judges and lawyers that have argued befor Sotomayor? Reveal his sources so we can know their biases? And as far as criticizing Rosen for not analyzing her opinions...well crap. Either he A. about a month looking at several of her opinions each in the degree of depth necessary to make a non-superficial judgement of her abilities or B. he reviews others' judgements on her opinions, which is what he did. This is not intended to be the end all and be all review of Sotomayor. It's purpose is to briefly raise a few questions on her abilities that have been raised in the Law community. We are somewhat trusting in Rosen to not pick, say 5 out of 10000 lawyers that hate Sotomayor. However, I'm willing to trust the journalistic system (at least that of TNR) to not put Rosen's stuff up if he's really a lying schemer. We don't know how serious these concerns are, of course. But it's a good counterpoint to a lot of the political advantages that seem to be in Sotomayor's favor.

- Tombo

May 4, 2009 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How does one measure intelligence? Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Greenberg, Geithner are thougth to be intelligent. Yet they have destroyed the American economy. Often too much emphasis is placed on polished communication skills rather substance. I tend to trust folks who make it on their owned without a predisposition to greed.

-

May 4, 2009 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement..." Does Jeffrey Rosen have God-like abilities to judge a person's motivation? Anyone motivated by sour grapes won't admit that they are, so how did he know what their motivation really was? I would also like to know if he found the former clerks or did they find him? Did he even verify that the "former clerks" were who they said they were? One can also easily imagine that some right-wing political operatives would want to define Obama's most likely pick on their terms before the person can even defend themselves. Did Rosen take that into account and make sure he wasn't used for that purpose? Given his own admissions, I doubt that he did.

- Eric

May 4, 2009 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, it seems to me that you present very little evidence supporting the claims that Sotomayor is not particularly sharp. As a left-leaning law student, I would of course like to see someone on the bench who can serve as a substantial counterweight to Alito and Roberts. But before deciding that there is, indeed, a "case against Sotomayor," I'd like to see more than anonymous ad hominem attacks.

-

May 4, 2009 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How quaint, you have brought Jayson Blair back. Guys, do your work and quit publishing this drivel.

- Dave from Oregon

May 4, 2009 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Oh. My. Freaking. God. You have got to be kidding me. And you published this crap? Are you serious? You think this is journalism? TNR should pull this this and apologize profusely. This is a mockery of the fourth estate.

- MRW

May 4, 2009 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She doesn't have to be that smart.... remember, she's only replacing Souter. You know, the guy who was Governor Meldrim Thompson's Attorney General. The guy who was chosen for the job after only one year on the federal bench. The guy chosen because he had never written a scholarly article. The guy who was the point man in court who defended Mel Thompson's order to fly all American flags at half mast on Good Friday in honor of Jesus. The guy who prosecuted the Jehovah's Witnesses for putting a piece of tape over the NH state motto "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. The guy who tried to live down his shabby career as soon as he took the bench by siding with the liberal wing in the hopes of winning the approval of his natural critics.

- Sagamore

May 4, 2009 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Then the article isn't ready to print and shouldn't be published till it is. Perhaps it should be withdrawn as "improvidently issued."

- stevelaudig

May 4, 2009 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I clerked on the 2d Cir. whn Sotomayor was on the Court and generally agree with the comments made by the anonymous sources in Rosen's article. I imagine that the reason he spoke with mostly government lawyers and former law clerks is that they (along with Sotomayor's fellow Judges) represent the only groups of people that would have seen her in action regularly and enough times to form an informed opinion. (Private practitioners would not appear before the 2d Circuit enough times to offer an informed opinion.) Also, remember that most of the people Rosen spoke to would, at least subconsciously, be comparing Sotomayor to the other female judges on the Second Circuit (e.g., Kearse, Raggi, Livingston) and the one other Hispanic judge on that Court (Cabranes), all of whom are hands down more qualified to sit on SCOTUS than Sotomayor is.

- Former CTA2 Law Clerk

May 4, 2009 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed! I have not done any actual work, but I talked t a bunch of people who gave me some gossip. What a lazy load of crap. do they pay you for this?

- maxvintage

May 4, 2009 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." That should have been at the BEGINNING of the article, Jeffrey.

- Badger

May 4, 2009 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." So how about doing your friggin' research first, before vening your piehole?

- labradog

May 4, 2009 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." What a hilarious send-up of a new trend, The School of Sloppy Journalism - thanks, Mr. Rosen! I needed a laugh this Monday and you made my day!

- magistra

May 4, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a gem. Write an opinion about a person and qualify the whole article in the last paragraph saying you've nor read about here opinions and not talked to enough people. What did you do learn about this judge. This is crapware.

- A reader

May 4, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, this is a completely useless piece of gossip parading as an incisive look into her temperament. Useless. Aren't they paying you enough at the New Republic? Are they expecting too much output so that you don't have time to actually do quality work?

- TSE

May 4, 2009 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hold on there folks - you're missing the two key pieces of evident: 1. A conservative criticized her in a footnote! 2. In Ricci v. DeStefano, she joined an unsigned opinion and "[t]he extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known" !!! OMG! She was criticized! And if she had anything to do with a prefunctory opinion: no one knows!! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!!!

- rewinn

May 4, 2009 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hold on there folks - you're missing the two key pieces of evident: 1. A conservative criticized her in a footnote! 2. In Ricci v. DeStefano, she joined an unsigned opinion and "[t]he extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known" !!! OMG! She was criticized! And if she had anything to do with a prefunctory opinion: no one knows!! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!!!

- rewinn

May 4, 2009 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"disappointed" @ 112 has absolutely NAILED it. He/she writes: "As a person of color who graduated with top honors from Harvard Law School, I'm pretty confident that you can *always* find "sources" who will say that a Puerto Rican from the Bronx doesn't have the intellectual chops to hang in there with "the big boys" -- especially when those "sources" get to cast their aspersions anonymously . . . . if you're going to smear a leading jurist on one of the country's leading courts for being plain old dumb, you better have a lot more to go on than anonymous quotes from two bit law clerks who never even worked for the Judge. Readers looking for anonymous cheap shots levied at successful minority lawyers can go over to Above the Law. Your readers are looking for actual reporting." OUCH. That is the truth. There will always be plenty of people who will smear a Puerto Rican woman who grew up poor in the Bronx and say she doesn't have the intellectual chops to keep up with the white men around her (that is, the white men she in fact blew out of the water in law school on anonymous exams, the ones she bested in the courtroom as a litigator, et cetera et cetera). Whatever her accomplishments, whatever the quality of her work as a judge, it's simply inevitable that a certain number of people will mysteriously feel somehow that she isn't up to the job. The problem here is that a TNR writer has decided to dignify those anonymous assessments by threading them together and dumping them on the web in this hit piece. If the author is a lawyer, it's long past time for him to start doing some legal research and form his OWN view of Sotomayor's actual body of work. By skipping that rather important step, he's just dignifying other people's impressions, no matter how tinged with predictable stereotyping they may be. The result of doing that -- with someone with Sotomayor's background -- is nearly always going to be unfair.

- disappointed too

May 4, 2009 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Then why on earth did you publish this inadequately researched, inaccurate piece? Supreme Court confirmations take months - why don't you take the time to do your homework before you open your mouth?

- EVAN

May 4, 2009 at 9:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is ludicrous. You go through a whole article based on interviews with clerks and then at the end you say you haven't read her opinions? That's the most outrageous column I've ever read. How dare TNR public something like this.

- Upper West

May 4, 2009 at 9:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! Certainly the President will do a better job on researching this candidate - if she is in the running - than you did. What a weak article. No 'real' sources? And as a previous poster mentioned you impugned her intelligence? Is this an affirmative action 'code' word? I'm amazed your editor let it through.

- lisaintexas

May 4, 2009 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Jeff, I've got an idea for you. Why don't you do an article in which anonymous sources confirm that a hispanic judge from the bronx is just as stupid as everyone would assume she is given her background! Sounds great to me -- real groundbreaking journalism. You should get a pulitzer. Maybe you should do a whole series on how the best judges are all white men, but Obama will probably make a "diversity" pick instead. Fantastic! I bet you'd have plenty of sources. What great journalistic work. Please Jeff, tell all us white dudes about how everyone different from us is unqualified. Tell us the hard truths we so desperately want to hear.

- is this a joke?

May 4, 2009 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice anonymous "hit" job. Un-named "aides, peers, and clerks" Jeff do away with the hearsay and show us where she has failed to grasp legal reasoning in her legal briefs. This is straight out of the Rove/Cheney playbook. And you appear to be the enabler. Congrats Jeff. Your another fool used by the vast right wing conspiracy.

- Morpheum

May 4, 2009 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jebus you admit you know nothing, then write a hatchet job that makes you look like a clown and somebody PAYS YOU for this ??? amazing

- freepatriot

May 4, 2009 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The very layout of this so-called journalistic piece is incriminating: it begins with the "good" about Sotomayor--Bronx projects to Princeton, Yale Law, 2d Cir.--and then lurches into a distribe of Sotomayor that could not have been better articulated by Lou Dobbs. What kind of canned tuna fish is this? The whole thing stinks of your ineptitude or partisanship or vagina envy or intellectual dishonesty. Your readers are smarter than you think.

- Souterite

May 4, 2009 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice "hit piece", Jeffrey. What else could we call an article by the "Legal Affairs Editor" of TNR who in a fleeting glimmer of honesty begins the ultimate paragraph with this gem: "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." Now why would we want you to actually to have done some real, primary research rather than "talking" with a few folks? Who needs facts when you have a hit piece to write? They'll just get in the way. What a moronic, irresponsible, blatantly biased article (I dare not refer to it is "journalism", because that it most certainly ain't).

- frisco

May 4, 2009 at 10:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Student who knows the Ricci case: Exactly. I have recently become familiar with the Ricci case, and was becoming very frutrated with the ignorant and misleading references to it in this thread. Thank you for clarifying the matter. Unfortunately, if Sotomayor is nominated, you are going to see Republican Senators making some of the same ignorant arguments about her role in the Ricci case.

- dhurtado

May 4, 2009 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the personification of excellence, such that her service on the noble bench serves to enhance public confidence. I have always found her to be reaching for the elusive cosmic-truth, a standard not required for the rule of law. That she has a personal story that spells "true grit," in the words of John Wayne, is just an added bonus. Society can ill afford to squander an opportunity to have one such as Sonia Sotomayor to grace the United States Supreme Court. By nominating her, the history-making Barack Obama will make some more history: a latina, like none other. Sure-footed, comfortable with plunging a needle before a meal at the table, and a mind that loves nailing down those incrementally elusive nuances that make law a thing of beauty, societal relevance and reverence! Dated: 5/4/09 /s/ Ravi Batra New York

- Ravi Batra

May 4, 2009 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your comments about Justice Scalia are sophomoric, and you sound like a teenager trying out his first hate speech. Scalia is roundly seen as brilliant, even by those who disagree with his opinions. If "bigot" is defined as "intolerant", then surely you fit the bill. Take your insulting, juvenile comments over to the Daily Kos where they belong.

- Jess

May 4, 2009 at 10:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And your comment that Justice Thomas is not a bright bulb is backed up by what??? And your comment that he is abasive is backed up by what?? Oh, backed up by you. Sorry, I missed your evidence.

- Kit

May 4, 2009 at 10:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, not many people here give their real name. Thanks to all for the discussion.

- Jon Claerbout

May 4, 2009 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article had me a little worried until the part about the footnote. It says nothing even remotely like what you say it does. In fact, the opposite: "However, Samaria does not purport to address the validity of those cases in any way." It says that the lawyer misunderstood the earlier decision, NOT that the earlier decision was unclear. This happens in NEARLY EVERY APPELLATE OPINION since the interpretation of existing caselaw is usually one of the points of contention. I don't believe the source who pointed it out to you is actually that much of an idiot, just dishonest. The point relies on your readers being too lazy or too unfamiliar with legal language, to click through and read it and makes me think the whole article is a dishonest hatchet job.

- BP

May 4, 2009 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Case Against Anonymously Sourced Hit Pieces. (imho, this article totally makes *that* case)

- needs a new headline

May 4, 2009 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You obviously don't know enough about that Ricci case to know that it is UNHEARD of for a circuit court of appeals to dispose of such a significant case of national importance, with numerous plaintiffs, serious constitutional questions (not to mention important questions of federal statutory law),a case that drew amici curiae briefs because of its importance, and was known as raising volatile issues. It was heard by a two-judge panel at oral argument, Sotomayor one of them. It disappears by a one-paragraph summary order that does not even mention WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT and makes a silly comment about a plaintiff with "dyslexia". Look at Cabranes' dissent and that of the Chief Judge. Look at Sotomayor's other summary orders in crap pro se cases and you will see much longer SOs (where use of the SO procedure is appropriate), and they at least tell the reader what the case was about! The "disposal" of the Ricci case smells to high heaven. Could it be that someone smelled a possible Supreme Court nomination as Ricci came sailing in? You made a nice try at cleaning it up but whoever looks at this will agree that the smell is overwhelming.

- Fitz

May 4, 2009 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." = MASSIVE FAIL. Go back to first year journalism class, do your due diligence, and try again.

- JS

May 4, 2009 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! your complete article can be reduced to "Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda" "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." Why didn't you do any home work? Is it possible that you have an axe to grind? Or is it just that you needed a couple hundred words and were too lazy to read/analyze your subject?

- Grumpy Old Man

May 4, 2009 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is totally irresponsible.It is gossip below the level of People Magazine.Mr Rosen and the New Republic should be thoroughly humiliated by the printing of such low level legal analysis and character attack The New Republics Readers are owed an apology.

- rumi12

May 4, 2009 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the worst piece of legal journalism I have ever see.

- sam

May 4, 2009 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, why would you write a piece in which you openly admit you're not familiar with the opinions of the subject? Why didn't you research this before writing it? You come off as an amateur here, as does the TNR for publishing this waste of space. Retire already.

- Mamazboy

May 4, 2009 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Heh,heh - He won; get over it. ftw you got against someone reading a prepared speech? Try listening to him at town hall meetings the stfu.

- Grumpy Old Man

May 4, 2009 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

... "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." ... Mr. Rosen, you should be ashamed. I can't believe that you actually wrote a piece entitled "The Case Against Sotomayor" and then, within that very piece, admit to being ignorant on the subject! I'm embarrassed for you. I can't believe that you actually graduated from law school...it's behavior like this that makes all attorneys look like asses...thanks a lot.

- NOLA Lawyer

May 5, 2009 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question is not whether or not affirmative action is a part of this possible nominee's selection. Of course being of the proper race and sex are now essential factors in the judicial selection process. Who pretends otherwise or even raises an objection?The real question is whether or not the eventual candidate will be an effective enemy of previous constitutional rulings that place any restiiction at all on any level of government from imposing any tax, regulation or requirement on any private party. America is going to be served a big helping of "Change". Of course, being ready, willing and able to finish off any remaining shred of respect for traditional values in the law would be a nice touch.

- Issac Bickerstaff

May 5, 2009 at 12:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities." But why on earth would you let that stop you from writing the opinion piece? You're a journalist for heaven's sake. If you let a little ignorance stop you, you'd be out of a job.

- georgianotis

May 5, 2009 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wondered if Jayson Blair was back on staff. This is an embarrassment of an article. Mr. Rosen is typically a far more valuable writer than this.

- Dave from Oregon

May 5, 2009 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't trust Rosen at all. He plays favorites and never changes his mind. For years, he's gone Harry Reid on Clarence Thomas, hinting he is stupid. Read Thomas' opinions. He is anything but stupid. His writing is powerful, passionate and direct -- infinitely more interesting and readable than Souter's or O'Conner's or, especially, Kennedy's. Or, for that matter, than Rosen's.

- Chris of San Diego

May 5, 2009 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The comments regarding this column are extremely enlightening. Rosen writes a piece for a reliably liberal outlet. In his column, he expresses skepticism at whether or not Sotomayor is the best pick for a liberal replacement for Souter. He cites consistent comments from a number of sources, but qualifies it by saying, in essence: "These are not hard and fast indictments, just 'early reviews' that precipitate concern." The majority of readers respond with invective and personal insults to Rosen. And this is liberals attacking liberals! It reveals an astonishing intollerance for examination or debate among the commentators. The bitterness of many of the comments is especially surprising since it appears as if the main point of the piece is to question whether or not Sotomayor is the best choice to achieve liberal goals. One wonders what the comments might be if Rosen had mentioned the difficulty Sotomayor might have in being confirmed given her snarky speech in which she talked about how judges should set policy from the bench, and then upon recalling that her speech was being taped, made a big joke about how she really didn't meant anything that she said. Her lack of seriousness and professionalism was...stunning. If a conservative had made such comments ridiculing concerns of those that viewed things from a different perspective, liberals would burn D.C. at the thought of such a person's appointment to the SC. No worries, though...we'll be fine. ;)

- puzzled

May 5, 2009 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, what an effete article. You lost me, when in Mr. Rosen's first paragraph, he states at the bottom, that "She would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, if you don't count Benjamin Cardozo" Are you serious? So I guess, Portuguese Jews are potentially tantamount to Hispanic? It's that sort of fallible language that lost me. There has never been a single Hispanic Justice, period. Moreover, the article asserts numerous times that she may not be intelligent. Ostensibly, Princeton and Yale Law schools are and have been accepting average minds, I gather based on the insinuations and hearsay in the article. Furthermore, She was an Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law from 1998 - 2007 and has been a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School since 1999. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton University. So she's competent enough to teach law at illustrious and selective universities, just not smart enough to be a Supreme Court Justice. I see.

-

May 5, 2009 at 1:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, what an effete article. You lost me, when in Mr. Rosen's first paragraph, he states at the bottom, that "She would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, if you don't count Benjamin Cardozo" Are you serious? So I guess, Portuguese Jews are potentially tantamount to Hispanic? It's that sort of fallible language that lost me. There has never been a single Hispanic Justice, period. Moreover, the article asserts numerous times that she may not be intelligent. Ostensibly, Princeton and Yale Law schools are and have been accepting average minds, I gather based on the insinuations and hearsay in the article. Furthermore, She was an Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law from 1998 - 2007 and has been a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School since 1999. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton University. So she's competent enough to teach law at illustrious and selective universities, just not smart enough to be a Supreme Court Justice. I see.

- Brian

May 5, 2009 at 2:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, OK, I get it. She's uppity. Strident, too.

- GG

May 5, 2009 at 4:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In other words, she sounds like a typical progressive judge, an "affirmative-actioner" who's probably one-tenth as smart as Miguel Estrada, but unlike him, loves legislating from the bench, and was pushed up the ladder by politics and the recommendations of Democratic senators. Yeah, she sounds perfect. At least you're honest, Rosen, in admitting what you left-wingers want,-not anyone who'll follow the Constitution, God forbid, but the "most politically effective liberal justice possible". Classic.

- A.C.

May 5, 2009 at 4:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Gee, why would you do any of that? Better to write an ill-informed hack article anyway? Our Founding Fathers spin in their graves as they watch the "journalism" practiced by hacks like you...

- Marty

May 5, 2009 at 5:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The case against Jeffrey Rosen: I haven't read enough of his articles to know, but many have called Jeffrey Rosen an ignorant and lazy hack who masquerades as a journalist. Also he has not yet refuted the claim that he fellates goats and small children.

- Wilbur

May 5, 2009 at 6:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In essence by appointing Sotomayor you're going to get the usual liberal conundrum; an affirmative action selection with a standard intellectual deviation several percentage points below the mean. Yes, yes, I know folks, you're all going to rail about how very subhuman it is to mention differentiated intelligence in polite conversations like this, but as usual you only see what you want to see. Sotomayor is perfectly emblematic of the liberal paradigm: Promoting a minority female simply because of her political demographic, not due to her ability to interpret the law. Quite simply, you all very much deserve the end result of your social manipulations. Good luck with her.

- feral1404@hotmail.com

May 5, 2009 at 7:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello Mr. Rosen, I must point out that at no point in your column do you mention having personally read any of Judge Sotomayor's opinions, or having personally observed her during oral arguments. I have seen Judge Sotomayor preside over numerous oral arguments, and I must say that questions over her intelligence or her ability to be a judicial heavyweight would be quickly put to rest were you to do the same. Far from being a bully, she is one of the most disciplined legal professionals I have ever seen. There is no doubt that she is tough, and can appear to be mean during oral arguments, but all one need to do is evaluate not the judge, but those who appear before her for oral arguments. I once spent an entire day sitting in the hearing room as a 2nd Circuit panel, in which Judge Sotomayor presided, heard no fewer than 10 cases. In many of these cases, numerous lawyers, who themselves can only be described in the kindest of words as hacks, attempted to offer conclusory arguments, were themselves mean to the judges, and were of middling intelligence, at best. Judge Sotomayor, dealing with these poor excuses for lawyers, often has to discipline them as they attempt to pull fast ones on the court. On time, a lawyer kept interrupting one of Judge Sotomayor's colleagues as she tried to ask him a question about his argument. Not one to take disrespect lightly, Judge Sotomayor promptly put him in the place, and effectively put all the other lawyers in that room on notice that she would not be tolerating any kind of disrespect. Compare that to the way she treats lawyers who prepare well for oral arguments and who display both common sense and common courtesy before her. She is the kindest, most attentive judge on any panel she sits on. And not surprisingly, when these kinds of lawyers appear before her, oral arguments become infinitely more productive, because of both the lawyer's diligent work and the Judge's insightful and substantive questions. Please Mr. Rosen. Take the time to actually personally inform yourself of Judge Sotomayor's work before hacking it to death based on the words of an undisclosed number of anonymous sources.

- YLS'10

May 5, 2009 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brennan would be sorely disappointed with your writing.

- Sotomania

May 5, 2009 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That last paragraph is a freakin' beaut! I agree with Mr. Rosen...I'm against her nomination,I'll figure out why and let you know later.

- DW

May 5, 2009 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The cowardly reliance on anonymous sources should be a source of embarrassment for TNR and Rosen. He's clearly following the Jayson Blair school of journalism. And why should her childlessness or marital status factor into her qualifications for SCOTUS? Are you going to opine similarly on the family life of the male candidates in your forthcoming articles?

- Brian

May 5, 2009 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Mr. Rosen, I have a new title for your article: "The case against relying on people like Jeffrey Rosen to provide you with any meaningful insight into potential Supreme Court justices or much of anything else other than proof of his own willingness to be conned by anonymous sources with an axe to grind" What a rotten, transparently crude effort at sandbagging.

- rb6

May 5, 2009 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Normally when I come across stuff like this, I scrape it off my shoe.

- Libraryguy

May 5, 2009 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think GW needs to start looking at the competency of the work its law professors produce outside the classroom, for the good of its reputation.

- Rocky

May 5, 2009 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gardis: Your President hasn't picked anyone yet...please try to keep up...(Senorita? what the F is that supposed to mean?)

- porkido

May 5, 2009 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thinly sourced gossip. Hey and you know, I hear Rosen blows goats. Didn't you hear? All his former co-workers are talking about it! It's an open secret. He probably got his job because he's a Jew. And a man.

- Vomit Comet

May 5, 2009 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After reading Rosen's absurd and uninformed opinion piece, and then the (justifiably) brutal responses to it from Greenwald and Darren Hutchinson, I can only conclude that Rosen is a crude racist. TNR has been devolving by the month, but this is a new low even for it. I wouldn't be surprised if Rosen is invited on O'Reilly now to discuss his "analysis" of Sotomayer.

- RGK

May 5, 2009 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So how long before this piece is retracted, with an apology to your readers for a display of such shoddy journalism?

- A retraction

May 5, 2009 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The majority of readers respond with invective and personal insults to Rosen. And this is liberals attacking liberals! It reveals an astonishing intollerance for examination or debate among the commentators." A recitation of gossip and smears that can't be refuted or judged because we don't know the sources, is not a "debate." I don't know about right-wingers, but liberals generally demand more of hatchet jobs.

- @ Puzzed

May 5, 2009 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a lawyer and a long-time reader of Jeffrey Rosen's articles, I am extremely disappointed in this lazy piece of garbage. This is not a journalistic "report" on Judge Sotomayor's qualifications as a potential Supreme Court nominee, it is a collection of anonymous gossip from extremely questionable sources. TNR and Rosen should be ashamed of themselves; Rosen especially knows better than this.

- Boston Lawyer

May 5, 2009 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, so a hispanic, first generation, mainland USA born woman makes it to Princeton.She proceeds to graduate Summa Cum Laude- highest of honors, and then attends Yale law school where she is journal editor of the Yale Law Review. She has distinguished herself on the bench, including her thoughtful, tough, and gritty decision on MLB. Her personal life is squeaky clean and she continues to battle diabetes, which she has had since grade school. She dedicated her life to public service when she could have easily "sold out" making a 7 figure salary at a host of law firms. And now we are led to believe she is not the brainiest of people!? Me thinks the people characterizing her in a negative fashion have not distinguished themselves similarly in their own academic careers. Furthermore, the insinuation of not being in an elite group of intellectuals is based upon mere jealousy, prejudice, and politics that motivate these untrue portrayals and subtle character assinations. If Judge Sotomayor was not a minority and a woman, we would not be hearing the undercurrents of yet another ostensible 'affirmative action' case placed in a position beyond their means. Just say no to this brand of biased 'journalism'!

- Gregory Schiffhauer, MD

May 5, 2009 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reminds me of the Bushies' MO: decide first, then find the justification. The proof in this hatchet job is as substantial as was the proof of Al-Qaeda's links to Saddam... "someone said so." It seems clear that Rosen -as an individual- simply does not want Sotomayor to be on the court. The question is why? and why is he not honest about it, hiding instead behind anonymous former clerks et al? Is it ideological disagreement? The fact that she is a hispanic woman? What is it that bugs you so about her, Mr. Rosen? Come clean.

- lw

May 5, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can only assume that Rosen will soon be posting "the case for Sotomayer" soon, right?

- mjtimber

May 5, 2009 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Jeffrey may have fabricated the sources and possibly plagiarized the article. I haven't read enough of his articles to be sure. And I only have anonymous internet sources who may not have read the article. But come on right, it could be true.

- Jack

May 5, 2009 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hi, I'm Jeffrey Rosen, and I'm proud to write about things I'm completely ignorant about, reprinting anonymously offered slurs. Because I'm a schmuck.

- Jeffrey Rosen

May 5, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm confused. This entire article is based on the opinions of unnamed detractors, and you state that you haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have one of your own. Is this journalism?

- Chuck

May 5, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Mr Rosen got this position because his name sounds Jewish. Affirmative action is the only way to explain how such lousy journalism is allowed.

- affirmaction

May 5, 2009 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, TNR really stirred up a hornet's nest with this one, although I'm not really sure why since most of what appears in TNR is garbage anyway and not worth getting so worked up over. Only thing is, all this discussion about Sotomayer's qualifications, smarts, temperment, race, and sex don't mean anything. Obama has said his main criteria is "empathy".

- Fred

May 5, 2009 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

why write anything if, as you admit in your last paragraph, you don't have a complete picture? is this journalism? are you just too lazy to do your homework before submitting and incomplete article that many others may cite as a reference for their own lazy writing?

- Russell J Pape

May 5, 2009 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are your students allowed to answer exam questions without actually reading any of the relevant opinions? Come on. I hope TNR didn't actually pay you for this shit. Sure, you've generated hits for this site, but I promise it's not in a good way.

- JG

May 5, 2009 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ha ha! You failed at journalism.

- Nelson Muntz

May 5, 2009 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe TNR let this run; it is really sickening. It's particularly pathetic to write a hatchet job and then not own it. You claim not to have an opinion as to her capacities and qualities?! You admit to not having read enough of her opinions to have an opinion of them?! Unbelievable.

- jeo

May 5, 2009 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama watching polls and testing waters also for Gay Supreme Court Justice.. Wants "Rainbow" Court... Does Africa have a "Rainbow Supreme Court" ? How about Europe, Asia , or Latin America ? But gay rights groups — are pushing him to put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court. Al Jazeera - Arab Press - calls Obama - "The man is insane"...

- Art Hassan

May 5, 2009 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's possible that the . . . former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible." Unnamed "former prosecutors" want an effective liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Really?

- wbgonne

May 5, 2009 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You haven't read her opinions or consulted widely enough with people who know her, according to your own admissions. Yet you decided to report that she is not smart and a bully? Way to be, you dim-witted bull- oh, wait, I don't know anything about you except this article, so it would be wrong to say such things about you in a public forum without putting in my due diligence. See, even I know that, and I'm not a journalist.

- Josef

May 5, 2009 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I haven't read enough of Rosen's articles to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Rosen's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of his strengths. But based on this one article about Sotomayer (plus some graffiti I read on a bathroom wall somewhere), I want the world to know that he pretty much sucks in general.

- Kate

May 5, 2009 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, you should be ashamed of yourself, having given anonymous status to the sources that you cite in your article. Anonymous reporting is lethal to the cause of getting to the TRUTH of any story, and is much overused today.

- farbie

May 5, 2009 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What cracks me up about this whole kerfuffle is that no one with any say in the matter has mentioned Judge Sotomayor as a candidate for SCOTUS. Her name came up in someone's list of possibles in the press or the blogosphere, got bandied around a bit, and suddenly she's a "front-runner." Obama, the man who makes the pick, has said nothingnothingnothing about who he's got in mind. Sotomayor may or may not be on his short list, no one knows. Yet here we are debating her as if this game of "telephone" had actually produced a candidate.

- JimmyBobby

May 5, 2009 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Then why did you write this article?

- Steambadger

May 5, 2009 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know Jeffrey Rosen, nor have I bothered to read any of his pieces or find out a single thing about him myself, but other people who probably don't like him tell me he is a lying douchebag. Ergo, that must be true and justifies writing an editorial piece in an online rag calling for him to be fired from his post at the New Republic. What passes for thought in modern conservative circles is a pathetic joke.

- jjcomet

May 5, 2009 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Retraction, please. Do some real reporting, maybe even read one or two of Judge Sotomayor's opinions, then try again. Ridiculous!

- BigLaw litigator

May 5, 2009 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know Jeffrey Rosen, nor have I bothered to read any of his pieces or find out a single thing about him myself, but other people who probably don't like him tell me he is a lying douchebag. Ergo, that must be true and justifies writing an editorial piece in an online rag calling for him to be fired from his post at the New Republic. What passes for thought in modern conservative circles is a pathetic joke.

- jjcomet

May 5, 2009 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen's article is not comprehensive but its in the range of fair comment on a supreme court nomination. Sotomayor's ethnicity/sex may or may not be relevant to her nomination but accusing people who discuss her qualifications without being wholly positive, in order to silence discussion are simply wrong.

- New York Lawyer

May 5, 2009 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I went and re-read the footnote in the Ralph Winter opinion, to which Rosen cites. That footnote does not say anything close to what the article says it does. I don't practice in the 2nd, so I cannot intelligently comment on Judge Sotomayor's qualifications. But the fact that the article seems to misstate the opinion to such a great degree really detracts from its credibility.

- Gene

May 5, 2009 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

also, I wasn't even going to mention it since of all the things in this piece it's by far the least egregious, but since somebody brought it up above, I'll add that the Cardozo reference (that is, the little dig trying to assert that Sonia Sotomayor might not be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice) totally made me laugh. Even if you want to use the unusually expansive definition of Hispanic that includes Portuguese-Americans (and I don't have a dog in that fight), you've got to realize that Justice Cardozo was not some guy who immigrated from Portugal, or whose parents or grand-parents or great-grand-parents immigrated from Portugal and who retained ethnic connections to Portugal. Rather, Cardozo was distantly descended from some Sephardic Jews, really a cultural group all their own, who at one time lived in Portugal, and then later via the Netherlands and England eventually found their way to the British colonies that became the United States, decades before the Revolutionary war. (The only reason anybody even thinks Cardozo might sound Hispanic is because his last name happens to be a Portuguese one, because of this ancestry.) If Cardozo is Hispanic then a heck of a lot of Americans who don't currently think of themselves as Hispanic are Hispanic. You might even be able to get a majority of Americans to count as Hispanic by this super-inclusive definition. Anyway, this is all totally beside the point, I just thought it was quite an odd move to make in the article and it was one more small thing suggesting to me that Rosen was really going out of his way to undermine Sotomayor.

- JF

May 5, 2009 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh boy! Another hatchet job by anonymous sources. Tell me, Mr. Cohen, if you didn't have the time to actually research her cases, how in hell did you have the time to write this piece of tripe? Or was it just a matter of "I have to write SOMETHING." Well, you wrote SOMETHING alright. And I think we all know how it should be labeled. Congratulations.

- Beej

May 5, 2009 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry. My mind snapped. Mr. Rosen, not Mr. Cohen. I apologize.

- Beej

May 5, 2009 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." What else really needs to be said? Perhaps if you did some, you know, "research" before publishing?

- Benny C

May 5, 2009 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, and feral? Anyone who graduates summa cum laude from Yale Law School (which has the highest average LSAT scores of any American law school)cannot be accused of being intellectually "below the mean", unless, of course, you are significantly "below the mean" yourself.

- Beej

May 5, 2009 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK. We have a first generation mainland USA born Puerto Rican American from a single parent household, afflicted with juvenile diabetes from the Bronx. She graduates with the highest possible honors from Princeton, and is the editor of the Yale Law review. Yet, she is characterized as not the brainiest judge. This is the basic theme of the article, aside from her demagoguery on the bench. My first question is why use anonymous sources for defamation of Judge Sotomayor's character? My second question is what is the author's and those criticizing her intellectual ability, their own academic qualifications that places them in a position to judge a Princeton's summa cum laude's gradqualifications? My third question is why hide the false pretext of this 'jounalistic?' piece behind the pretext of being a case against Judge Sotomayor. Instead, simply declare; '...We don't want hispanic american woman on the bench period!' We realize you will sling the arrows, as many do to discredit a worthy candidate/cause. My fourth question is why wasn't this piece published in the Daily News or NY Post, where it more appropriately belongs?

- greg schiffhauer, md

May 5, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re comment 162: "This is the worst piece of legal journalism I have ever seen." I have to agree. Inexcusable. Takes to absurd lengths the typical Washington flaw of having to have an opinion about something, whether you have a basis of knowledge or not.

- CHD

May 5, 2009 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also "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." But at least I know that I have now read enough of Mr. Rosen's work to know all I need to know about his qualifications as a "journalist," not to mention his ethics as a person. There is absolutely no excuse for the publication of this worthless collection of unattributed cheap shots. It is not surprising that many, if not most, lawyers would be very reluctant to criticize a sitting federal judge on the record. But that just means that a fair evaluation requires a little bit more work than chatting with a few people and scribbling out a this kind of gibberish. Mr. Rosen assures us that his sources are "not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement." But with all due respect, I cannot say that I have much confidence in the judgment of a person who would put his name to something like this.

- Joel Nesset

May 5, 2009 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to . . . nor have I talked to enough of . . ." In none of the 32 years I've spent in journalism could I have got away with writing work of such a low standard without getting fired.

- Pete Maguire

May 5, 2009 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Resign, Jeff, resign.

- Alan Vanneman

May 5, 2009 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A lot of people on this comment thread are trashing Rosen for not making up his own mind based on Sonia Sotomayor's actual opinions. After thinking about it for a while, I think the critics are right on this one. It's not as if Rosen should be required to wade through every single opinion the woman has written, ignore what anyone says and rely only on his own observations. Rather, a good journalist should have talked to a lot of sources and asked them for specific observations, and especially, specific opinions that he should go take a look at. There's no need to start from scratch. But there is a need to use your sources to generate something more verifiable than just people's vague impressions and gossip about reputation. If Rosen had used his sources to get some kind of grasp of Sotomayor's work, then he could have told all of us something interesting about what she is like as a judge. Maybe he could have made "the case against Sotomayor." Instead, he just ended up with gossip and anonymous smears. Not a great day for The New Republic.

- what Rosen should have done

May 5, 2009 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Summa Cum Laude at Princeton. Editor of the Yale Law Review.

- CitizenE

May 5, 2009 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A first rate legal intelligence has not always been required for a nomination to the Supreme Court, but at this time Obama needs someone with unquestionable qualifications. That someone probably should be a member of a minority (preferably Latino, female or African American, or a combination of all or some of these), but indisputably top-notch. Sotomayor is not first rate. Her opinions at times fail to identify and grapple with the real issues and at times fail to adequately justify her conclusions. The fact that she garners at least one other vote when she is in the majority does not answer the question about her qualifications for the Supreme Court. There are a number of other women, Latinos and African Americans who are better qualified. If Obama lasts long enough he might have the luxury of appointing Sotomayor or someone in her category without jeopardizing the future of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

- Latino Lawyer

May 5, 2009 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The neocon hacks at TNR reach a new low in hackery and slander. Can't wait until your spiritual leader Joe Lieberman finally gets kicked out of office.

- ELS

May 5, 2009 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." This is an astonishing, and telling, admission. Apparently Mr. Rosen only did enough research to flesh out the (premeditated?) attacks that comprise his piece -- with anonymous quotes, of course. The fact that he is willing to admit that he didn't bother to research Sotomayer's strengths tells me that he set out to write a negative piece, no matter what the facts. While it might be a clever parlor game to take a contrary position just for the sake of being contrary, doing a hatchet job on a prospective judicial nominee simply because she has generated "front-runner buzz" hardly qualifies as journalism.

- DC atty

May 5, 2009 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is type of article that led me to cancel my TNR subscription.

- nylarthotep

May 5, 2009 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am always curious about people who use words like "intellectual horsepower" and the purported presence of absence of this non-phrase to promote or denigrate an individual. It means nothing. And people who use it are full of hackery. Judging you from this piece, you should not be allowed to grade your student's work. Good riddance.

- Amazon

May 5, 2009 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I trust that Jeff Rosen never took a journalism course as this article would receive an "F" in Journalism 101. This is a very serious subject and I thought The New Republic was more worthy than printing gossip from a few unnamed sources. The editors owe both its readers and Judge Sotomayor an apology.

- JGNYC

May 5, 2009 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems like some of the comments that were posted here before, defending Judge Sotomayor, are now gone. Why would that be happening? I am going to wait and see if this comment gets posted before jumping to conclusions.

- Yale law

May 5, 2009 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, not to question the obvious but why does this always come up when it's a minority? Why are we talking about "other more brilliant judges." If the nominee is white and male, do we ever wonder if he's truly the most brilliant selection? There's always going to be someone more brilliant. Stop asking. Do these people think before they write? Honestly.

- sublicon

May 5, 2009 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know if this comment will be posted or not, but I don't think this article does justice to Judge Sotomayor's reputation at all. At least here at Yale law school, she has a stellar reputation. She gets many of the very top clerks and is widely reported to be brilliant.

- Yale law

May 5, 2009 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to subscribe to and read The New Republic for many years. The horrible characteristics of this opinion piece posing as journalism helped to remind me why I dumped the magazine and washed its ink from my soiled hands. It's just an agitprop committee of young writers reflecting Martin Peretz's warped & outsized ego. Shame.

- theod

May 5, 2009 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right-wingers think they can tell who is smart! Is our children learning? I can see Alaska from my house! Trees cause more pollution than automobiles! This is how you spell potato: potatoe

- trailertrashGOP

May 5, 2009 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Oh, I get it. This is The Onion. Forgive my naivety, but isn't knowing what the hell you are talking about traditionally something a journalist does before trashing somebody in a prominent website?

-

May 5, 2009 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Case Against ... I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions ... nor have I talked to enough of ... to get a fully balanced picture of ... It's possible that ... incomplete picture of ..." JOURNALISM: FAIL

- eubanksd

May 5, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice Rosen. Really Nice. As a white man, I am so glad to know that I can trust anonymous sources and shoddy journalism to inform me about how stupid and arrogant Latina women are. Trust me, it’s hard to be this racist on my own – without seeming to be racist, of course - so I really appreciate your helping me out here. Since we now know absolutely everything there is to know about this woman now, and don’t need any of those liberal "facts" to judge people anymore, I say let’s just burn her at the stake and get it over with. I think as a nation we are ready for it. Burn baby Burn.

- Let's Burn Her at the Stake

May 5, 2009 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kathy Geier's old rant is in my head: "New Republic, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways: 1. I hate the way it is, and has always been, such an Ivy League white boy wankfest. The late, great Steve Gilliard used to say that TNR’s motto was “Looking for a qualified black since 1916” and there is much truth in that. The women writers are also few and far between, and tend to be relegated to girly subjects like poetry and book reviews, not the manly realms of politics and policy."

- Old Roscoe

May 5, 2009 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've heard that Rosen is a complete dimwit and a terrible journalist. All Anonymous sources, of course...

- Matthew Paul

May 5, 2009 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jess, at comment 129: I have read lots of Scalia opinions, and dissents, and I think that outside of a few areas (law and economic type subjects like antitrust), his opinions rarely show brilliance -- they tend to be unpersuasive diatribes. He may be brilliant in his own mind, but he's not convincing.

- rb6

May 5, 2009 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Relax, folks. These attacks on Rosen are a bit over the top. The man's a reliable supporter of Obama and probably thought he was doing a favor to the admin by highlighting, however incompetently, the weaknesses in what appears to be their first choice for SCOTUS. If the women is really as smart and capable as her defenders on these boards claim, then she will easily overcome whatever doubts may be raised by Rosen's admittedly lightweight article. Roberts and Alito faced pretty harsh scrutiny and came through it easily because of their obvious intelligence and competence. If Sotomayor's a match for them, she'll sail through her confirmation hearings just as they did, and no one will remember or long note this subpar TNR article.

- teppy

May 5, 2009 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is what happens when you let the blog page and the magazine slop into self-absorbed exercises in armchair opinion, with neither actual experience or witnessing or the slightest attempt at real research to back up the biased and ignorant sentiments expressed. If this whatever-it-is cannot be re-written to comport with at least minimal jornalistic standards, it should be withdrawn and for sure, this series should not continue. We may all be shooting from the hip, but the legal affairs editor or whatever his title is should be held to the standard that his position implies. For all that has been written lately on the fate of newspapers/media, this kind of slop is the true end of journalism and it's not the economy, stupid--we're doing it to ourselves. Mike Lottman

- Michael Lottman

May 5, 2009 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BRAVO, well written!! The authors of the other 200 comments obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

- Anonymous Source

May 5, 2009 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, Mr. Rosen. This piece places you in the same category all the racist morons who posted on this thread calling Obama a "lightweight". Identiy politics isn't a one way street, as this thread of douchebags on parade demonstrates.

- Dave

May 5, 2009 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a horrible piece of journalism. Looks to me like you were trying to publish something as soon as possible.

- Steve

May 5, 2009 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen ought to go back to working on his high school yearbook. He NEEDS to source your material otherwise this is no better then national enquirer article

- anonyous source

May 5, 2009 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm Jeff Rosen. I like hiding the fact that my brother-in-law is Neal Katyal, and if Solicitor General Elena Kagan get the nomination instead of Sonia Sotomayor, my brother-in-law gets promoted to Solicitor General. Also, my brother-in-law used to clerk for a Second Circuit Judge, and he told me all these nasty things about Sotomayor. I'm glad I listened to him, and then cited everything anonymously. I'm real glad there is no conflict of interests going on.

- Reff Josen

May 5, 2009 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

EvenTheLiberalNewRepublic(TM) strikes again

- John Quiggin

May 5, 2009 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jesus, you mouthbreathing hack, can you even read that "unusual" footnote you cited? The court said that Sotomayor's opinion was clear on the issue. Appellate counsel simply tried to rely on an inapposite case. How is that her fault?

- ungrateful biped

May 5, 2009 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was a law clerk for one of Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues on the Second Circuit. I'd like to make a few observations about Professor Rosen’s article. First of all, he notes of the people with whom he has spoken concerning Judge Sotomayor that “nearly all of them [are] former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York.” This is an extraordinarily unrepresentative sample of the attorneys who appear before the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Most of those attorneys are generalists, corporate attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, and trial attorneys representing plaintiffs in employment lawsuits, etc., who never clerked for the Court. In addition, I suspect that federal prosecutors have a bias in their practical opinions, regardless of their ideaological leanings, towards conservative judges, who are more often their allies in the courtroom. Professor Rosen’s remarks concerning Judge Sotomayor’s memos commenting on draft opinions from other chambers are misleadings. It’s not merely “customary” to circulate draft opinions to other chambers; it’s obviously required since the opinions are ultimately those of the entire panel. Moreover, in practical terms, the purpose of circulation is not just to invite a “robust exchange of views” and to focus on “core analytical issues,” it is also much more mundanely to allow the other chambers to help proofread the final product for publication, which includes looking for typos and correcting Blue Book citations (which corrections, by the way, are generally contributed by the judges’ clerks, not the judges). Professor Rosen’s characterization of Judge Winter’s footnote as “unusual” is wrong. Such footnotes correcting the readings of the Court’s prior opinions in light of arguments made by attorneys in later cases are a dime a dozen. See, for example, footnote 2 in U.S. v. Asuncion-Pimental, 290 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002) (a panel on which Judge Sotomayor sat, by the way). Professor Rosen’s account of Judge Sotomayor’s performance in Ricci v. DeStefano is also misleading. The Second Circuit uses unsigned, unpublished “summary orders” in a large percentage of its cases affirming district court rulings. The decision to do so in a particular case is that of the entire panel, not any single judge on it. The court issues such orders when it agrees with the reasoning of the district court and believes there is already applicable circuit authority. Professor Rosen quotes Judge Cabranes’s disagreement with the panel’s decision in Ricci, but he fails to note that Judge Calabresi – no intellectual lightweight – explained in his concurring opinion that Ricci was not the best case for addressing the most interesting issues suggested by the claims for a very ordinary reason: the plaintiffs’ counsel had waived some of the relevant arguments by failing to raise them in the district court or on appeal. Finally, during my one year as a clerk, I observed Judge Sotomayor often on the bench and read many of her opinions, and the notion that she’s not smart enough is bunk. My guess is the law clerks Professor Rosen interviewed were perhaps unconsciously biased in this regard in favor of the many former academics on the 2d Circuit. But the lack of an academic career should not disqualify someone from a position on the Supreme Court. And while Judge Sotomayor is an aggressive and sometimes impulsive questioner during oral argument, she is not a bully; for that, see Judge Easterbrook on the 7th Circuit. Sotomayor seemed to me overall to a judge who was thoughtful, careful, politically moderate, and very bright. She would do just fine on the Supreme Court.

- CM1212

May 5, 2009 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This uppity Puerto Rican lady hurt the feelings of a bunch of courageous anonymous sources/upright citizens? She must be an arrogant loser! Lord knows we don't need any more of those in the Supreme Court, especially since she probably got into Yale and Princeton and all that just because she's a Hispanic chick. Thank goodness white guys like Rosen are here to put her in her place. I especially like the misquote of the New York Times article in order to cast the good Lady Judge in an even MORE pernicious light. Bravo, New Republic...you must be proud of this shining example of "journalism."

- Embarassing

May 5, 2009 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I clerked for the 2d circuit. Rosen gets a lot wrong. The purpose of circulating draft opinions is not just to focus on “core analytical issues,” but also to allow the other chambers to proofread the draft for publication, which means looking for typos. Footnotes such as Judge Winter’s are common. They correct the readings of the Court’s prior opinions in light of arguments made by attorneys in later cases. See, e.g., fn 2 in U.S. v. Asuncion-Pimental, 290 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002). Re Ricci, the court uses summary orders in many cases affirming district rulings. Such orders are appropriate when the panel agrees with the reasoning of the trial court and there is applicable circuit authority. Rosen fails to note that Judge Calabresi explained that Ricci was not the best case for addressing the interesting issues because the plaintiffs’ counsel waived the relevant arguments. I observed Sotomayor often on the bench and read many of her opinions. She’s very very smart.

- CM

May 5, 2009 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen needs to answer if his brother-in-law was one of his sources.

- Robert Goldberg

May 5, 2009 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did you actually read the footnote in Lancaster? Given your interpretation, I can only conclude that you did not. Judge Winter disputes a reading of Samaria offered by "an appellant" in what he only cites as a recent case. Surely, given that you are a professor at the George Washington University Law School, you don't need anyone to explain the difference between an appellant and a judge. Thus, the only possible conclusion is that you did not read the footnote you are reporting on. Typical neocon idiocy from the worst publication in the United States.

- Mike

May 5, 2009 at 9:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JimmyBobby, I think the driving idea here is to do a pre-emptive strike against the candidate. Just in CASE she gets nominated. Rosen may not realize how much of his own -- and TNR's -- credibility is being lost thanks to his lack of research, ideological bias, amateurishness, and in the case of the infamous footnote, a downright lie. Oh, and check the nepotism angle now being discussed around.

- Mamazboy

May 5, 2009 at 9:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can Rosen be disbarred for dumbth? I thought law schools taught argumentation. Gotta love this, a law professor who never read the person he purports to criticize and uses unnamed sources who are not in a position to intelligently criticize her either. What some people will sacrifice in reputation for the chance at a hit job...

- michael.wexford

May 5, 2009 at 11:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lots of people have noted Rosen's comment that he hasn't read any of Sotomayor's opinions, and slammed him for willing to form his own opinion. Intellectually sloppy, yes. What I noticed was his very last line: "Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble." That's ludicrous. As if the Obama administration intends to do anything other than conduct an incredibly thorough and exhaustive investigation of all possible Supreme Court nominees? Other than the president himself and the VP, SC nominees are the most thoroughly vetted people to appear before Congress. I feel very confident that every single published opinion Sotomayor has written will be read thoroughly by the people in the White House, because the opposition certainly will do the same. This is passive-aggressive. Rosen writes a bad piece, woefully underresearched, but then throws in a disclaimer that he isn't really sure about his conclusions. So when he's criticized for being intellectually sloppy, he can claim that he was honest about it. I guess that makes it OK! It's a hit piece, but he pretends that it's not. So if he's attacked for being sexist and/or racist, he can pretend that he's a victim of political correctness. This is disgusting. It's not just shoddy journalism; it's emotionally manipulative and dysfunctional. I'm just glad I canceled my TNR email subscription, which wasn't worth the time I spent deleting it every morning. I'll stick with The Atlantic.

- JohnTEQP

May 6, 2009 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR and Rosen must make a full and unqualified apology for this article.

- Anonymous

May 6, 2009 at 1:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I admit I haven't read enough of Jeffrey Rosen to be confidant about my opinion of him, but nevertheless, based on this one article, I am confidant in proclaiming that he is dumb and obnoxious and got his job because of his ethnicity and his gender. There are so many good journalists and bloggers (like me, for example) who merit his privileged position so much more but who were passed over in favor of Rosen by a policy of affirmative action for ditsy white men.

- Gregory Slater

May 6, 2009 at 1:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A clear case of someone making up his mind before having any facts, and then persisting in this erroneous conclusion in spite of the facts. How very lame, Mr. Rosen.

- pointus

May 6, 2009 at 1:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As one unnamed former colleague put it, " Rozen? That d!ck? I wouldn't read any of the sh!t that guy puts out. He is always drunk before noon. The guy just phones it in. Bright? you gotta be kidding me. The guys a loser. He needs to get a job teaching journalism at Columbia."

- bsjones

May 6, 2009 at 3:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

listen, this thing just cant be swept under the rug. the piece was racist (i never throw that term around!) and it was an example of preposterously bad journalism. We need some comment by the TNR people about how this could have occurred. Foer, Rosen, answer your interlocutors?

- WE THE READER

May 6, 2009 at 4:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Honestly what pathetic "journalism". So determined is Rosen to write a damning article about Sotomayor, with nothing available to damn her, that he resorts to 5th grade writing. And he touts himself as a "Legal Editor" Pathetic.

- Rosenkrantz

May 6, 2009 at 7:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm going to guess that no one here has read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to be a better judge than Rosen was. So really there is no way for most "outaged" commenters to be sure that Sotomayor is a wise jurist or not. Credentials from law school really don't mean anything here. And Strictly speaking, Rosen isn't vetting Sotomayor since a one page article repeating comments from supporters and detractors is hardly a good way to show someone's strengths and weaknesses. It is amusing that the general tone of the comments makes the belief this is a hack job despite that the supporters views are represented first in the article. A good review of Sotomayor would probably be unreadable for most people so this is probably a passing compromise for easy to understand soundbites on Sotomayor.

- David

May 6, 2009 at 7:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I understand now. She graduated summa from Princeton, you graduated summa from Harvard - is that make her a lightweight, the wrong Ivy? She also went to Yale Law (like you), is this sour grapes that she was on law review and you weren't or something? I'm unclear where her inferiority comes from here, other than your BROTHER-IN-LAW the former 2d circuit clerk with a vested interested in another leading candidate becoming the new justice.

- JG

May 6, 2009 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a pathetic piece of "journalism." Thanks for reminding me why we canceled our subscription to TNR.

- TR

May 6, 2009 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The author's intent was to show that *Sotomayor* lacks intellectual heft? Hmm. Ironic.

- Brian

May 6, 2009 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At the very least, the editors should include this disclaimer at the head of the article: "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. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities."

- Danny

May 6, 2009 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it disappointing that Rosen does not enter the discussion about his article. Complaints seem to have coalesced on few serious issues. I thought I would bring up one of Glenn Greenwald's updates regarding this article that Rosen may have a duck in this hunt. "Jeffrey Rosen's brother-in-law is Neal Katyal, the current Deputy Solicitor General in the Obama administration. If Sotomayor's prospects are torpedoed, that could clear the way for one of the other leading candidates to be named to the Court: current Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The selection of Kagan (rather than Sotomayor) would almost certainly result in Rosen's brother-in-law (Katyal) becoming Solicitor General. Additionally, Katyal himself was once a clerk for a Second Circuit judge, obviously raising the question of whether he was one of the anonymous sources for his brother-in-law's hit piece disparaging Sotomayor's intellect and character. One can question whether this Rosen/Katyal relationship should have been disclosed by TNR (on balance, it was probably unnecessary), but at the very least, these are illustrative of the types of problems that inevitably arise when anonymous sources are used so casually in a political culture rife with incestuous relationships and conflicts of interest." Boy does the beltway seem incestuous.

- Tom

May 6, 2009 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it disappointing that Rosen does not enter the discussion about his article. Complaints seem to have coalesced on few serious issues. I thought I would bring up one of Glenn Greenwald's updates regarding this article that Rosen may have a duck in this hunt. "Jeffrey Rosen's brother-in-law is Neal Katyal, the current Deputy Solicitor General in the Obama administration. If Sotomayor's prospects are torpedoed, that could clear the way for one of the other leading candidates to be named to the Court: current Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The selection of Kagan (rather than Sotomayor) would almost certainly result in Rosen's brother-in-law (Katyal) becoming Solicitor General. Additionally, Katyal himself was once a clerk for a Second Circuit judge, obviously raising the question of whether he was one of the anonymous sources for his brother-in-law's hit piece disparaging Sotomayor's intellect and character. One can question whether this Rosen/Katyal relationship should have been disclosed by TNR (on balance, it was probably unnecessary), but at the very least, these are illustrative of the types of problems that inevitably arise when anonymous sources are used so casually in a political culture rife with incestuous relationships and conflicts of interest." Boy does the beltway seem incestuous.

- Tom

May 6, 2009 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a former second circuit clerk during Judge Sotomayor's time (for a different judge) and never heard from Prof. Rosen, which is too bad, because I would have explained to him that interviewing former clerks of other judges and prosecutors who appeared before her is no way to evaluate a judge on the second circuit. The fact that prosecutors do not like her is probably a testament to her ability to carefully consider both sides when making decisions. Just Sotomayor is a brilliant jurist and amazing woman who deserves better than this hatchet job, which appears based on innuendo and rumors rather than real analysis. The professor and TNR should be embarrassed by this piece.

- Nicholas Arons

May 6, 2009 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, calling Scalia a true legal genius really paints a picture of the commenter. The fact that Scalia considers himself a genius doesn't make it so. He is perhaps the most intellectually flawed of the sitting justices, marked consistently by tainted, biased logical tricks designed to force his predetermined decision into print. If you can be fooled by aggression in place of analysis, well, that's kind of mainstream thinking, and I don't think most people realize just how far above the mainstream the Supreme Court must function.

- ACK

May 6, 2009 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot for the life of me understand how someone with so impressive a legal education could have the gaul to publish such an irrational, poorly reasoned article. Can Rosen possibly so daft that he doesn't realize how foolish he has made himself sound? He cannot have practiced one iota of litigation without realizing that representatives of opposing parties and jurists bad mouth each other for having the temerity to disagree with them. What's more, what rational person could think that clerks - clerks - are necessarily qualified to evaluate the intellect of a sitting Appeals Court justice? These are kids whose only accomplishment is getting good grades (often derived from studying really, really hard, regardless of intellect. Trust me, I was floored by the lack of brains of some of my peers at my elite law school); the vast majority of them will distinguish themselves in no remarkable way. Virtually none have the talent to become jurists of this stature themselves. How could they be presumed to judge her? No legal scholar would ever, ever evaluate a judge without reading his/her opinions - at length. Embarrassing. The end result is that I couldn't give a hoot about Rosen (though it's impossible to respect him), but I am gladdened again to have dumped paying for TNR.

- ACK

May 6, 2009 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR should be ashamed to print such unsubstantiated, disgusting drivel. Rosen's article is completely lacking in journalistic integrity. Pure trash! No wonder the same garbage was broadcast on Fox News.

- Carol A.

May 6, 2009 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unlike many other commentators, I at least appreciate Mr. Rosen's candor in noting that his low opinion of Sotomayor is based on limited knowledge. What puzzles me is why either he or TNR felt there was such a strong need to provide a quick analysis of someone who has not even been nominated. Had she been nominated already, I could better understand the rush, but this piece is a compilation of gossip that is spurred by, well, gossip. Why doesn't the TNR do what some newspapers do for famous people vis a vis obituaries -- develop a database on potential nominees so when someone gets nominated (why before?) you aren't caught flat-footed? Mr. Rosen's piece is either silly & pointless or else it really is a purposeful smear job. Not sure which.

- cejaxon

May 6, 2009 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen's case seems to boil down to this: people dislike Ms. Sotomayer and she is a member of an ethnic minority that has been historically excluded from membership on the Supreme Court. Also that Judge Sotomayer might not be smart. Mr. Rosen might by now have begun to realize the difference between wisdom and mere intelligence, innuendo and evidence, and that ill considered words have the tendency in this internet linked day and age the ability to destroy reputations within hours of their utterance. Who will take you seriously now, Mr. Rosen?

- CitizenE

May 6, 2009 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The author should answer two questions: 1) Did you actually read Judge Winter's footnote in Juncal? Because it does not mean what I suspect you've been told that it means. 2) Was your brother-in-law the Deputy Solicitor General one of the anonymous sources for this piece?

- NCProsecutor

May 6, 2009 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looking at the reactions to this article on both the comments here and on any intelligent website, I'd say Jeffrey Rosen's approval rating is probably lower than George W. Bush's. Well done Jeffrey -- you've managed to destroy your reputation and TNR's in just one shoddy article!

- NYCJim

May 6, 2009 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Total hit piece, Jeff! The real story is who is working with YOUR minders to kill her nomination? She must have pissed off the Israeli lobby at one point to deserve a hatchet job from Rosen like this! Another false and intellectually hollow article from a publication to which I no longer subscribe. Thanks TNR for confirming my doubts that you are no longer a rigorously intellectual publication.

- Dan

May 6, 2009 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know much about Sotomayor, and really, I dont have a dog in this fight. But this is clearly a shameless smear piece. Since this is "the first in a series of reports" from Rosen... well, what a debut!! Can't wait to read the upcoming ones. Really, is this what TNR has come down to?!

- PatNC

May 6, 2009 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"warn tnr"... indeed.

- Joel

May 6, 2009 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You little devil Rosen...you didn't disclose your wife's employment by a right-wing organization that also employs Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum! It all becomes clear now...from John Cole's Balloon Juice... " I’m sorry if I seem a bit rattled by the attacks on Sonia Sotomayor. I think it’s a fascinating collision of blogging, the continuing nefarious influence of TNR, and the white male punditosaurus. Via commenter JDM, I see that wingnut welfare enters into it as well: Rosen’s wife works at the far-right Ethics and Public Policy Center (which also employs Rick Santorum) and Rosen gave a speech about SCOTUS nominations there a few weeks ago. Now, I don’t know how much Rosen’s wife is paid nor how much Rosen was paid for speaking before them. And his wife’s writing doesn’t seem quite as wingnutty as much of what comes from the EPPC (though her articles do appear in The National Review sometimes). But at a certain point, isn’t this kind of conflict of interest deeply troubling? A journalist writes an inaccurate smear job of a SCOTUS nomination while receiving money from a place that will oppose the nomination and which employs his wife? Not so good, no?"

-

May 6, 2009 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Talk about a smear. Textbook example right here. TNR editors, you should be ashamed. As for you, Mr. Rosen, I presume the point is beyond your comprehension or you wouldn't have written a post filled with anonymous innuendo in the first place.

- vbdietz

May 6, 2009 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A caricature of wretched journalism.

- Unsubscribe

May 6, 2009 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor's immigration decisions are well-balanced, and fair.

- Chuck Jones

May 7, 2009 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And now that it comes to light in a youtube that she believes that the appalate court writes the laws and not Congress, she is scary, that's what radical leftist judges try to do.

- Scott

May 7, 2009 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sloppy journalism. Anonymous sources. Nice hit piece.

- John B

May 7, 2009 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New Republic has a history of plagiarism, so I wouldn't believe that any of these "unnamed sources" even exist.

- Kelly

May 7, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is just based on innuendo. Scalia also comes off as someone who speaks with a certain level of directness. But I suppose it is negative when women, minorities, and/or liberals are outspoken. And Sotomayor is all three. I suppose if there were "serious" problems with Sotomayor's record, we'd be talking about those.... instead all we have are some bitter remarks by unnamed sources. But, who knows, maybe the real journalists haven't had the chance to really look into her record.

- blip

May 7, 2009 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see you're cropping quotes again.

- blaze

May 7, 2009 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David.. the outraged responders in this list did not write this hit piece. A big difference.

- blaze

May 7, 2009 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen: I completely understand all of the points you make in your article, and in no way whatsoever have you outwardly stated that Ms. Sotomayor is "dumb" or "too aggressive." You have simply worked with what the people have given you, and it is absolutely necessary for Obama to thoroughly research all of his possible candidates before making the final decision. I will continue to follow this issue, thank you for providing interesting points.

- Afton

May 7, 2009 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An incredible lack of journalistic analysis. And an incredible lack of legal analysis from a law professor. Incredible.

- Incredulous

May 7, 2009 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's hard to take Jeffrey Rosen seriously when he charges someone with being an intellectual lightweight. Anyone knowledgeable who has ever had contact with Prof. Rosen's scholarship knows what I'm talking about here. An imperfect but objective measure of the mediocrity of Rosen's work is his articles' placement. With the exception of some book-review-type articles and symposium pieces, he's never placed anything in anything remotely qualifying as a top journal. Perhaps someone should ask a bunch of law professors and law review editors to speak anonymously about Jeffrey Rosen's intellectual capabilities.

- Rosen's Intellectual Superior

May 7, 2009 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have read both the Samaria case and footnote from Judge Winter's opinion, and I am having difficulty understanding how you could possibly suggest that Sotomayor's opinion misstated the law in the 2d Circuit. Indeed, I think a more accurate description of the footnote is that it mischaracterizes (and that would be putting it charitably) the discussion in Samaria. The discussion about conscious avoidance in Samaria has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the evidence. (See Samaria ("Because we find that the government has not presented evidence sufficient to prove the requisite specific intent, we need not reach the further issue of whether conscious avoidance could have been inferred from this evidence, and, if so, whether the jury was properly instructed.")) In short, all Sotomayor did was explain that even if the evidence established that the defendant acted with conscious avoidance, that is not enough to establish that the defendant acted "intentionally." And that was nothing more than a reiteration of 2d Circuit law. (See Samaria's citation to United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 547 n.1 (2d Cir. 1984)).

- Alex

May 7, 2009 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If that is the best Rosen can come up against Sotomayor, it's a pretty thin gruel indeed. A bully on the bench? Give me a breal.

- Max Castro

May 7, 2009 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do know she remembers what people drink and she's not against witchcraft. "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 rarely do enough of anything important, that's why I subtitled my piece "Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter" "It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement." Possible, yes, but not really very likely because I know what motivates people. I'm a professor and I have students, see.

- Shorter Rosen

May 7, 2009 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She's Puerto Rican, so of course she has too much attitude and not enough brains... It's funny, I hear the same arguments about why there are so few Latina law professors. Couldn't be institutional racism, could it, that accounts both for the reputation ascribed to her by anonymous sources and the unlikely-hood that she'll actually get the seat? No, no, Obama is president. Racism is over. Yeah, right.

- Sarah Rodriguez

May 7, 2009 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hear from very reliable, well-connected, trustworthy sources, who prefer to remain anonymous for now, that Jeffery Rosen enjoys congress with goats and has smelly feet and frequently embezzles money from acquaintances. I have no reason to doubt any of this.

- Important Villager

May 7, 2009 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hear from very reliable, well-connected, trustworthy sources, who prefer to remain anonymous for now, that Jeffery Rosen enjoys congress with goats and has smelly feet and frequently embezzles money from acquaintances. I have no reason to doubt any of this.

- Important Villager

May 7, 2009 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact that the author thought that a descendant of Portguguese Jews could qualify as "Hispanic" which means (Spanish-speaking) and which, by the way, is a linguistic group rather than an ethnic group, shows such a limited understanding of the word that it is unclear exactly what you are arguing? It is funny to write an article where one attempts to evaluate the intelligence of someone with her credentials when you have not mastered the meaning of the word at the center of your article -- Hispanic. So, are you arguing that Obama is chosing her for being a Jew? Maybe you can write another article where you remove all of the ambiguity in the use of your word Hispanic.

- BJ

May 8, 2009 at 1:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fungus in the shape of a journalist.

- bushbasher

May 8, 2009 at 4:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The wild mischaracterization of Judge Winter's footnote in Juncal, where Judge Winter corrected the legal reasoning of a litigant, not a fellow judge, is enough to damn the whole piece (falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus -- ancient legal principle with which Mr. Rosen should be familiar).

- Old Vermonter

May 8, 2009 at 6:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Rich: Please give examples of Justice Thomas's (being) "one of the worst idealogues in Supreme Court history" Then please provide references for the comment "his mind if often made up before he hears (assuming he even pays attention in court) a case" Last please give me some reasons why you think he "rarely, if ever asks questions..." If you can provide documentation for your claims, fine; but if, as I suspect, you are simply a racist hater of any conservative, then do me a BIG FAVOR, and shut the fuck up!

- David Kielek

May 9, 2009 at 2:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This sounds like the white boys and girls club getting their hate on an "affirmative action" appointee. Sounds like a bunch of elitist BS to me. Nice hit piece, BTW ;(

- Tony

May 9, 2009 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Holy cow, hell hath no fury like Liberals' scorn. Rosen is simply repeating what he's heard from fellow Democrats. And if you're going to require that all critcs of judges do so in open public, then nobody will ever criticize any judge, because only a fool would openly criticize a judge they appear in front of. And funny that not one of the above posts takes any pains to actually disprove Rosen's thesis, that Sotomayor might be an inferior choice. It's all just catty name-calling, which in reality just shows how weak the "case for" Sotomayor must be.

- Lawyer

May 9, 2009 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The takeaway is don't write a piece about Obama nominees (Obama-nees?) unless you are echoing the administration talking points. Stick to the script or you will get vilified. Honestly, I don't know what to think about Sotomayer, but the knee-jerk wagon-circling lets me know that whatever the truth is, America had better scrutinize Sotomayer carefully. I'm not saying put her up to a Bork or Thomas lynching, or even a Ginsburg (DC Cir.) character assassination. I'm saying let's just be careful and not treat her as well as Justice Ginsburg. Because if there's anything I learned from the Myers nomination, it's that women are dumb.

- Mike

May 10, 2009 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why not cut to the chase; is Sotomayor going to find that the Constitution demands homosexual marriage. All of this other stuff is meaningless. Answer the question that Obama will ask his vetting staff and that the leftwing will demand of a nominee: WILL YOU SUPPORT "GAY" MARRIAGE. Period. End of discussion.

- DavidScott

May 11, 2009 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffrey Rosen is correct. Sonia Sotomayor has much to answer for. In particular, she needs to explain why she did little or nothing to discipline a judge she supervised. The judge she was supervising in her decisions would misstate facts and law, disregard evidence, mislead the public and allowed other judges to do the same thing. The judge she supervised would also rule on cases where she had business dealings with the litigants that went sour. If Sonia Sotomayor cannot explain her indifference to her duties as judge, she won't be eligible to serve on our nation's highest court.

- Loren Christian

May 12, 2009 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have personal experiences with Judge Sotomayor and she IS an intellectual powerhouse. What the hell is this with only wanting straight up nerds on the Court? What happened to wanting leaders? Not the smartest judge in the Second Circuit? Get real. She is the smartest and hardest working judge out there. I agree this sounds like an affirmative action rage - I am so tired of this. How else did we expect to find someone like her in the judiciary if not for those types of opportunities to a girl with no connections from the South Bronx who is JUST AS if not smarter than other people from the UES? I am so sick and tired of the elitism amongst lawyers for the "smartest" - didn't you ever hear there are numerous forms of IQ? Sonia Sotomayor deserves to be on SCOTUS. She simply does.

-

May 14, 2009 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you on drugs? She's a bright, self-motivated woman who absolutely has the firepower. Every time I see Thomas dozing in Marshall's seat, a little part of me dies. Talk about your shallow legal pools - that man is, apparently, a puddle. If you aren't satisfied with the possibilities at the appellate court level, I can think of around a dozen really top-notch district court judges who would be a real asset on the court. Heck, I can think of a couple of masochists who wouldn't use the briefing pool. If you ask me, that is the ultimate test of who deserves to be on the Court.

- Bad Mommy

May 18, 2009 at 8:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like YLS '10, number 64, I too have seen Judge Sotomayor preside over numerous oral arguments. and I agree that "questions over her intelligence or her ability to be a judicial heavyweight would be quickly put to rest were you to do the same." I myself have argued a case of first impression before a 2d Circuit panel over which Judge Sotomayor presided. She was very well prepared, very smart, asked incisive questions that cut to the heart of the matter. I observed that she does not suffer fools gladly, particularly lawyers (like my opponent) who make really dumb arguments, but I found her to be thoughtful and kind and good-humored. It was a pleasure to appear before her. I think she would be a fine Justice of the Supreme Court.

- Marilyn from Buffalo

May 22, 2009 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

all of politics, including the supreme court aka the supremes, is just theatre

- hanseatic

May 23, 2009 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

when it comes to the supreme court -- appointed for life and forever invited to all those free do's in washing-towne. check out george carlin's little talk on "rights" it hilarious -- i hope the supreme beings have seen it since they allways take themselves much too seriously at the tax payers expense

- celluleet

May 24, 2009 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

when it comes to the supreme court -- appointed for life and forever invited to all those free do's in washing-towne. check out george carlin's little talk on "rights" it hilarious -- i hope the supreme beings have seen it since they allways take themselves much too seriously at the tax payers expense

- celluleet

May 24, 2009 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a gem. Write an opinion about a person and qualify the whole article in the last paragraph saying you've nor read about here opinions and not talked to enough people. What did you do learn about this judge. This is crapware.

- tnr

May 26, 2009 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let the fight begin... And this is only the first round!

- Mustang

May 26, 2009 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I appeared before Soto twice. She uses the tough gal thing to intimidate you. She's not especially bright, never says anything that makes you say "I never thought of that," and she is really weird. Yep, I said it. She's also hard left, really pro affirmative action, and is another Souter. Maybe she will be LIKE Souter and shaft the liberals the way Souter did to the conservatives. She's really there for one reason...Hispanic vote and women vote.

- Danny

May 26, 2009 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen: Your piece says far more about you than Sotomayor. It is not flattering.

- Melinda

May 26, 2009 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why would Obama start appointing bright people now? At least he is consistent in appointing dopes.

- Dr K

May 26, 2009 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: Rosen's last paragraph... well, this really isn't a "case against," then, now is it?

- BRS

May 26, 2009 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This person holds her position for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with ability. 1. Female. 2. Minority. That's it. I guarantee she is being considered for this post for no other reason than these two "qualifications".

- Overthair

May 26, 2009 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its racist and sexist comments against White Males should immediately disqualify it.

- James

May 26, 2009 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so.....what you're saying is that she's not all that smart...least not as smart as the boys in the game? stupid article.

- cathy

May 26, 2009 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She was clearly chosen because she is Hispanic and Female. Obama should have chosen someone based on their accomplishments . Then again Obama was merely chosen cause he was black and his lack of legislative accomplishment was ignored.

- Dennis D

May 26, 2009 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Affirmative action candidates and nominess says enough. Barack, Michelle and now Sotomayer. Enough said.

- katy

May 26, 2009 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffrey Rosen... Come on. You're normally so good at writing about anything legal (unless you actually have to form your own opinion), and you put this crap out here just so Drudge will run with it? I don't even want to try and get into how much you and your "sources" are missing the 'forest for the trees' in this article. I was hoping to read much more than this from TNR on this issue. I guess I'll have to wait for the real journalists to actually point out the argument against Sotomayor.

- GtownLaw

May 26, 2009 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Cabranes and the other conservative Second Circuit judges -- along with probably the five Supreme Court justices in the conservative majority -- want to call into question what New Haven did here, which was to throw out its promotion exam to avoid a potential disparate impact lawsuit by black firefighters. For Cabranes and the other conservatives (and yes, I know he was appointed by Bill Clinton, but he turned out to be pretty conservative), that's "reverse discrimination" against the white firefighters and it raises big constitutional questions. For Sotomayor and all the other liberals on the circuit, it's an easier case: the city is allowed to try to avoid disparate impact liability, and that's what it was doing, not discriminating against whites. "disparate impact liability" - not dicrimination against whites ! When will Bar Associations start adhering to this polciy for law school graduates who disproportionately fail the bar exam in their respective state ? I want this "theory" "policy" or whatever it is called applied across the board and consistently ! Lawyers , doctors , airline pilots, air traffic controllers , etc... But let us not stop on the black, white, hispanic categories. I want whites to be divied into ethnic groups (Anglo, Irish,Jew,Pole, Italian,etc...) and I do not want any disproportionate respresentation in all employment fields !

- Joseph

May 26, 2009 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Student who knows the Ricci case posted: "For Sotomayor and all the other liberals on the circuit, it's an easier case: the city is allowed to try to avoid disparate impact liability, and that's what it was doing, not discriminating against whites." No matter what the city was trying to avoid, if it results in discrimination against a certain race, it is illegal. There is no moral or legal justification for discrimination, "reverse" or otherwise. Sotomayor was being political instead of judicial, as liberal judges often are.

- Ricardo Maxwell

May 26, 2009 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is all academic, I'm just wondering if she's paid her taxes. Given Obama's history of nominating people who don't pay their taxes it's not a stretch...

- Pkpost

May 26, 2009 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen writes, “It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--THEY'D LIKE THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY POWERFUL AND POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE LIBERAL JUSTICE POSSIBLE.” [Emphasis added.] I.e., “We all want the playing field tilted in favor of liberal activism and the reinterpretation of the Constitution and standing law toward our liberal agenda, but the chosen activist must be smart enough to spin this favoritism well enough to be minimally believable, against possible scrutiny by a passive, liberal media.” So, conservatives appoint judges who fight to maintain a level playing field. (Lady Justice retains her blindfold.) Whereas, liberals appoint judges who tilt the playing field in their favor. (Lady Justice has no blindfold and favors the liberals’ political agenda.) A second source of liberal legislation – in addition to the legislature – and a systemic block against the implementation of conservative legislation and ballot propositions and amendments. Therefore, in a politically equal court – half adhere to the Constitution and the law, half make it up as they go along – the playing field is always tilted in the liberals’ favor. Not as much as if it were a 100% liberal court, but there is no one who favors tilting the playing field toward a conservative agenda. (The conservatives favor merely an even playing field.) Thus assuring that the playing field is always tilted in favor of the liberal agenda.

- Eagle in NYC

May 26, 2009 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought perhaps you were talking here about Justice Thomas, until I saw the pronoun 'she,' perhaps the same applies to him?

- Wilbur

May 26, 2009 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush went to Ivy League schools and they called him an idiot, no?

- Strer

May 26, 2009 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm new to this site. Thanks to the editors for putting up so many negative comments. Am I to understand that the readership of The New Republic's web site are overwhelmingly liberal? And of the 200 posters on this topic only about ten support the writers, or is it that the editors just put up the negative comments for some reason? I read The New Yorker and they publish very few letters. Could it be that when The New Yorker publishes a piece that slants strongly to the left that they get 200 or more letters from non-left readers, letters that are never published? Advise.

- leov

May 26, 2009 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She calls herself a Latina with a "richer" background than any white man. This is good. Having a good grounding in the Latin language must be a valuable asset for a high justice.

- Fred Beloit

May 26, 2009 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smart or not doesnt matter, this job is solely to uphold the constitution. She made it clear she will not do that when Sotomayor said on video "Judges make policy" translation- judges are not elected but but they illegally make laws anyway-

- JBL

May 26, 2009 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a poor choice for a Supreme Court judge; she doesn’t seem to understand that all people were created equal, regardless of race, creed, or color. -- “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees. - NYT article -- What frightens me is that this statement is a double standard, if I was to switch the races in that statement they would run her out of town. However, because she is a Hispanic Woman, not a White Male, she can say such racist dribble.

- Theequalizer

May 26, 2009 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All the lefties are in a snit over some points made. She doesn't adhere to the axiom that justice should be blind. Enough for me. Full disclosure is necessary because she just got nominated. Wha Has read all her opinions? All the Thomas haters forget that they are just as racist as the ones who are crtitiqueing the puerto rican woman.

- jdmccl

May 26, 2009 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bar has been set fairly low in recent years (Alito, Thomas, Roberts) for intellect and judicial acumen. It has been set even lower for personality (Scalia). Justice SotoMayor will pass and will do just fine on the Court. Next.

- joel palmer

May 26, 2009 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess her views on white males not having the life experience to be on the bench at all is a good view or her view that policy is made from the bench as well. This woman is a leftist nutjob that has spewed her hate and contempt over and over. You think Saint O could find a leftist to put on there that has at least kept his/her contempt for the rest of the country to themselves.

- kabookey

May 26, 2009 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"then, possibly, rather than the vapid, potentially racist piece you have here" And there it is. Tell me something, is it so difficult to go through your day without pulling the race card on something so innocuous (in terms of its racial overtures). He is indicting her as a person, not a Hispanic. Hispanics are allowed to be incompetent just like any other ethnicity. There is no mention of her lack of competence being tied to her ethnicity, nor her sex. If you disagree with the article, try coming up with something that doesn't make you look like a buffoon.

- Wow

May 26, 2009 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Racist!!!!!!!!!

- Lisa Bradford

May 26, 2009 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen writes an article similar to the hatchet jobs the left usually reserves for people like Palin and Thomas and they are apoplectic. I love it. Morons.

- how dare

May 26, 2009 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen writes an article similar to the hatchet jobs the left usually reserves for people like Palin and Thomas and they are apoplectic. I love it. Morons.

- how dare

May 26, 2009 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suspect the underlying reason for all the outrage against Rosen is that he hit a raw nerve. The truth of the matter is that Sotomayer just may be the brightest light liberals can find for a nominee. And from the testimony of those closest to her, she's not that bright.

- veritas

May 26, 2009 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a conservative, I am fairly relieved. While I admittedly need to hear more on the lady, she appears NOT to be a bombthrowing, pants wetting, antiAmerican liberal like a ginsberg. I want to hear more, but thus far she doesn't scare me. I had expected much worse from this bunch of socialists.

- Ben Dare

May 26, 2009 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama wanted a nominee who would use empathy in their decisions. So should we defer to empathy or the Rule of Law? I vote law. This is the problem with liberal Justices who view the constitution as a "living, breathing document" To be interpreted differently in view of social change.... This basically means the Constitution is toilet paper.. Just throw away what you don't like. The Constitution should be interpreted strictly and anything that does not meet up to new social curves should require the constitutional approach to either ammend or repeal an ammendment. Just reinterpreting it on a whim is not Law it is suicide.

- TexazEric

May 26, 2009 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the choice is predicatable and "safe" politically. Don't know enough to judge her intellect and I look forward to what is discovered about Sotomayer. I remind you that thankfully it is not the job of a President to "vet" a court candidate as our current President is a best a "second rate" intellect. The SOLE measure of the suitability of a judge should be their grasp and use of logic. Empathy SHOULD NOT trump logic .....

- Msrxbear

May 26, 2009 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr.Rosen, Well written, well blanaced and great journalistic style. Keep at it. -nGuest

- N Guest

May 26, 2009 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The consistent comment by author and what I perceive IS "sourgrape" peers commenting about someone that may intrepret her focused ambition as having a huge ego. But also, I am not aware of any number of Princeton scholarship awardees to be intellectually lacking. Princeton does NOT have a history of just giving out a scholarship to meet some minority quota. You have to have the IQ, essay excellence and in person Q&A accuracy. Then complete undergrade receive acceptance at Yale Law school and be in the top of the graduating class there. So academically- she more than has proven this point. And not forget, to be ELECTED by peers and faculty to be the editor of the Yale Law Review... parallels our current president's bio in some parts. Perhaps her choices of expeditious decisions (Baseball league ending strike in 15 minute decision by her) and then a few long text memos are displaying that she IS well balanced- concise on a majority of actions with her professional law career and long winded on a minority of other actions. WOW- how human does this woman have to be, how perfect does she have to be, oh and let us not forget she has been a well managed, healthy Type 1 diabetic for 47 years (where uncontrolled Type 1s have MAJOR complications after 10 years of diagnosis... and look really bad too... this woman does NOT look unhealthy in anyway I have seen thus far or no history of any complications of her diabetes while on the job)

- ladymermaid

May 26, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen, why did you write such a usless piece of nothing? It serves no purpose with no value whatsoever. You do admit that you know nothing of her opinions and it appears that your own research is nothing more secand and third-hand gossip. Are things realy this bad at the TNR that you must write such ignorance to justify yourself? What a fool you are.

- James

May 26, 2009 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Academics don't publish papers with impartial data. If you don't have enough information to provide an accurate reflection of reality then you are just being libelous. Take into account former TNR reporter SB the unnamed soldier from Iraq. TNR could have easily done their job and cleared the f-ing story before they published un-truths and saved everyone a lot of heart ache. I can only be led to believe that this ethic lays at the heart of TNR's editing process.

- Bub

May 26, 2009 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

in a nut shell she is too stupid to be a supreme court justice. she is where she is because she is hispanic . not because she is smart. and she loves every minute of it

- dilligafudems

May 26, 2009 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffrey, Please disregard the pathetic carping of the people below. Clearly they are the ones who lack the intellectual wherewithall to base an argument and are simply looking for a fight. Simply put, I want a brilliant jurist who has an impeccable background and capable of judging based upon the law. I'm concerned that this nominee has neither. The fact that she is Latino and from the Bronx has no bearing and I know that you could care less about such trivial things. What's important is the mind and she will be judged on that...

- Not All Liberals Are Losers

May 26, 2009 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You don't have to be politically correct. Just say why you don't like her, Mr. Rosen. I am a reporter and it amazes me that the New Republic published this shit article.

- Marilyn

May 26, 2009 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is somewhat off topic but please consider it. I do agree with the argument that this piece lacks substance, however this type of "hit piece" is standard fare against conservatives and tends to serve as the foundation for argments against people like Sara Palin. If you take this template and run with it and explore all of the unsubstantiated gossip and treat it as news you will have a classic liberal hit peice al a Sara Palin. This type ot trash has served to mold opinions against conservatives for decades. Many of you may have deep disdain for Palin because of your own biases against conservatives but do you have the courage and integrity to look at what has been said about Palin and explore the truth? Do you have the intillectual honesty to look closely at the "scandals" that surrounded her in the 08 campaign? I think the only reason this stuff works is because people have an "assumption" to build uppon regarding the target and it gets very easy once you have established it.

- Darren

May 26, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a kid, I wrote book reports on books I never read. Later, in college, I would cite sources I hadn't even looked at. Then, as a columnist at a small-town paper, I reviewed books after reading comments on the book jackets. Now, as an English professor, I grade my students' papers without reading them. Got an opening for me, TNR?

- bookbabe

May 26, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leov, the editors have nothing to do with it. You type a comment in the box and hit "post comment" and it is published. These are comments, not letters to the editor. I'm sure most of the readers here are liberal and most are responding to criticism of a fellow liberal, even by a liberal. Personally, I think had he just titled it differently, the article would be fine. There's nothing wrong with exploring the potential downside of a nomination, even just hearsay, implying the potential negatives he brings up here are actual valid reasons not to nominate her is the problem. I want a judge that is effective, I'm all for discussing her effectiveness. What's in the article is weak evidence though. Fine for discussion, not for decisions.

- Emily

May 26, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gee, I think she gave me a Coke one time with a curly hair on it. Sound familiar?

- Grinder

May 26, 2009 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Based on the "blowback" to this article, I would say the author touched a nerve. ---- "NO" to gender-sensitive, ethnic-sensitive, empathy-tainted jurisprudence. "YES" to impartial, fair, reasonable and impersonal justice. How can it be any other way?

- John

May 26, 2009 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you knew what your attack on the author would be why read it in the first place. Does it make you feel better?

- Olestra Snax

May 26, 2009 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Coming from where u come from I am not surprised at your, Oh My G-D!, outrage

- Olestra Snax

May 26, 2009 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A win win for OBama. Republicans opposing her will be branded racist and sexist. Also alienating the Hispanic vote just in time for the 2010 elections. Not about the best choice for Justice ..but about the best choice for democratic power consolidation.. The race card is still a winning hand.

- Gram

May 26, 2009 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You wrote: "Moreover, the article asserts numerous times that she may not be intelligent. Ostensibly, Princeton and Yale Law schools are and have been accepting average minds, I gather based on the insinuations and hearsay in the article." Actually, that's the very definition of "affirmative action". After all, you can't have it both ways, where minorities are accepted to institutions of higher learning with lower qualifications than the standard ("affirmative action") AND that their lower qualifications don't somehow lower that standard. In fact, that's why she was predisposed to voting against the New Haven firefighters whose constitutional rights of equal treatment under the law were violated because it's now part of her herstory and "empathy" that minorities can not be held to the same standard as whites. And, of course, that's why Obama also feels comfortable nominating a Hispanic lightweight, because at this stage of the dumbing down of America, no one can be expected to hold her to the same standard as whites would be held. (Note the passivity of the Republicans, for fear of being labeled "racist" for opposing a clearly inferior Hispanic.) Affirmative action (an uneven playing field") is not considered the norm. are equal to the standard.

- Eagle in NYC

May 26, 2009 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some white and Hispanic guys do well on a fireman test and the 3 black guys fail. Because the black guys fail the city and Sontemayor see the test as being racist. White guilt hand wringing liberals leading us down a doomed path of low standards to help racial group that as a whold doesn't do anything to help itself. When race trumps effort you know the racial socialists have won.

- sell

May 26, 2009 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do Over! Ok, let's try this again. After all, it was a long weekend and I didn't get anything done like I had planned either. TNR, would you mind issuing a follow up article that gives some meat to the story. I would like to know, impartially, what this nominee's judicial strengths and weaknesses are that may influence her rulings. We all know that Supreme Court nominees can end up being real surprizes when they get on the high court (i.e, Warren, Souter) and their decisions can have long lasting impacts (Marbury v. Madison, etc.). The whole point of our interest is to figure out how she might rule on cases that cross her desk.

- Steve

May 26, 2009 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am so sure in this age of Obama that of all (male, female, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, etc) She is the TOP candidate for the position. Yes I am 100 % certain that she is being chosen strictly for her ability as a judge and not because she is a minority and that nowadays takes precence over all else, including shear ability and intellect.

- max

May 26, 2009 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Further, it means that Sotomayor's appeasement of the liberal special interest groups is a further abrogation of the law to the liberal agenda. It's bad enough when liberal justices legislate from the bench, but this appeasement of the liberal special interest group in question means that the liberal majority of justices aren't even willing to rule for the Constitution and standing law, allowing the liberal special interest group to legislate the law directly with no interference from the judiciary. So, now power is devolved one step further from the people's will in the elected legislature. Whereas it had been usurped by the activist, liberal judges, now it is usurped by the liberal special interest groups by way of the acquiescence of the activist, liberal judges.

- Eagle in NYC

May 26, 2009 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boy when you dont like the direction, then you can cry about being a journalist? The media has been doing this since W was elected. There are no honest to goodness reporters left. There are no watch dogs and the foxes are eating the chickens right in front of your eyes.

- mr bill

May 26, 2009 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you guyss need to shushh

- :) jo mama

May 26, 2009 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor is just another racial identity pimp. She believes in equal outcome without equal input. New Haven is a prime example. The Hispanic and White males worked harder and studied harder than the blacks that took the fire department test. That is why the Hispanic and White scored higher and no blacks made the promotion list. Yet Sotomayor in her decision wants equal outcome based on skin color and not intelligence. I for one don't want an unintelligible fire fighter coming to my house to save me in the event of a fire. Also the recent 49 person aircraft disaster in New York was caused by a minority who failed all flight test being socially promoted to flying an airplane. End result death. Say no to Sotomayor and yes to hard work, and work ethic.

- Discriminator

May 26, 2009 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ive actually litigated in front of Sotamayor. There is nothing impressive about her to tell you the truth. She is an aggressive justice and her questions really arent very probing or thoughtful. I have a feeling that she talks just to be heard. Her opinion was decently written though. Shes a pretty mediocre to subpar appellate court justice to be honest with you. Obama probably could have picked someone better.

- Lionel

May 26, 2009 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Folks, I have to say that I find that most bullets posted have come from the same thinking points. It seems that there is a certain group of people that have targeted this essay as being irresponsible in order to marginalize Mr Rosen. I believe that, if not-for the different tag names, these opinions came from the same person or group. They all seem slanderous in the same ways. Pretty funny if you ask me...but sad when you contemplate how liberals are determined to get their ideology across. Ideology of hate, discrimination and despondency.

- JuanRamos777

May 26, 2009 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed completely. I expected more from TNR. There's nothing here. No record of her decisions. Nothing. Just rumor. This is just an attempt to be first to press. Pitiful.

- BenLinus

May 26, 2009 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You've got to be kidding me?!?!? Welcome to the united socialist states of meximerica.

- jackal

May 26, 2009 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not that smart" and went to Princeton and Yale Law. Must have been one of those "Newyorican" scholarships.

- Floyd DaBarber

May 26, 2009 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as a white guy married to a 100% P.R. lady. its true. they do talk to much and control a conversation when they are heated. anybody on earth who has ever dated a PR chick knows this.

- gringo

May 26, 2009 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being from New Haven, CT, Irish, currently in law school(not Yale if you were wondering), living down the street from a firehouse and a frequenter of Liffey's I can only tell you what I have heard, but Rosen echos almost exactly the rumblings around the city. For this I applaud his reporting. It is truly rare that hearsay, while not proof, is similar from two entirely different sources. I urge all of you read the briefs and pre-trial documents on the case. Not only was one of the plaintiffs Hispanic, but another white firefighter was dyslexic and through his own efforts had the test and study material put on tape, and sought additional tutoring from senior firefighters(including senior firefighters who were minorities). Mayor DeStefano, ever increasingly maniacal, most recently terrorizing children on the green dressed as Captain Planet on Halloween, is consistently seeking distractions from the failures in New Haven including fiscal disaster from which no recovery is apparent, an incredibly high crime rate, so high that the New Haven Register doesn't even report on many of the shootings which occur daily. In exercising his almost boss like control over New Haven, he told the city council to throw out the test scores! I am seeking to illustrate the absurdity of DeStefano's actions. Adding to this absurdity is what we will come to see is the 2nd Circuit's blatant disregard for the Constitution and precedent going back many years over many cases on title VII. On a matter as cut and dry as this case, how will Sotomayor handle cases of life and death? My concern is not only for the judicial integrity of the court, but the health of Ms. Sotomayor as the pressures of being a Justice are immense. Justices have in the past, and will in the future, be subject to breakdown over the immense academic workload. It is my hope that she is properly vetted and not simply ceremoniously enshrined by the super-majority. Her resume is spotless, but her body of work is most disappointing. I will read more of her opinions throughout the week. but at a first revealing glance she reminds me of a Hispanic Harriet Myers.

- Tom

May 26, 2009 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

leov @ posting #199: You already know the answer. I'm surprised they even put yours up.

- George Justice

May 26, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drink some more Kool Aid while you're at it.

- Dave Radetsky

May 26, 2009 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

STOP THIS SMEAR. ROSEN OWES HER AN APOLOGY. HE IS THE BRAINLESS WONDER NOT SHE.

- Kabindra

May 26, 2009 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bush went to Ivy League schools and they called him an idiot, no?" Bush was not editor of the Yale Law Review. They went to similar school, but Bush did poorly and Sotomayor did exceptionally well.

- Stephen Linhart

May 26, 2009 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is not very convincing case against. Much more convincing against is the comment she made on the video, and the racist comments about middle aged white men. These disqualify her from being an unbiased judge of the applicability of law to citizens of the USA.

- aiasha

May 26, 2009 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Welcome to the Court, Rosan Rosanadana. It is ironic that years ago I believed that the ideal candidate under Affirmative Action for any position would be an over-fifty Puerto Rican woman with a peg leg and a glass eye. Watch her eyes during the Senate hearings and see if both of them actually move.

- Obamamammajamma

May 26, 2009 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can't find an liberal intellectual counterweight to conservative justices. It's impossible. A judge whose judicial philosophy is doing whatever you want and coming up with a post hoc rationalization already cedes the intellectual battlefield with an incorrect premise.

- Geoff

May 26, 2009 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It really doesn't matter how smart she is. All she needs is a good teleprompter.

- Eddie George

May 26, 2009 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To those who criticize TNR for publishing this piece of garbage: are you really surprised? Conservatives right wingers do not give one iota of concern for "facts". They will never get bogged down with truth, only innuendo and rumors so they could advance their ideas. Are you really surprised that white conservatives ACTUALLY think that a LATIN WOMAN from the BRONX has the audacity to think she is in the same intellectual ballpark as them? Never mind the fact she graduated suma cum laude from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, she is from the Bronx! She speaks Spanish! Come on, we cannot have someone like that on the Supreme Court Bench, can we? Thank you TNR for continuing to advance the losing Republican agenda. You just do not get it, do you? The country is changing and "you people" are not ready to change along with it. Keep going and soon you and the Republican Party will be an insignificant footnote in history...

- Carlos Nazario

May 26, 2009 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She sounds like an ESTJ. Do we really want Rosie O'Donnell on the SCOTUS? This is an INTELLECTUAL position. www.geocities.com/lifexplore/estj.htm

- Ugh Ugh

May 26, 2009 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find the Jeffrey Rosen's sense of irony quite charming. He's raising questions about the analytical abilities of a potential SCOTUS justice by drawing attention to his own intellectual and analytical frailties--positively brilliant!

- Justin

May 26, 2009 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason you don't have "an intellectual counterbalance to the conservative justices" is because if a person possessed such qualities they wouldn't be a liberal. Any reasoned approach to the law would be defined as conservative. Liberals rule with unsupportable emotion. So you should be happy with this pick.

- Steve

May 26, 2009 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." HMM - sounds like the person currently ruining...oops, I meant "running" our country.

- DLewis

May 26, 2009 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for the piece. I am inclined to favor her, but unlike most in my party, I am not a rubber stamp. I do feel that she is a bit too activist, and as a somewhat conservative dem., I think she is a bit left of me. I am in the old school camp of dems. that still does not believe that the constitution should be looked at as a living, breathing document. It should be adhered to, and that in the past 200+ years, noone yet who has ascended to the supreme court has shown a that they are above the intelligence and prescience of the men who wrote it. So just stick to it.

- Darren

May 26, 2009 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is unworthy of the considerable intellect and talent of Jeffrey Rosen. Gossip is elevated to substance. The handful of examples are anecdotal and really not damaging. I would think that prior to lending his name to an attack on Sotomayer's "intellectual heft" he would at least read some of her work.

- Kirk Hoskins

May 26, 2009 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article Jeffrey Rosen. Keep up the good work.

- Mike M

May 26, 2009 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's face it, this woman is an intellectual midget. Her only qualification is her race. She's about as thoughtful as a turnip. She'll fit in perfectly with Odumba.

- G.W. Bush

May 26, 2009 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male'.... Let's try that a different way..... ' I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of (his) experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman'... Racist gender bashing to the core.............! Judicial temperament; integrity, Baloney! Justice is not blind. "Justice" reads the paper everyday and decides which way their favorite constituency wants to go and then shouts: "follow me". Enough of the political hacks on the "Supremes"; these frustrated legislators posing as judges who don't have the courage to subject their ideologies to the test of public opinion through the election process by running for office. Why is racist gender bashing rhetoric OK for self proclaimed minority "victims" but not OK otherwise? Judges are elitist snobs who like to dictate and rule by decree. There never was a contract (like the "US Constitution" that they don't seek to break to further their personal political agenda. We are talking about a lifetime appointment here. Caveat Emptor Sotomayor.

- Bagpiper

May 26, 2009 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The video where Sotomayor tells everyone know that she thinks it is funny that policy is not to be made from the bench (although clearly she thinks it is). Plus, her racist comments about middle-aged white men ability to judge automatically disqualifies her an objective judge of the law as it applies to individuals, businesses, and constitutional issues. This article is a weak argument against the appointment.

- aiasha

May 26, 2009 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to the comment that ridiculed Mr. Rosen for suggesting that Benjamin Cardozo might have been the Hispanic. Justice Cardozo *was* Hispanic, by any reasonable definition of the word. But here is the real shocker... there is no legal definition of the word 'Hispanic'! If anyone claims to be Hispanic there is no legal basis by which you could refute them. What could possibly be the qualifications for being considered Hispanic? As Mrs. Kerry found out, at least when someone claims to be African-American we all know what they really mean is that their skin is black. Therefore, although Mrs. Kerry was born in African she was roundly ridiculed for letting slip that she was African-American (which she is). No such defining characteristic for Hispanics, however, which is why so many forms have the checkbox for 'non-hispanic' white. Most Hispanics could claim they are white but what is the advantage to that. If only more non-Hispanic whites would catch on to this scam, and claim to be Hispanic, we could put an end to all this silly race-based politics. Then we could all be minorities!

- Occams Gun

May 26, 2009 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is a disgusting smear piece and an insult to journalism. TNR should take it down immediately.

- Disgusting

May 26, 2009 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Um... it's the first in a series of articles, no conclusions were drawn based on this initial information. And personally, I think it is extremely relavant to know what the people who worked with her thought of her. God forbid anyone criticize a minority. I don't really give a crap about her "story", beyond how it might influence her performance on the court. I want justices who evaluate cases based on compliance with the Constitution, not out of a subjective sense of social concern (which is exactly what happen in the Newhaven case)

- Hobble T. Hoy

May 26, 2009 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

headline: 'The Case Against Sotomayor' article: '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.'

- dotepx

May 26, 2009 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is unworthy of the considerable intellect and talent of Jeffrey Rosen. Gossip is elevated to substance. The handful of examples are anecdotal and really not damaging. I would think that prior to lending his name to an attack on Sotomayer's "intellectual heft" he would at least read some of her work.

- Kirk Hoskins

May 26, 2009 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LOL!!! Why is it if anyone questions ANYTHING Obama does, including this appointment....I mean she's not smart, Obama isn't that great either, I mean what has he done? He's just doing what his handlers tell him! LOL!!! This is gonna be fun! Keep on writing!

- Val

May 26, 2009 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps the author, Mr Rosen should just come out and say it: she's not smart enough for the Supreme Court, and Obama better appoint another jew who can tell us what to do.

- Gerry

May 26, 2009 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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." Academics don't publish papers with impartial data. If you don't have enough information to provide an accurate reflection of reality then you are just being libelous. Take into account former TNR reporter SB the unnamed soldier from Iraq. TNR could have easily done their job and cleared the f-ing story before they published un-truths and saved everyone a lot of heart ache. I can only be led to believe that this ethic lays at the heart of TNR's editing process.

- Bub

May 26, 2009 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least she's not Napolitano.

- Mark Carlton

May 26, 2009 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So we will get an 'angry Latina' who thinks that 'white' people are morally inferior?

- d in the H

May 26, 2009 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

in my opinion, this whole article has been plagarized. everything that's on here has been taken off of some internet source, such as "judgepedia." get the facts, and try not to trash someone off of plagarized material.

- Branden W

May 26, 2009 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know that most of the people that comment here will despise my comments, but I just don't care...is this what the American Left, the self-styled intellectuals of this nation, really wants as the poster-child for their Supreme Court justice? A pushy individual who delivers half-baked opinions...surely you can do better than this, oh Glorious Leader? Wait, that's right, you need to politically pander with EVERY move you make...and this move is calculated to pull future vote from the female and Latino voting blocks (couldn't come up with a good MEXICAN-American or were the "other Hispanics" feeling left out?), which is how you see the USA...as blocks to be assembled to build power upon...that Mr. Alinsky you learned from must be a real brainiac, maybe we should all kiss his toes like you do, oh Great One.

- Heartland Patriot

May 26, 2009 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>> The proof in this hatchet job is as substantial as was the proof of Al-Qaeda's links to Saddam... "someone said so." So, you PERSONNALLY went to Iraq and examined EVERY document generated from Saddam's government? If not, then you are basing your conclusion, that Saddam did NOT have ties to Al-Qaeda, on something "someone else said". Just because it fits your view of what you want to be true doesn't make it magically not hypocritical. Not even if the truth of the matter really IS that Saddam didn’t have ties to Al-Qaeda, absolves you from being a hypocrite.

- jon

May 26, 2009 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was poring over the sanctimonious squawkingly indignant obtuse comments here. Now I know: THIS is where all the bleating, babbling Obama thralls come to sing their endlessly asinine chorus; THIS is where the sheep try to retain the gushing feelings and the "furrowing up their legs" over their false idol. Hey sheepies, your false idol is shaping up to be a real incompetent. Too bad the country had to be inflicted with this community-agitator radical buffoon. Ooops, I almost forgot: it's all Bush's fault.

- Elvis

May 26, 2009 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed. Welcome all comers with stellar logic, a consistent history of pristine rulings that hold historically, excellent law school backgrounds and respect for this country's constitution, its laws and our system of democracy. Obama's adding "empathy" to the job description is so strange; it invites bias, lack of objectivity. It is the Supreme Court, not Juvie Court. If only the nomination and selection process were "blind."

- pam

May 26, 2009 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So do you then believe that GW Bush was smart? Most of you liberals accuse him of being an idiot, when he went to Yale as well. Basically the way you guys think is if you are a liberal you're smart, if your a conservative youre an idiot.. So sick of that.

- TexazEric

May 26, 2009 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know who this blogger Rosen is, and, frankly, I can care less, but I am positively sure that he is a republican. What Rosen needed to do before writing this piece of nonsense is to get himself fully informed about this great Latin woman. Maybe if he does, he will be able to write a more truthful article--- yet, maybe he can't write about the facts. Rosen should get a radio show and join his buddy Limbaugh in throwing mud on every American who is capable to serve the United States with honor. People like Roden and Limbaugh create controversy to feed their own poorly guided objectives-- ratings. Rosen, be objective next time. In the meantime, I will avoid reading anything that you publish--- just as everybody will.

- Arctic Lion

May 26, 2009 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is in reply to 'Carlos Nazario'...if you are that concerned about white conservatives, then do you support Justice Thomas? Last time I looked, he wasn't white by a LONG stretch of the imagination...oh, but that's right, someone is only a REAL African American if they want reparations payments, right? And I guess the only term you'd want to use for Justice Thomas is "Uncle Tom", right? YOU are the exact person who showcases what is wrong in the USA; it's all okay, if it's done YOUR way...dissent is okay when it's LEFTIST dissent...it's MULTICULTURAL and MULTIETHNIC when the minority individual in question is a LEFTIST individual...take your little book of Marx and go jump on the trash pile of history, where that mess belongs...your moment of victory will also be the start of your road to defeat...you haven't heard the last of "you people", mark my words.

- Concerned Citizen

May 26, 2009 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't Rosen doing his job? Everyone complains about biased media on both sides. Rosen is reporting from his sources without rendering his own opinion, which is what a journalist should do. He may be biased on the issue and may have even selected what he reported, but it is refreshing not to hear a reporter's opinion on an issue.

- Tired of Politics

May 26, 2009 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should not be surprised by what i'm reading here.Everyone of you should go back through and read everyone's posts.I have never seen such a group of whiny prejudice losers in my life!As I see it if everyone doesn't agree with the majority opinion here, then it must mean your a moron or worse.Far left liberals are just as sickening as far right conservs.You blind yourselves to anything but your own opions just like Rosen.Shame-no wonder nothing gets done in this country-to many bitchers and not enough doers.Its real easy to sit back and scream foul.Its another thing entirely to look at ALL the issues and realize that you are not always right and neither are they.Oh,and by the way,I wonder how Sotomayor would have ruled had it been two white men that scored low and everyone else scored high.Would she have agreed if the city had thrown out those tests as not counting or would the statement have been"too bad,you're white,not our problem-you figure it out-but we already know the answer.And before I accused of being a racist white i'm not.I am however an American Indian.I was taught to try hard to look at All the issues from both sides.To think in only one way,(i.e.your way)is to wall yourself off from the truths of life.Your opinion,my opinion,their opinion.Everyone has one,but not everyone does the research-sad fact of life.I'm sure everyone of you ALWAYS researches every single issue that comes out of your mouths,right?!Opinions are never proof of fact.Anyone with a brain knows that.

- true american

May 26, 2009 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not think that gender and ethnicity should influence the nomination to the Supreme Court. I praise her for what she did, but if she will be elected to advance an agenda, that's not the goal of justice.

- afriendof bork

May 26, 2009 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

u need to shoot all u.s. & u.s. states' copspigssh/tmouths in their fncking mouths immediately, then ni66er drag their families & children. That's the law.

- urgblasservescenttime

May 26, 2009 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor is a bad choice. What we'll get is someone who regards courts as policymakers, someone who is steeped in poisonous identity politics whith a marked lack of common sense that borders on lunacy. Take the case of this law student as reported in the New Republic (DEFINING DISABILITY DOWN): Consider the lawsuit filed in 1993 by an aspiring attorney named Marilyn J. Bartlett. Bartlett graduated in 1991 from Vermont Law School, where she received generous accommodations of her reading disability and disability in "phonological processing." Nonetheless, Bartlett did not do well, graduating with a GPA of 2.32 and a class standing of 143 out of 153 students. She then went to work as a professor of education at Dowling College, where, according to court documents, she "receives accommodations at work for her reading problems in the form of a full-time work-study student who assists her in reading and writing tasks." When it came time to take the bar exam, Bartlett petitioned the New York Board of Law Examiners for special arrangements. She wanted unlimited time for the test, access to food and drink, a private room and the use of an amanuensis to record her answers. Acting on the advice of its own expert, who reported that Bartlett's test data did not support a diagnosis of a reading disorder, the board refused Bartlett's demands. Three times, Bartlett attempted the exam without accommodation. After her third failure, she sued the board. On July 3, 1997, Judge Sonia Sotomayor ruled in Bartlett's favor. Ordering the board to provide the accommodations Bartlett had requested, she also awarded Bartlett $12,500 in compensatory damages. Judge Sotomayor did not challenge the board's contention that Bartlett was neither impaired nor disabled, at least not in the traditional sense. In an enterprising new twist, however, she declared that Bartlett's skills ought not to be compared to those of an "average person in the general population" but, rather, to an "average person with comparable training, skills and abilities"--i.e., to her fellow cohort of aspiring lawyers. An "essential question" in the case, said the judge, was whether the plaintiff would "have a substantial impairment in performing [the] job" of a practicing lawyer. The answer to this question was "yes," the judge found. And this answer--the fact that Bartlett would have a very hard time meeting the job requirements of a practicing lawyer--was, in the judge's opinion, precisely the reason why Bartlett had a protected right to become a practicing lawyer. Thus, Judge Sotomayor ruled that Bartlett's "inability to be accommodated on the bar exam--and her accompanying impediment to becoming bar-admitted--exclude her from a `class of jobs' under the ADA," and could not be permitted. To drive home her point, Judge Sotomayor triumphantly cited Bartlett's performance during a courtroom demonstration of her reading skills. "Plaintiff read haltingly and laboriously, whispering and sounding out some words more than once under her breath before she spoke them aloud," the judge recalled. "She made one word identification error, reading the word `indicted' as `indicated.'" It could, of course, be argued that the ability to read is an essential function of lawyering; that any law school graduate who cannot distinguish "indicated" from "indicted," who cannot perform cognitive tasks under time constraints, is incapable of performing the functions of a practicing lawyer and therefore, perhaps, should not be a practicing lawyer. But one would be arguing those things in the teeth of the law. Thanks to the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Bartlett and her fellows among the learning-disabled are now eligible for a lifelong buffet of perks, special breaks and procedural protections, a web of entitlement that extends from cradle to grave.

- Joshua

May 26, 2009 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll explain it for you lw. The problem with Sotomayor is right in the article. She and her fellow judges did not include an opinion in thier firefighter case because there was nothing actually in the law to back them up since it was and is clear discrimination on the part of the NY Fire Dept and now further discrimination by Sotomayor and here associates on the court who ruled in favor of the Dept and against the white firefighters who were denied thier rights. Hence these liberal Soto-judges ruled based on how their heart tugged on them rather than just doing thier job and revictomized the white firefighters. Thus they couldn't supply an opinion as is customary since they had nothing in the law to back them up. I suspect her ruling will be overturned by the US Supreme Court. She has made racist and bigoted statements some of which have been recorded and she is going to be a polarizing nominee. Obama said today that a Supreme should not make law. However, she clearly IS ALREADY in the habit of making law like she did in the NY firefighter case. She has been caught on camera in an unguarded moment when she verified that dirty little secret that judges on the circuit court of appeals make law all the time with a wink and a nod. Obama's cries for bi-partisanship are just another Liberal deception because he picked a nomineee that he knows will guarantee a fight when her opinions of living breathing law are exposed. Bravo Obama. You really proved us all wrong. We were sure that no one could be more liberally and radically obtuse than Jimmy Carter. We were clearly wrong.

- Jerry

May 26, 2009 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is my understanding Mr. Rosen is a journalist, not a legal scholar. As a journalist he is reporting quotes he obtained from "witnesses". The quotes relayed may be selective rather than a random cross section, or maybe not. I don't know and I will not speculate. What I do not understand however, is why he is being attacked for reporting these quotes from individuals who are familiar with Judge Sotomayor instead of analyzing her opinions. By the way, graduating with honors from a prestigious law school is generally a pre-requisite for appointment to the Supreme Court; it is not however a guarantee one will be an effective jurist.

- Ron D.

May 26, 2009 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe the truth is quite the opposite. It is Liberals who don't care about facts, truth, fairness or the rule of law. As stated by your Dear Leader Barack Obama "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do you, says what the federal governement CAN'T do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the state covernment must do...." THIS IS CRAZY.. He views the constitution as a "constraint" of the government. EXACTLY that't the point!!! It was meant to protect the People from an overbearing government. Sotomayor is a radical, She has been overturned 80% of the time. She is not stupid, but the point of her critics is that she is arguing from her own views and not from the point of law. She is exactly what Dear Leader wanted an Anti-constitutionalist and just the beginning of Dear Leaders radical Agenda to destroy the constitution and lead us into hard core Marxism.

- TexazEric

May 26, 2009 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anonymous...is not a source..this article names NO ONE...absurd writing. The author is a hack.

- Peter Combs

May 26, 2009 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arctic Lion-- I believe it is "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, that means you actually do care.

- Arctic Iceberg

May 26, 2009 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At what point did we start a racist/sexist practice of seeking employees based FIRST by their race/gender? Since when does one's intellect and ability to reason benefit by their RACE? If a WHITE justice said these things, his/her career would END: Sotomayor quotes:"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging...but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." Substitute WHITE there and what would happen? “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor... Let's substitute WHITE there and what would happen? "I would hope that a wise WHITE MALE with the richness of HIS experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a LATINA FEMALE who hasn’t lived that life..."

- Kiko

May 26, 2009 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Her comments about a latina woman verses a old white man seem sufficiently racist to satisfy the Obama agenda.

- Stephen Friedland

May 26, 2009 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh good, I love anonymous gossip! Am I reading the National Enquirer?

- tylery

May 26, 2009 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nylarthotep said: "This is type of article that led me to cancel my TNR subscription"...can we infer that you then made it a habit to instead read TNR online? I guess what you mean is that the articles are so good, you can't wait for the paper version...otherwise, you're a bit of a drama queen hipocrite. "I disagree so much, I'll only read online or when I pick up the magazine in the Dentist's office!" Oooooh! You showed them!

- KIKO

May 26, 2009 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I bet Mr. Rosen is NOT a Rebublican...probably a registerd Democrat and a self-styled moderate or even liberal...just happens to write an article that many liberals don't like and bam!, gets the heck beat out of him...sad, when liberals turn on their own...

- Just a thought...

May 26, 2009 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being Puerto Rican and having her "story" does help somebody who may be less intelligent than the norm have such an impressive educational background.

- SOS

May 26, 2009 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh please--if Yale Law means a minority woman grad is "smart", then a white male (not a minority) from Harvard Business School is a genius i.e., George Bush!

- vanessa

May 26, 2009 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because affirmative action has cheapened minority achievement by calling into question its authenticity.

- Ted

May 26, 2009 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am very surprised at these criticisms. She is singularly inexperienced in real world living (just like Obama)and clearly has a second rate mind compared to other available choices. Who picked her for Obama? Pay back for whom? petekent01 (on twitter)

- PeteKent01

May 26, 2009 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Definition of Far Liberal:Anarchist

- True American

May 26, 2009 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is in no way objective journalism, it's a hit piece. They are beginning to circle the wagons. The subtext of all the 'objections' is: Female (gender bias) and Latina (racism.)

- Tom Ontis

May 26, 2009 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought the article was WELL written. The people interviewed were most helpful and not biased at all! The nominee sound like a person who feels she has to speak her mind at all costs. AND the ones who wrote the article took NO side!! They did a good job. If I were where I could I would NOT vote for her at all !! We need an interpretation of the Law, not someone's opinion, who is dying to tell everyone what THEY think !! She is what I expected, from the obomination and the communist leaning left!!!!!

- oldmsrebel

May 26, 2009 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have had my entertainment for the day in reading the posts. Liberalism is not dead nor racism. The confirmation process will be very interesting for this Nominee.

- A good laugh

May 26, 2009 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You Liberals make me sick. You as much as admit what you need is to cheat because you can't win legally at the ballot box. You scam elections, disenfranchise our military, pack courts with judges that whore the law out to your freaky leftist selves. Be careful what you wish for. If you suceed in bringing to fruition, your idea of socialist totalitarianism, ( thats right social totalinarianism. Your belief that someone can be thrown in jail for expressing thier opinion or worse yet for simply having the audacity to SAY THE TRUTH in other words Liberalism) then rest assured that YOU crazy, activist, global warming hoaxing, leftists will be the first into the prisons because when your leaders finally take over you will have out lived your usefulness to those in power. Just like in China, USSR, Venezuela and the many others that have failed throughout history. You are just too dumb to figure our that you are engineering your own demise but you'll see soon enough and I hope you choke on it.

- jerry

May 26, 2009 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In no way was the piece a rant against the mere presence of a hispanic woman in the Supreme Court. While the article might not be thorough or fully researched, legitimate claims against the intellect and credibility of Sotomayor are raised. My conversation with a NYC lawyer with experience in front of Sotomayor confirmed that she's far from the most enlightened judge on the circuit. And let's not lose sight of the fact that she was appointed virtually solely on the basis of race and gender; in no way was this a meritocracy. This woman's opinions are frankly scary, especially in the New Haven firefighter case. The only good news is that it's a raging liberal replacing a liberal, and that her views won't matter in the long run.

- James Williams

May 26, 2009 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is obviously a terrible job at journalism, but for the unobvious reason. A much more convincing argument against Sotomayor could've easily been made. It's well documented that she is both a racist and ignorant of the role of the judiciary. She's quoted and videotaped with her ignorant, backwards opinions, and it's well- documented. But Rosen (who BTW is a valiant Obama apologist) presents a weak argument and whiffs on the showstoppers, apparently in an attempt to make her look better.

- Kevin

May 26, 2009 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen and like minded fair Americans realize that the Supreme Court needs more intellectuals of the caliber that decided the Gore versus Bush case in 2000. This little known case allowed a right thinking, clear headed, patriotic AMERICAN to be selected President by our Justices over the so called "votes" of the little people. Rosen understands that empathy starts with the rich and powerful, like cutting taxes for the wealthy, so that they can buy stuff and trickle down the benefits to the poor. And unlike Obama, Rosen realizes we need to draw the line at empathy for the poor, or things will get out of control. Now is the time to support the Rush minded conservatives like Cheney who defended America during conflicts like Vietnam from blowhards like Colin Powell who hid from combat along with John Kerry. We need more heros like George W. - Mission Accomplished!

- Bush Cheney 2012

May 26, 2009 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Carlos Nazario....You have a comic book understanding of the world. That is sad and its obvious that you have put EVERYONE into catagories in order to wrap your brain around them. Conservatives dont have your immature comic book villain (conservatives)vs big hearted, fair minded, tolerant, caring etc(liberals)mentality. We recognize the world as a complex and unfair place and libs need to recognize that as well as recognize human nature and that they cant control it no matter how hard they try.

- Darren

May 26, 2009 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I nominate Judge Judy Sheindlin for the US Supreme Court!

- Mr B

May 26, 2009 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not think anyone truly believes she is there because she is the best candidate for the country. She may be there because she is a competent high level judge. However, I seriously doubt she would be Obama's selection if she wasn't also a latina. I like Obama... but he is a bit of a cliche sometimes. He would make a great advertising executive.

- dave

May 26, 2009 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It absolutely doesn't matter, no way a woman, first Hispanic with more judicial experience than some of the Justices on the court, let alone when those justices were selected is going to get rejected by an overwhelmingly democratic senate. All you right wing nuts can do is whine, whine and whine... pick a fight where you have a half percent of chance to win. Republicans by not supporting Sotomayor will lose any Hispanic that is left in the party... the Party of Limbaugh will soon consist of just Limbaugh Gingrich Cheney and their ilk.

- Teddy

May 26, 2009 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unlike a number of the other commentators here, I've actually read a number of Judge Sotomayor's opinions, particularly those decisions which have passed before the Supreme Court. (And in which she received some passably stinging criticism for her reasoning and just 11 out of 44 possible votes.) The lady is by no means of the highest intellect. She's no fool, but she isn't the brightest nominee we could have put forward. Given the intellectual resources in this nation, America can do much better.

- Victor

May 26, 2009 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffery Rosen is "left-of-center" that's what I heard on NPR, it is published in TNR, a journal worthy of political commentary- Pres. John F. Kennedy was photographed with it tucked under his arm. The substance of this disgusting analysis is irrelevant. A member of the lucky sperm club, such as Rossen is horrified by the very notion of merit-- which is exactly the intention of Rossen's filthy screed. I can't wait to hear what the "liberal" media will have to say about this. And the "liberal" Chris Matthews. Merit NOT be the focus. "Conservatives" are not supposed to care about race, sex, etc., etc... Rossen is a "liberal", I swear I heard this on NPR. Crazy.

-

May 26, 2009 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most of the arguments against this article do not address the information provided. An attack on the author is not a substative counter the the points raised. Also, the fact that she is a latino or women is immaterial in the context of the law and decideing if she would make a good Justice. Her body of work is what should be reviewed and is the best indicator if she is a good fit for the appoinment. The press would not be doing their job if no questions were raised about here capabilities. This is a life appoinment. It is probably a good idea to review, very carefully, her writtings and decisions to get an idea if she can perform as expected.

- D Clements

May 26, 2009 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is hearsay and is presented as such..no attempt is made to fool the reader into believing these are facts. In this information age the first to report gets all the attention (and all the hits...i.e. ad revenue). There is nothing unethical about representing hearsay as hearsay and letting the reader decide the truth....or wait until more information with confirmed sources is available. People need to get over themselves. Personally, I feel this choice is in place to guarantee the female and hispanic vote in the next cycle...with Obama and Co. treating Israel like crap, they are alienating the powerful jewish vote block on the East coast and intend to use this to grab enough women and hispanic votes to make it up in the next electin cycle.

- Todd

May 26, 2009 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smart and capable are two different qualities. I'd say that a person's IQ is probably hard to determine aside from a valid psychometric test (interestingly, in many other instances I notice Leftists deny that any such thing as differences in IQ, or intelligence, even exist). OTOH, capability is not hard to ascertain. My favorite example of judicial incompetence, from law school, was W.O. Douglass' infamous opinion that trees should be given standing to bring suit in Federal Court. He may, or may not, have been smart, but he was a nuclear-powered fool, of bad character. IMHO anyone who would affirm as a matter of law the obvious, blatant, undeniable, unconstitutional, illegal, intolerable, and all-around unjust racial discrimination practiced by the local F.D. in Ricci should instantly be deported to some country (especially in Africa) where he would fit right in and where white people are offered no protection of law, period. At least they run 'transparent' legal systems in those countries. Don't forget that one of the criticisms of affirmative action was predicted to be the uncertainty in a fair person's mind as to the competence of any so-favored 'minority' in any professional field, as it is impossible to rely on the certification of their academic achievement, because it is based upon different (affirmative action) standards from those applied to white students. For the moment, this opinion is not a Hate Crime, but stay tuned.

- jacobite

May 26, 2009 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The case against - Fits most or all of the current justices appointed by Republican Presidents...so whats next?

- Raju

May 26, 2009 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems judge Sotomayor is an accomplished person who struggled in life but has become successful as a result of her hard work, education, and use of good opportunities. Although I am a political conservative who takes a strict interruption of the Constitution, I think her accomplishments will be overlooked because there is too much politics involved in her confirmation. She gives the appearance that she was only selected based on her ethnicity or gender instead of her accomplishments. Obama's thoughts on the importance of judges and their role on the court bothers me because the Constitution is not a document to interrupt or expand or redefine. The document needs to be followed by stated purpose. I believe the decision of a US Supreme Court justice is one of the most important things a President does because it creates a legacy of decisions and rulings for years or decades to come. This important decision should not involve gender, race, or political thought although many too many times it does.

- Mark

May 26, 2009 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article reminds me of the truth behind the old joke..."What do have when you have 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"...A good start if one of them is Jeffrey Rosen. The pure vacuous "reasoning" of the author makes me wonder if his column shouldn't be called "Gossip Guy".

- RB Shea

May 26, 2009 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What difference does it make if she's qualified or not? From what I can see she has her bonafides and has hit all the requirements; she oozes empathy. Who would dare stand against this proud Latina?

- Gary

May 26, 2009 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I spoke to some people who said something about someone but i'm not sure if they are right or not. Great journalism. you really bring your argument.

- Kenny

May 26, 2009 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Gregory Slater, Perhaps before you claim your brilliance as a blogger, you should learn how to spell. "Confidant" is actually a noun, while "confident" meaning "sure of oneself" might better have expressed your thoughts. Or at least a copy editor...

- anonymous

May 26, 2009 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Although I am a political conservative who takes a strict interruption of the Constitution,..." An "interruption" of the Constitution, strict or otherwise, is exactly what we should not have but I am afraid we will get. An interruption is even worse than the wildly flowering Constitution advocated by the left as if it were guided by the motto: Let a thousand Constitutions bloom. In light of this, strict construction looks better and better.

- Joshua

May 26, 2009 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rosen: For clarity and attribution, who is anonymous?

- plassiter

May 26, 2009 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So amusing that the comments here are anti-Rosen rather than substantive. He said, she said. What passes for intellectual debate amongst the left these days! Republicans should rejoice at both the mediocrity of the nominee as well as her desperate thin-skinned defenders. Time for fun ....

- politics of personal destruction

May 26, 2009 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good Grief! Do you people believe freedom of speech only applies to Liberals? Hatchet job? I don't see it in Rosen's article--these are pretty well known facts about this candidate. The article was balanced, and I think I can see that most of you are moved more by the "emotion" surrounding this candidate's gender and ethnicity than by FACTS. This woman (and I am one) makes clear in various interviews that she does not interpret the law--she wants to make up her own rules. JUSTICE should be blind--to color, ethnicity, gender, income, etc., etc. There should be no place on the Supreme Court for anyone who thinks differently.

- Mya Lane

May 26, 2009 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We'll have to see if she paid her taxes and declared her hired help at home. Odds are running 50/50 as in past Obama appointments. I'm still waiting for a nomination of a Hispanic or Black for any Treasury or Fed position.

- jose jimenez

May 26, 2009 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So now we have a society that would rather place a person to a high office because of a minority standing. And people wonder why our country is slowly weathering away while the rest of the world is moving forward.

- Josh

May 26, 2009 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Her life and mine are so much alike it is spooky...the difference, I think, is that my parents had five other children, both worked and they were unable to send me to college....I have three masters within my siblings, a Phd, one summa and a magna cum laude. There, I might be, but for my parent's financial condition. She is younger than me so the programs she was able to take advantage of were unavailable to me.

- Sue

May 26, 2009 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Didn't you read the article? Do you feel threatened when someone dares to stick a pin into your liberal balloon? You read with an eye sensitive to anything that can deflate the liberal/statist view, and can't take it when the truth conflicts. As far as I can see, he wasn't forwarding an opinion, he was reporting, which is what reporters are supposed to be doing. She isn't pure as the driven snow just because you've adopted her as a paragon of liberal virtue. She has other facets, which aren't perfect, just as you do. That's what the story is telling me.

- Peter

May 26, 2009 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

President Obama gets yet another pass, this time for blatant discrimination. If President Bush had said he would consider only men for nomination to the Supreme Court, the ACLU and liberal press would not have rested until he was impeached. Also, Barry could have waited to name a nominee, but he had no clue what to do about North Korea so this buys him time.

- Bob Strong

May 26, 2009 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HISPANIC + WOMAN = WHY SHE IS BEING CONSIDERED...TOTALY WRONG.

- jason

May 26, 2009 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You comment that the SC nominee is among the most vetted along with the president. Please note there are no published writings of the president from high school through three universities, nor as a "professor" of law at UIC. There is nothing transparent about Obama and I wonder who you consider did the vetting? Surely it was not the media.

- FRS

May 26, 2009 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh who cares. Let the liberals run Washington DC any way they like. Washington DC will be defaulting on bonds in less than two years. Who listens to people who don't pay their bills? Second, Washington DC is taking apart the defenses that protect them. So, sooner or later the terrorists will plant a weapon of mass destruction and that will be that. Good bye Washington DC and good riddance.

- Bill H

May 26, 2009 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps your definition of "Hispanics" is correct, but as a Latina that the government insists on all levels is a "Hispanic", I disagree. I speak Spanish, but, other ethic people south of our border speak a language that is different kind of spanish. It is a fact that if you travel south, you best learn to use different words for different meanings so that you do not offend the people you are visiting.

- Sue

May 26, 2009 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What if Rosen is right and we indeed have someone who is an intellectual lightweight and a hot tempered Latina, er uh women er uh person. As a Conservative, I will find it fascinating to watch her to go up against the likes of Scalia. If any of you morons would care to read one Justice Sotomayor's considered opinions, take the time to look up the Ricci case. You should all have the intellectual acumen to understand even this kindergarten jibberish. Her opinion was not only Judicial activism, it was judicial Gobblediegook. You fools would give up your land just to see a Liberal on the Supreme court. I suggest you be careful what you wish for. Mr. Rosen, you are going to find out what it's like to be a liberal who strays from the reservation. You'll find out who the viscious people are. They are the same ones who criticize me for believing in God, and despise anyone who dares speak against the wisdom of the "GREAT THUG OBAMA" Good Luck Sir!!! I am sure that in the future you will cave and I will find you apologizing for your insensitivity toward Sotomayor.

- John

May 26, 2009 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The comments on this article have the intellectual credibility of HuffPo whiners. Nothing but name calling and distractions about the author. Shooting the messenger is the tired old retort of the moral relativists. Not a whit of substance.

- NCMike

May 26, 2009 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please, just crawl back under your rock. Hateful attacks have no place in discourse that is supposed to be civil.

- Sue

May 26, 2009 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The company idiot!

- Sue

May 26, 2009 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We need much more clear thinking. Get beyond yourselves and understand how important it is that the constitution isn't abrogated by popular demand. The history of the already failed agenda of totalitarian tyranny the world over should give us pause at the very least when we embrace the ideals that in no way can protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The preponderance of far left postings here are sad. Because you haven't learned a thing and there won't be any pause as you rush headlong into your own failed estate. This insane defense of a judge who practices as an agent of change from the bench is just beyond me. I don't really care what Rosen says, the facts of her career speak for themselves and this radicalism of hers is not only uncalled for, it's also unconstitutional. And what does anyone think she's going to do from the bench in Supreme Court? You think she'll be fair and equittable, with her eye on the constitution at all times as she will promise under oath? I don't. Why should I when I have not seen a liberal justice do so in my entire life? It doesn't matter to me if she grew up under extreme adversity. It doesn't matter to me that she's a woman, and a "Latina". What matters to me is my constitution, and whether she will do her part to defend it. I haven't seen anything about her that gives the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing she will. So keep you liberal pandering to yourselves! In this arena, your first amendment rights do NOT give the right to shove your liberal, collectivist error, and insults down anyone's throats, and you are doing that in a hateful partisan way, irregardless of what makes sense for the USA, today and into the future.

- Peter

May 26, 2009 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would like to know who paid for her nurse, living costs, etc. since her father died when she was 8. Also, who paid for her education at Yale and Princeton. Will this information ever be made public? She was taken care of by the welfare system. She was put through these schools because she is Latino and it was paid for by the American tax payer.

- Lori Daniel

May 26, 2009 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems both Sotomayor and Holder gave similar opinions about race in America, which is that they are happily non-white, think whites are cowardly or thick or both, have no respect for the country which apparently has waited for so long before finding out they are geniuses. Also, millions more non-whites are willing and able to lead the country into real greatness if only whites would step aside and let them have the place. And of course "we're charming, too".

- mark

May 26, 2009 at 8:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New Republic has been damaged.

- Nat Irvin

May 26, 2009 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is amazing to me is that the posters, so slavish in their devotion to the faux socialist pacifist Messiah, that they could not take into account even the Dem jurists who thought her not that intellectually bright, not understanding of precedent or steri and yet they blather about Rosen's perceptions. Not one of the posters took into account her Durham pronouncements that jurists should make policy and law on the lower courts, ha, ha , ha she commented. That is not her duty , legal, compassionate or not. And her racist comments on being a Latina with more understanding of law than white men is just pure baloney. Let her say that to Scalia, Taft, Marshall, and Cardoza.

- Glenn Koons

May 26, 2009 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not that I'm in any way surprised, but Obama certainly seems to be swinging for the fences. While I am generally happy with Roberts and Alito (for now...), those two are in no way as "conservative" or "originalist" as Sotomayor appears to be "liberal" or "consequentialist". It will be a sad commentary that the media will most likely praise Obama for his noble choice and villify Republicans for even considering questioning the credentials of a LATINA WOMAN, as compared to when Bush nominated two relatively moderate jurists (relative to Scalia & Thomas) the media would have had everyone believe human "progress" was being set back 200 years. The applied double standard shouldn't even be worth noting were it not unapologetically applied to basically everything Obama does.   INCOHERENT:   Here's a quote from Sotomayor -   "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.... "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.... "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001] I THOUGHT JUSTICE WAS SUPPPOSED TO BE BLIND??? What is the "law" worth if it is to be applied differently to different types of people? Isn't the whole point of the law - and also one of the primary components of any successful and just nation - that every citizen is to be considered EQUAL under the RULE OF LAW??? Wasn't this part of the whole point of breaking away from monarchical Britain - that some people carried privileges of exemption from the law while others experienced heavier legal burdens? The correct thing to say would be: It is the case that by qualifying our differences... we do a disservice both to the law and society..."

- Ames F. Tiedeman

May 26, 2009 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor has had four of her decisions overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court. Three cases where based on errors in legal intepretation. Not a great start for an alleged brain trust.

- Cogito

May 26, 2009 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an embarrassment for the TNR to have such a dimwit writing for them. What university, if any, did Rodent graduate from? Before I read this piece, I was positively sure that Sarah Palin was the epitome of dumb and stupid. I changed my mind because Rodent is way below her. He needs to research his subject for facts before putting out his stuff to the public. Maybe he should get a job at the National Enquirer; he would fit there nicely.

- Arctic Lion

May 26, 2009 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama will make a gigantic mistake in his pick for a new Justice. He's biffed every pick so far. Democrat and Liberal now means Ignorant and Felon. Obama, Biden, and Pelosi - the three stooges of the 21st century.

- Dan Marc

May 26, 2009 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps you might come to the realisation that the election is over and all that matters now is doing only that which is in the best interest of the country. You attack anything that is not lock step in line with the administrations policy without any further review because to you nothing else matters. Your party/ ideology is where your allegiance lies and that is disgraceful. As bad as nominating a surpreme court justice becouse she is a purto rican woman.

- billy

May 26, 2009 at 9:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffrey Rosen is a good example of poor journalism. This woman has been in the public eye for the Supreme Court for weeks if not months and he hasn't had time to read enough to get an idea of her qualifications. Well, I guess we can see his LACK of qualifications. He reminds me of the last minute book reports in college.

- Alex

May 26, 2009 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama made a bad pick here! We want a Supreme Court judge that will follow the Constitution not make up laws that will affect millions of people for years. This country is going downhill. You liberals that voted for Obama..is going to ruin our country economically because of his trillions of spending, mostly questionable characters in his cabinet to run and made decisions for our country now this..picking the most liberals...

- Rosemarie Camacho

May 26, 2009 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since this sleazy magazine that cheerled us into the Iraq war is too mercenary to let me post my views unless I pay it big bucks, I am posting here my comments I sent to them. Professor Rosen's hit job on Sotomayer, was sleazy and degrading to a distinguished Hispanic woman. He questioned her intelligence. Cast aspersions on her desirability as a spouse. How low could he have got? If this magazine has any remaining claim to fairness, Rosen should be dropped. He claims to be a rigorous academic, and yet he writes an article fueled by anonymous sources. His sloppiness is evident in the glaring dispute between the first two articles. In the first he concedes that he hadn't done his homework by studying her opinions well. In the second, after being attacked, he said he actually had read her opinions thoroughly. Which is it? At this University we would call this Academic dishonesty. I would fail him in my class for such a lack of rigor. If I wrote an academic article on such a flimsy basis, I would be put up on charges of academic misconduct. Then there is the issue of slandering a woman who came from the school of hard knocks, evidently because, as he now admits in his third article, that she was not his first choice. Are these the depths to which this once great Magazine has fallen to. It now gives succor to Limbaugh and others, carrying on with the recent tradition initiated by its credulous applause of the Iraq war.

- Kabindra

May 26, 2009 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of you need to relax and let the man have his opinion. Don't agree? That is your right, but it is his right to say what he has said. I may not agree with the article either, but he is juast giving points from both sides of the discussion. For those of you that are slamming him on this article, take 2 pills and see you in the AM. Life is too short to be this angry or irritated about something you have no control over.

- John

May 26, 2009 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece reads like the intellectually lazy garbage that a 16 year old writer for a high school newspaper would churn out. how do you sit down to write a column if you haven't conducted sufficient research?!?! it's ludicrous. the worst part of it is that i heard Hannity rehashing quotes from this trash-article on the radio today. Rosen and TNR should seriously re-examine themselves....

- adam

May 26, 2009 at 10:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

who else is on the "short list"

- lk

May 26, 2009 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Typical liberals - tolerant of an opinion if it matches their opinions otherwise expect blatant condemnation. Rosen stated his opinion and I will state mine. Everything else equal Sotomayor was picked by Obama because she is female hispanic. Affirmative action on the supreme court level. I was told by an anonymous source that many white male justices and one hispanic male judge were passed over for the position though they were more qualified.

- James

May 26, 2009 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen, you're a true contemporary journalist: you have no clue what you're talking about (as always, you were far too lazy to do anything more than gossip with a few your shmucky pals), but you do have opinions. The only thing missing in your imbecile article is a description of Sotomayor's clothes, hair style and voice. Rosen, intellectually you're a nobody.

- sleepyavl

May 26, 2009 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It appears people here are blasting Rosen for the critique on Sotomayor. I guess he should have been more balanced and said only good things about her. Nothing like being tolerant of another's opinion. One person posted that there are no persons vetted more than Supreme Justices, the VP and the President. Honestly, I didn't know Obama had been vetted yet. We still don't know what he's about fully. Miss California had to answer tougher questions during her campaign than he did during his. We're going to find out eventually ... only after it is too late. If liberals had it their way, this supreme court nominee would be treated the same way

- Greg

May 26, 2009 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WHoo hee !. Seems like a cascade of oblahmatons here !. Anything... ANYTHING that goes against the "prez" appears to be the devil to a load here. This prospective appointee has intoned in words about "where policy is made" judicially. That is not only scary - it is not what our founding forefathers even accepted as a notion. Judicial activism is a cancer... it can and will destroy our country if not checked.

- Wm the American

May 26, 2009 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judge Sotomayor's academic history includes the following accomplishments: Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. I seriously doubt these accomplishments paint the picture of someone that is an intellectual lightweight. I wish her a fair and speedy confirmation.

- Allan

May 26, 2009 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-She's a racial minority. -She's a gender minority. -She's spoken out about how she approves (but not really! ho ho ho) the active use of appellate court system (all cases come to the SC via appeal, btw) to "make policy." -She also said that her rulings are based on "feelings" rather than a legal or constitutional basis. (and has backed this up with ridiculous judgements like Dabit v. Meryle Lynch, Knight v. Commissioner) -And that she believes that growing up poor, Latino and female has made her "wise" enough to make better decisions than a white male in a majority of race discrimination cases. (we'll see how that holds up in her ruling of Ricci v. DeStefano, which the SC is set to rule on sometime next month) She shouldn't even be on the bench, let alone gain a nomination to the highest court in the land. But, with the standards that the left uses to pick their leaders this nomination isn't surprising, only sickening. Also, it looks like those nutjobs from PUMA have already swarmed this comments' section, which also isn't surprising: they'll come to the defense of any idiot who bares their vagina as a contract of entitlement.

- S.

May 26, 2009 at 10:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My 10th graders could have done a better job writing this. I was actually looking for a decent conservative perspective on her nomination for a good class discussion tomorrow and wouldn't even think of insulting my students with this high school gossip column. Let's keep it real. To question her intellectual ability is racism in its most transparent form. A racism fueled by the same ignorance that led past Supreme Court Justices to rule that separate but equal, was equal according to their intellectual interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I find it so delightfully ironic that Sotomayor was born the same year Brown v. Board of Education was decided. Let's not forget WHY affirmative action exists in the first place people. It's not giving little Black and Puerto Rican kids a chance to get a good job even though they might not be smart enough for it because we feel bad about our past; Since when did graduating from Princeton and Yale not matter?? Pick up a history book- start with Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. My 10th graders love it.

- Betances

May 26, 2009 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find this petty and useless. Without tearing apart this entire article, I am especially struck by this idea that she interrupts lawyers and talks too much. When was the last the Rosen was in court? Sometimes, judges are aggressive or are having a bad day. Some judges run their courtrooms different than others. So what? It is up to the lawyers to pick up on that and adjust. Sotomayor is more than qualified and smart. She graduated summa cum laude for Godsakes, and was valedictorian of her HS class. Does he think she got where she is by being marginal?

- Brian Gilmore

May 26, 2009 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeffrey Rosen, I am baffled at how you could have possibly thought this article was worth posting. You repeatedly quote unnamed sources who malign Sotomayor, and one finishes the article having learned nothing but heresay and unfounded gossip. Moreover, your don't even demonstrate simple journalistic practices. You say "She went to Catholic schools and would also be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court if she is, in fact, Catholic, which isn't clear from her official biography." A 5 second search would have informed you that NONE OF THE OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHIES HAVE INFORMATION ON A JUDGE'S RELIGION. Congratulations. This is truly one of the worst examples of journalism I've ever seen.

- Amazed

May 26, 2009 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All I have to ask is did she pay her taxes?

- Tax Man

May 26, 2009 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If what you said about this "brother in law" situation, this article is worse than incompetent. It's borderline libel.

- Amazing

May 26, 2009 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Supreme Court will be 67% Roman Catholics. that's unbalanced. Percentages Compared (AFTER Sotomayor appointment): US Christian/Protestant: 51% Protestant Justices: 11% (1/9) US Jews: 2% Jewish Justices: 22% (2/9) US Other: 20% Other Justices: 0% (0/9) US Catholics: 24% Catholic Justices: 66.6% (6/9) Will Rome be in control?

- Ted

May 26, 2009 at 11:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, I guess you wanted to see a puff piece on the SCN. I didn't take this for a hit piece, but that is probably because I don't have political agenda. This woman i far far an itellectual giant. I know because i have spent the last week pouring over her decisions. This doesn't make her a bad person, just not brilliant one. She is arrogant in her ignorance at times, which is a bad trait for a supreme court judge. I do not trust her.,

- leo

May 27, 2009 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look at all the haters gathered to praise your article, Jeffrey. How proud you must be.

- Chip

May 27, 2009 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

none of the diatribes against sotomayor amount to a hill of beans if "some former law clerks" will talk smack without identifying themselves. This article is totally bogus because her primary detractors are not identified and therefore face no accountability for their comments. Sorry Rosen but you lose. This article sucked. The irony is that the you declared Sotomayor incapable of penetrating insights and yet you are guilty of the same by leaving out anything of any real value to someone who is not interested in backstabbing and sexist BS. The comments regarding her temperment puts the dick in ridiculous

- jessie

May 27, 2009 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article was referenced on "Hardball" and I assumed Chris Matthews and Salon's Joan Walsh were describing it out of context. I wanted to read what a legal writer had to say, but this really is a hit job. Rosen may be ethnically or ideologically biased, but it reads like gossip anyone could write. Oh how I did not expect to read something so light.

- Roddy

May 27, 2009 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Soto posits that her "rich" experience as a Latina better prepares her to mold our nation than "the white males." Right - our white ancestry has given us this nation wherein a no-talent like Soto can rise and rise because she is a double-minority - Soto's ancestry gave us Puerto Rico. Where would you rather live? 'Nuff said.

- miguel stone crow

May 27, 2009 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe it's just because I'm a simple cave man, but didn't Woodward and Bernstein get a Pulitzer Prize for reporting from anonymous sources? This piece appears to follow the same standard--don't report an allegation until more than one source has corraborated the the other. Okay to bring down Nixon, but shoddy journalism to expose racist ideology and usurpation of the Legislative Branch's role in creating public policy as spoken and advocated by the Annointed One's token ethic (NOT race, as was explained to me when I answered a survey question on race, then questioned the SEPARATE question about whether I was also oh-so-special by being hispanic) pick for a lifetime appointment? I smell a serious double-standard here. But maybe my caveman nose is just too sensitive for these urbane arguments. I just don't understand....

- Og

May 27, 2009 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are giving the administration too much credit if you assume they will do an "exhaustive" review. From the same guy who promised to go over the budget "line by line", and then gets a spending bill passed that NOBODY has read cover to cover. The only thing ludicrous is giving the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt.

- pj

May 27, 2009 at 1:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so even her supporters admit that she's 'not that bright'... wonderful. have the obama people considered that she is also a catholic ? are we getting a female scalia here ? being a woman and a latina are not reasons enough for her nomination. barack is very shallow and naive.

- el polacko

May 27, 2009 at 1:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great! Another unbridled liberal racist. Impartial, fair jurist? Me thinks not.

- White Man

May 27, 2009 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know a damn thing about Sotomayer, but Obama appointed her and that means trouble in River City.

- Russ

May 27, 2009 at 2:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems like we have yet another tiresome example of partisan politics (Obamatrons slamming Rosen for daring to 'criticize" one of their Leader's preferences) clouding intellectual honesty. Gee, folks, what if she really IS "not that sharp"? Shouldn't THAT be discussed and debated? This is the political mirror image of Bushies defending Rumsfeld's (in)competence well into 2006 because Bush stood by him. And "racist attacks" by Rosen on Sotomayor? WTF? No evidence for that. At all. To paraphrase Frank Sinatra's advice to George Michael: Loosen up, peeps. Swing, man!

- joe

May 27, 2009 at 2:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Benjamin Cardozo's lineage traces back to Portugal, so to imply that she would not be the first Hispanic is not only preposterous, but irrelevant. To also question as to whether or not she is a Catholic is also irrelevant. To me, the article tries to paint Sotomayor as an unqualified demographic getter who won't compete with the conservative heavyweights on the bench.

- Kevy Wevy

May 27, 2009 at 2:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is typical. The wingnuts call Rosen, feed him bullshit, promise him plenty of play on teevee, radio, and the internet, if he agrees to quote them as anonymous sources. I've seen this movie before..............and it bores me.

- joeyess

May 27, 2009 at 3:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another disgusting racist from the affirmative action administration and YOU want an apology? Why not address her blatant racism instead of supporting it? Sick.

- Bart

May 27, 2009 at 3:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She is NOT the first person of latin descent on the supreme court my historically illiterate friend.

-

May 27, 2009 at 3:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bookbabe: That was the best!

- MichelleC

May 27, 2009 at 3:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eagle in NYC: Replace "liberal" with "conservative" and you get Justice Roberts.

- MichelleC

May 27, 2009 at 3:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While the article itself has clear shortcomings, I'm taken aback by the sheer vitriol found on this comments page. It seems that the USA has traded a GOP reign that dismissed all criticism blindly for a Democrat reign that does the same. This woman's decisions and public statements deserve some careful scrutiny before she hits the bench of the supreme court. The comments on this board leave me guessing such scrutiny would be unwelcome, to say the least.

- Mr Man

May 27, 2009 at 3:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Elvis: This article isn't about Obama. It'so about Sonia Sotomayor's being a nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Please follow along.

- MichelleC

May 27, 2009 at 3:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree. Now, let's go after the folks for similar offenses at the NY Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, NPR, and NBC! Perhaps we can remove ALL of the belief-based fact spreader-arounders!!

- gymlock

May 27, 2009 at 3:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a racist, the majority of Hispanics in this country are of Mexican descent yet he chooses a Puerto Rican. It's always the Hispanics that are not of "Mexican" descent that get props from the liberals. Alberto Gonzales was of Mexican descent and just look at how he was treated. Think about it, libs are racist against Hispanics of "Mexican" descent. Wake up!

- Jim

May 27, 2009 at 4:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd like to see a comprehensive vetting, including an explanation of her remark that she, by way of her background and experience, is more qualified for the position than a "white male". What, pray, does sex or ethnicity have to do with one's qualifications for this position? It would be informative to hear her response.

- Patrick C.

May 27, 2009 at 4:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On a purely practical political level, all of this matters little. The Democrats have the votes to confirm this candidate regardless of her qualifications or judicial demeanor. Sotomayor will be confirmed notwithstanding her strengths or her weaknesses. We can only hope that she is actually up to the job.

- Patrick C.

May 27, 2009 at 4:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hm, there were some people you talked to, "Most of (whom) are Democrats" and some certain people you talked to who never worked for her who want to imply that she's not able... Nice sophomoric attempt at merging the two disparate data sets there, very charming. There are "some" clerks who praise her (of course you'd only be able to quote some anyway but a damning with faint praise attempt isn't that anyway)... Look, I could close read this smear job for days but why bother. Rosen, you're lame and anti-intellectual. I'd worry about having to rebut your fan club in conversation but I'm used to their ilk already. I came late to this party from an external link but for what it's worth - yes like some others I used to read TNR on some semi-regular round, but once the irrelevant biased froth came to light I naturally dropped off. Good to see what the careful minds are still up against. I guess it's worth reading from time to time just to be able to counter if need be.

- RAK

May 27, 2009 at 4:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bush went to Ivy League schools and they called him an idiot, no?" Bush was not editor of the Yale Law Review. They went to similar school, but Bush did poorly and Sotomayor did exceptionally well.".....YEAH RIGHT ! THANK YOU Mr Rosen for having the courage to stand up to these ACORN IDIOTS ! ACORN ! CAN YOU HEAR ME ? GET LOST ACORN!! AFF-ACTION is a FAILED CONCEPT.

- Danton

May 27, 2009 at 5:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They say: This HISPANIC Judge is Intelligent. They say: OBAMA's IQ is off the charts, he's SO SMART! They say: Tim Geithner is doing a wonderful job! The ECONOMY is getting BETTER! What do these comments all have as a common denominator? It's only hearsay... ....as much a rumor as ACORN is planting in the fist 100+ postings. The truth shall set you free. www.drinkingwithbob.com

- drinkingwithbob

May 27, 2009 at 5:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the criteria of excellence, Sotomayor is a very good choice. The fact that she comes from the Bronx is only an added plus. OMG!! WHAT was I THINKING!?

- Allen Dershowtofwitz

May 27, 2009 at 5:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe the term is "I could NOT care less."

- fred

May 27, 2009 at 6:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor is the New Age " Lizzy Borden " to the Constitution of the United States of America ! So much for the founding Fathers of this great document.... She will hack them into oblivion !!! God Bless us, All !!!

- The Postman

May 27, 2009 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why do people want to shoot Rosen the messenger? It is Sotomayor who they should be learning about. So poor -- Princeton and Harvard? If she was a heart surgeon and killed a number of people because she made obvious mistakes, would she still be practicing? One would think she came from the 9th Circuit Court that houses itself in frontrunner Kalifornia where routine things are done backward. She would fit well into that setting.

- jr

May 27, 2009 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! Do all New Yorkers really think they run the world? I never saw such vitriol! This woman is far from qualified for the SCOTUS position. Her little biased mind is evident in the record time and time again and anyone who rejects that either can't read or cares little for the facts, just like Obama. He selected her for pure political reasons. He is lieing as usual to try putting a wise, justifiable, objective face on it. And all you New Yorkers buy it...guess you'll buy anything, eh comrades?

- David H. Parker, Ph.D.

May 27, 2009 at 8:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for the first sane comment on this post. The vitrol in these comments combined with hate speach is obnoxious and says more about those making the comments that it does about the author.

- Lara

May 27, 2009 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps you should read a bit closer. Rosen said he has not read ENOUGH of her opinions to form his own clear one. Your statement that he has not read any is patently false and disqualifies the rest of your argument.

- Jim

May 27, 2009 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was rude and I beg to differ. I am very certain that I am better with laplace transforms than you are, assuming you know what they are. I was right there with you until the last comment. I always have a desire to punch men that denigrate women in general but I don't much like getting arrested.

- lara

May 27, 2009 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't like racist and I don't care if they are white,tan, brown or black. This woman is a racist that gave a very unjust ruling to some firemen because they were white. She is just another one of Obama's "I hate white people crowd"

- desiree

May 27, 2009 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, when a judge says that "The Appellate courts is where policy is made" should automatically be disqualified. The Constitution is a document that was purposely made to be very difficult to change. That is why amendments are hard to get passed. Okay, so, if they purposely made it difficult to change, then why do we think that the Judiciary can change it on a whim?

- Mark White

May 27, 2009 at 8:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was clearly a reporting piece, not an opinion piece and it was good, important reporting.

- Leon

May 27, 2009 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama simply wants to build a "star chamber" of self-important elites to violate the rights of the American people without benefit of public input...this appointment is simply one step closer to a dictatorial, abusive, administration. Bork her...bork her until she cries mercy.

- Scortch Dearth

May 27, 2009 at 8:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your coverage of this judge is fair enough, you need to be less on the hard life, tear jerking struggle to climb to the top..this happens all the time in America, everyday infact. But it has nothing to do with the law, that would be the only issue with this judge I care about . The struggle with one's unique background is everyone's American story..millions of people have their personal stories of accomplishments, it is what America has always been about. I want the law followed, period. Reguardless of her "Feelings". All achiever's in America need to remember this is what can be done in America if you want it bad enough, even for white folks. The white folks made this country who she is today...the laws, the greatness and generosity our forefathers wrote out the laws of this land to protect all Americans. White folks from England made it possible for this country to be who she is today and allow others of different cultures to join our great nation. This judge will not be fair if she does not use the rule of law, over her personal experience. The good thing is ..if she is a big mouth pushy in your face judge, the men will not work with her, but against her. No one likes a in your face ugly woman with feelings coming out of her mouth , rather than the Law.

- welovetheUSA

May 27, 2009 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Extremely disappointed at the "fluffiness" of Rosen's arguments. It seems that he is serving the best interests of the right-wingers who would want to use "sound bites" of his flawed (by his own admission) dissertation for their anti-Sotomayor rhetoric. Fair and balanced he is not.

- Dennis

May 27, 2009 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You talk about Rosen not doing his research, what about this statement from JohnTEQP: "Other than the president himself and the VP, SC nominees are the most thoroughly vetted people to appear before Congress." The president thoroughly vetted? What about his birth certificate? Congress is supposed to vette eligibility before confirmation. Is Congress going to ask for Sotomayor's birth certificate? And what about her supposed strugle? How did she get to Harvard and Yale? I suspect not through working three jobs to pay for it but by getting a free ride thanks to an affirmative action program. Worked hard, no I believe handed on a silver platter is more like it because she is a hispanic women that the libs can use as a poster child and she either is not smart enough to know the difference or playing along for personal gain. Neither quality is something desirable in a SC Justic! Catholic, then how is she going to vote on abortion issues? I think Congress needs to really check this one out but good and I hope the Republicans don't give this dog and pony show a free pass!

- JackO

May 27, 2009 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Haha you canceled your subscription but yet you read their online site still, haha who's the dummy now

- Haha

May 27, 2009 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It has come to light in the past 24 hours that Sotomayor is not very intelligent, a sexist, a racist, a blathering idiot, and that she doesn't understand the role of the judiciary. Some racists will pathetically support her because they cynically hold that she is the best Latina that Obama could find. The frothers (see evidence above) will continue to froth about Rosen. These witch hunters are obviously boiling over now that W, Cheney, and Palin are not around for them to froth about. I guess they now count Jews among their targets.

- David

May 27, 2009 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe the attacks on the author. He just raised some points to be looked into and vetted. The supreme court judges are to uphold the law Blindly to race,sex,religion or politics. A judge is not to set policies. In what I have read about her so far I find she is a sexist, racist and activist. The supreme court is not the place for her. Maybe being a Senator would be a better spot. Then she can be an activist all she wants.

- JG

May 27, 2009 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are we to assume that the flimsy and highly biased research questioning her intellect is to undo a summa cum laude (the highest honors) from Princeton University? And editor of the Yale Law Review to back her Yale law degree? Two of America's finest Ivy League institutions. Sir we speak of crème de la crème. Honestly, you've not even the intellectual prudence to realize you're not fit to even hold a candle to those credentials.

- Samuel Angel Munoz

May 27, 2009 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

James, ever heard of a spell checker?

- JW

May 27, 2009 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I attach the following test, quoting rrom from Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearing: U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court: U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life? ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame. But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me. And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person. COBURN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round. SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.

- James Somers

May 27, 2009 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You conservatives lost.... now just deal with it.

- John

May 27, 2009 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with that joke is that the so-called journalist that slandered Anita Hill has admitted lying.

- kellyg

May 27, 2009 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Elvis, I thougt you were dead! Oh, just your brain.

- Bruce

May 27, 2009 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a longtime Hispanic Republican, I always have mixed feelings about these types of nominations. But Racists aside, I agree 100% that people should be selected based on their qualifications, and no other factors should come into play. Conservatives should not be afraid to speak their mind. Unfortunately, people like Sotomayor may have a tendency to put their "Latino" (I hate that term) agenda ahead of the best interest of the American people. Me? I'm an CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN that happens to be Hispanic. Period.

- SouthernConservativeHispanic

May 27, 2009 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You too can see the future of America, just look how well all those African countries have been run by the natives and you will see how Obama will leave us.

- Am-africa

May 27, 2009 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it will be loooooong before another jurist of the status of Ginsberg will be on the court. Her pancreatic cancer is a deadly blow against justice in America. Another woman of her talent would be most welcome. Alas, the court does require representation of all power groups in America. If Rosen's article had the word "Latina" changed to "Jewish" and a Jewish candidate were at issue, the same text would have raised cries of "anti-Semite" and the NEW REPUBLIC would have never printed it. Afterall, you didn't say much about Mukhaize as Attoney General though a Likudnik fanatic. Stop with the "opinions" of anonymous "clerks" and let the woman speak for herself. THEN hit at what she said and give YOUR opinion of her briefs, based on your expertese (if any). This article of attributed opinions-- attributed to anonymous sources-- mixed with ethnic anxiety will make you look like you're doing an ethnic job on her. If God ever again loved America so much as to give us another Ginsberg, I would be in Church thanking him every day. But until then, don't make this look like an ethnic food fight with such slimy articles where the author takes no responsibility for opinions he attributes to ghosts.

- DE Teodoru

May 27, 2009 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right is about race not about justice. I am glad that you can see it. Good thing Obama is in Washington, "Change, yes we can" LOL What nonsesne he is doing nothing new. Let pick a kywag instead of looking for the right person, not caring for race or gender.

- Ulysses

May 27, 2009 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MARILYN THAT SAYS SHE IS A REPORTER, I ACCEPT THAT WHO DOES SHE WORK FOR CNN(COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK) OR THE ABOUT TO GO BELLEY-UP ABC -CBS- MSNBC OR THE PUFFINGTON HUFFINGTON POST

- STONEY

May 27, 2009 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just read this article after seeing Joan Walsh reference it over at the Salon. I am a journalism student and even I can see this is terrible reporting.

- Mariko

May 27, 2009 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An affirmative action president appointing an affirmative action judge go figure? I want to know what was her score on the LSAT? I guarantee she would not be admitted into a 4th tier law school if she was not minority from the ghetto. Of course who needs ability anyway? Diversity is all that counts. The fireman with the highest scores should never get a promotion, give the promotion to the, darkest, gayest, etc. irrespective of aptitude. America will not survive!

- Over

May 27, 2009 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GOOD ARTICLE! If only the MSM would stop licking her boots and address why she thinks being Hispanic gives her an edge in a USA that is NOT!

- ANDREWS

May 27, 2009 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An affirmative action president appointing an affirmative action judge go figure? I want to know what was her score on the LSAT? I guarantee she would not be admitted into a 4th tier law school if she was not minority from the ghetto. Of course who needs ability anyway? Diversity is all that counts. The fireman with the highest scores should never get a promotion, give the promotion to the, darkest, gayest, etc. irrespective of aptitude. America will not survive!

- Over

May 27, 2009 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New Republic say Sotomayor a SUMMA CUM LAUDE PRINCETON GRADUATE is a not all that smart but supported George Bush ...... hmmmmm

- Hank Chase

May 27, 2009 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my own experience, Hispanics are often considered "not the smartest." While everyone Rosen quoted in this article may have a real reason for thinking that Sotomayor is not smart enough to understand the underlying issues of the cases over which she presides, saying, "she doesn't seem to get it," does nothing to demonstrate that reason. And it's not uncommon for one judge to accuse another, especially one with a different jurisprudential philosophy, on the record, of misunderstanding a point in a case. And Rosen knows that. This article was lazily researched, lazily written, and told me nothing informative about Sotomayor, except for the fact that she's nice to her clerks.

- alala

May 27, 2009 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the pick were a white man, even if he was a Mr. Regular, nobody would be questioning how fit he was. Just by implying that the only reason she's been picked is because she's a white hispanic female is really racist. Then, that same people call it the "race card" as to not look like racists. Yes, you are being racists. Open your minds for once and realize how the narrow-minded views of a small group have deteriorated this country. Then, that same group tries to blame the Obama administration in its just 4 months for the 8 yrs of bad decisions that ultra-conservatives made concerning our country.

- Felmacar

May 27, 2009 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree 100% with you. It's not like she went to a Technical School. Her academics show that she is not a dumb or "not smart" as one of the ghosts interviewed supposedly said. People need to deal with their issues and WAKE UP because America is changing IN A GOOD WAY for good.

- Felmacar

May 27, 2009 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes! how outrageous that she said that a latina woman would make decisions that would be fairer to latina women than would white men! how racist, right? because only white men can, as justices alito and oliver wendell holmes each put it, benefit from their experiences when presiding over a case without being racist or sexist. somehow, white men have this magical power to see cases without the bias of whiteness and maleness, whereas no other race or gender can. If we move past the soundbite uttered by Sotamayor in 2001 to see what she was trying to say, we will learn that she continued on to state: "let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case." so, yes. given that those men, and countless others before them, upheld cases that allowed for all kinds of racist and sexist treatment, many of which would make us cringe upon examination, i think it's not a stretch to say a "wise latina woman" would have decided those cases differently.

- kristina b

May 28, 2009 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It saddens me to think that so many people assume that Sotamayor only got into Princeton and Yale because of her race. If we are to make that assumption, we have to make it about every white male that benefitted from being a legacy, as "legacies" are just a fancy name for "beneficiaries of affirmative action for rich white men." i suppose, however, that affirmative action for women and minorities is quite a different issue for some reason. anyway, affirmative action might get you into princeton. but it can't get you to graduate at #2 in your class, as she did, nor can it make you the editor of the yale law review, as she was.

- isabel b

May 28, 2009 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

actual transcript from the RACIST, SEXIST alito: ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame. But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country." ... When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

- justice alito:

May 28, 2009 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nah nah nah nah nah. Did you actually do any meaningful resarch for your oped or cite the National Inquirer? Really now.

- Tzipporah

May 28, 2009 at 1:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was an editor on the Yale Law Review. Just an FYI, for those who may not be adequately informed, but no college or law school hands out top grades or Law Review positions for affirmative action.

- just another law student

May 28, 2009 at 4:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The entire effort to attempt to wrap up an entire career with a few quotes from "colleagues" or "staff members" is a either a self inflated opinion of oneself, foolishness, or possibly just politics. Too bad the reputation of the authors employers are the recipients of the persons lack of thoughtfulness. Credibility is still a real value to strive for, not just trashing someone hoping something will undermine them.

- Independent type

May 28, 2009 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reader's should look at the date the article was posted. May 4th, before she was nominated. Rosen just wrote an article on her as a possible candidate, not a comprehensive critique as her as an official nominee and potential justice. You should probably keep that in mind when reading the article.

- Umm....

May 28, 2009 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What nobody mentions is that 7 out of over 300 rulings ended up at SCOTUS, 4 or 6 were reversed and on is still pending. I would say that makes her record pretty darn good!!

- sally

May 28, 2009 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello white people. You're husband, brother or friend who studied their butts off to take that Fire Chief test in New Haven, Connecticut only to be told that they were the wrong race that passed so they arn't going to promote anybody. Sorry we wasted your time but what we really wanted was not a white person. Then it goes to court and the Judge says you're the wrong race and rules in favor of New Haven. Just imagine if a Black or Latino passed that test and the Whites said, nope wrong race, sorry. Can you just imagine. Then for good measure this judge is rewarded with we will promote you to the Supreme Court because we like your thinking. White people wake up and get your heads out of the sand. It will be interesting to see what it will be to wake white people up if it isn't this. White people have cut their noses off to spite their face and been shooting themselves in the foot for a long time; actually since Regean. White people have turned in on themselves and abandoned their own cultures for some idealistic notion of whatever. It's not working, Hello, Wake up. It will be interesting to see what wakes up white America.

-

May 28, 2009 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, they DO hand out law review positions based on affirmative action. Harvard, in fact, changed their policy to appoint some editors based on "other considerations," instead of academics - and once they did that they started appointing a bunch of token minorities like Barack Obama.

- James

May 28, 2009 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you kidding Sally? How many cases do you think get heard at the Supreme Court?

- James

May 28, 2009 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlos at pot #14 Are you really serious? That none of this is fact? You can look it all up for your self and in fact the Judge even says it herself on camera that she "shouldn't be saying this but it is at the appeals level that policy is made". Also another one of her wonderful cases that is under review is where she held that "gun ownership is not a right in the constitution". I guess she must have slept through the class where they teach the constitution in law school and the class in her under grad American Government that teaches where laws are created. Tell me what exactly is not a fact in any of this? Just like James Carville you will not answer my question and will go off on some other tangent. The only lie is what you think is reality in your mind!

- Tired of this Obamination

May 28, 2009 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't help but find it troubling that this magazine, started in part by Learned Hand, failed to actually track a Supreme Court nominee's jurisprudence and instead focused on the remarks of those in oral argument. While Oral Argument is exciting (and fun to listen to), it is clearly one of the less influential forums in which the justices communicate with each other. Disappointing all around!

- Thinker

May 28, 2009 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

did she save baseball because of the diverse make-up of the ball players many latinos

- eileen

May 28, 2009 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ignorance is bliss

-

May 28, 2009 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please keep being critical of the hispanic woman. Please keep saying that a woman who graduated second in her class at Princeton after growing up in public housing, raised by a single mom, is stupid. Please keep helping Democrats win elections. Your country needs you.

- henry

May 28, 2009 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Federal Prosecutors and former law clerks of other judges? What a hatchet job. It doesn't take huge intellect to be a prosecutor. Federal prosecutors have enormous resources, and can threaten, bribe, buy or imprison their witnesses. I get to do federal prison time for what prosecutors do every day! I can teach you to be a prosecutor in 30 seconds! "State your name." "How are you employed?" "Were you so employed on or about...?" "Did you have an occaision on or about...to see, observe, hear a person, the defendant do or say..." Then you use the sixteen ways of saying ; "What happened next?" Goosestep around the courtroom and tell everybody if they don't convict, the streets of America will be filled with vermin like defendant! Former law clerks? Who, for what judges, and what experiences since they weren't with Judge Sotomayor everyday do they have to draw upon? How did the author find these clerks? Who told the author which persons were "former clerks for other judges" on the Second Circuit? I suspect that the clerks were on a list provided to the author by persons or organizations opposed to Judge Sotomayor's nomination. Real journalism uses real work, not innuendo and speculation from un-named sources. I suggest Mr. Rosen go back to school and learn the basics which were obviously missed before!

- Timothy Hogan

May 28, 2009 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not a smear, unless the truth is smearing, if she was a fit candidate, there would be nothing to smear.

- LOOK AT THE FACTS

May 29, 2009 at 3:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She also conveys the impression to me that she as a judge is a bullying person. But, in the USA, that is sufficient to command respect.

- Luis Alberto Fernández Vidaud

May 29, 2009 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sotomayor should be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice...after all she is smarter than white dudes...she said so herself. And if we do not install her as a justice then who will there be to promote the hispanic agenda? If we do not install her as a justice then illegal hispanics may have to answer for their lawbreaking and that would be just wrong! We just protect the rights of our illegal hispanic immigrants to commit depredations upon the overly rich citizens of this decadent country!

- Pewkster

May 29, 2009 at 10:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The probability that 5 out of 6 of the best judges in the country are women is smaller than the probability that the minorities passing the New Haven firefighter advancement tests were under-represented by pure chance. Thus the right thing for Sonia to do would be to throw out Obama's short list for the Supreme Court, and make him start over. Anything less would be hypocritical.

- I. Rony

May 30, 2009 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bagpiper. You said it wonderfully. If a white mail said the exact same thing Sototmayor said in "their" context, it would be in every paper, every news cast as racist. However, other races can't be racist ;-(

- Phil

May 30, 2009 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's very simple: Sonia Sotomajor is a bigot. If any white male had said the things equivalent to what she said, liberals would screech that he is a bigot. You can't have it both ways. This woman does not belong on the highest court

- Amanda

May 30, 2009 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I second Bagpipers comment when he quoted Sotomayor (Sotomayor: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male'....). If a white man said this in a white mans context, it would be on every network, in every newspaper as being RACIST!!!!

-

May 30, 2009 at 4:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is well known among lawyers that the majority of law clerks for judges believe themselves to be intellectually superior to the judge by whom they are employed. Whenever that judge questions or rejects the clerk's work product, the judge is clearly demonstrating his/her intellectual inferiority. Only a painstaking and comprehensive examination of Judge Sotomayor's legal opinions will ever clarify to anyone's satisfaction the true level of her intellect, and even then, the attitudes and biases of the observer will have their effects.

- Jerome Norris

May 30, 2009 at 8:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What are the economics of a Supreme Court Justice - For example, how does a nominee compare with the class of 18th or 19th Century Industrialists, whose social arrogance was undeniable but whose economic effectiveness was fabulous? Was the Candidate, for example, beneficial to the Legal Profession (exemplar of 19th Century share-holders) and productive (of appealed decisions) and of lengthy (and costly) additional litigation? How many of the candidate's decisions were appealed, and how many NOT? What percentage of cases and decisions were subsequently reversed, on appeal, and how long did the the appeals take (oh, how many more attorneys)? These issues determine the judicial qualities of the candidate and ought to more concern the public than the sex, family, and political party of the candidate. WHAT IS THE CANDIDATE'S RECORD? But the 'dead tree media' ignores the actual record, and instead divides public option into ineffectively small groups which the legal profession and political class may then manipulate. Will another PREDATORY JURIST may be appointed, and proudly heralded among Politicians and Attorneys?

- William

May 30, 2009 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the majority of our country's existence it was a given that an anglo saxon male would be nominated for the Supreme Court and people did not make such a stink. Now when the tables are turned, ( I am myself an anglo saxon female)the public has a fit! Well, too bad! This country is for EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. This is the year 2009 and it should already be fifty percent men and fifty percent female , along with every ethnicity to represent the people of America, which come from every corner of the world!!!! (The Supreme Court can add members in this day and age!) I think as human beings we ALL root for "our kind" and we would all be hypocrites and liars if we denied this. We root for our beloved home team and we will act accordingly with anything else that is close to home or what we have been accustomed or surrounded with. Please people, please know the difference between race and ethnicity. Race is the color of your skin and ethnicity is where your family line derives from. French, Latin, German is not a race it's a person's ethnicity. If one looks at the early Supreme Court decisions, one can verify that the Supreme Court made a judgement the African people were to be considered property and that it was okay to sell and buy them. I think I can come up with better decisions than that by using my sense of human decentcy. I have confidence that Judge Sotomayor is not this ignorant and heartless just because she is a woman:0

- Sandrabeth

May 30, 2009 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Benjamin Cardozo was not Hispanic. His father's family were Sephardic Jews from Portugal.

- Vee

May 30, 2009 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A letter written to Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas Dear Honorable Senator Roberts: Hope you and your fair district are weathering well, as for me, here in New Jersey, am well. I'm originally from New York City, and after 44 years there moved to Hudson County; have you ever traveled west of New York? The diversity is unbelievable, for those who may not experience inner city here in the east. In fact for most fair Americans not exposed to the trends of our immigration laws, they would be surprised to know that there are places in the states where every nation of the world, and every ethnicity is represented in one square block. Let me tell you a bit about my family history here in the United States. My mom and dad, both came from Puerto Rico as children, my mom is now 75 years old and my dad would have been the same age, but he died about 20 years now. He was not a drug addict or an alcoholic, but died of stomach cancer. Since they grew up in NY, and it boroughs, by the time they were young independent adults, they met and my father being a carpenter (cabinet maker) was able to married and did better then most in providing for his family. By the time I was conceived, my mom had lost her first born and was the mother of two daughters. Unfortunately for her, my father was called up to the military, and their household income was cut nearly by 90%. During my father's service my mom was force to sell all of her furnishings and became poor, because their families were migrants, and the older generation had not yet mastered proficiency in many ways; both my mom and dad's fathers had died before they arrived to the states, and my grandmothers had their own limitations. At the time of my birth, my dad was away in the military, then with the experiences of that tour to Africa and other places, he could not acclimate to living in New York on his return, and basically decided to abandon the family and the home. He never returned, after serving in the military and never provided financial assistance towards our upbringing. My mom was left with three young daughters ages 1,3,5, and impregnated with her forth child. My mom never remarried, and was left, quite frankly, ill and as a result, I too was effected, and my children too, as well effected. This is the domestic cycle of violence in the United States, that effects generation after generation, until someone within that cycle says: "Enough is Enough!" Sonia Sotomayor, has a different story, a story of success, because, she had a loving mother who refused to settle with her dealt hand and forged forward; as it is said, working 6 days a week. This is the "richness of her experience", that of being able to turn a negative into a positive, the variable described in the comment, that makes the difference in which from the two: "Latina woman" or "a white man" that she, Sotomayor "would hope" "more often than not reach a better conclusion". The reason I mention "variable" is because more often that not a statement will have several variables, some of which are or could be made basically a distraction (independent variable) and can cause error in the judgment of a statement. One must depend on another type of variable (dependent) to be able judge and correctly decide on the statement. This is a lesson every senator ought to be familiar with: Variable 101 In Sonia Soto mayor’s statement there are two people mentioned (independent variables), a wise (dependant variable) Latina woman (independent variable) with the richness of experience (dependent variable) and a white man (independent variable) who does not have that richness of experience(dependent variable). The Latina woman and white man cancel themselves out, because both are equal, however “wise” and “the richness of the experience” does not cancel each other out, because they are not equal. One has it and one does not. It is my hope, and I'm sure it is your hope that if a need of the court system occurs for either one of us, we would hope that the “wise” one “with the richness of the experience (of turning a negative situation into a positive one) would more often than not come to a better conclusion (in our favor).” There is no racist tone to the comment. Simply because a Latina woman and a white man are variables in the comment does not make it a racial comment, in favor of Latina women. I was surprise that a senator would take a stand against Sonia Sotomayor before the confirmation hearings. Clearly you are prejudging an individual without the benefit of the doubt; guilty before the benefit of a trial. Is not that type of mentality, that set this nation backward, far to many times, already, with every group of immigrant that has landed in this land? Surely you must be a person of reason, for I can not phantom that the fair people of your district are of such ignorance to elect one. If so, then pity them, for they shall further fall from the Grace of God, than what we now face as a nation whole. I read the entire Sotomayor speech, but before I did, I did a study on variables; I suggest you do the same. Because, if you were to ask an experience clinical psychiatrist to evaluate the Sotomayor statement and answer whether or not Sonia Sotomayor is a racist, based on the variable in her comment, and especially in the context of the speech; his response of the correct response, would be she is not. I, as a citizen of this great nation have an obligation to inform you of the facts, because the world is watching, and the world is a lot smarter than, perhaps you perceive. If you look like a fool, then I look like a fool, and I'm not a fool. Another thing, about her statement of the Appeal Courts, have you sat for a day, lately, at one of your district's municipal and family courts. Because if you have, then you would know that the lower courts; its district attorneys, and their judges are so influenced by economics, level of education, community mentality of the poor, and by whether or not one is disenfranchised, that many go without justice. It is the Appeal Court who chooses to hear and over turn a lower court's decision, thereby in reality setting policy for local municipalities; whether they do it by applying the law is another matter. We all know that the law must be applied, yet we all know that in often, too many cases it is not, especially in the lowers municipal and family court. Beside, when the Supreme Court over turns an appeals court decision, in essence it is setting policy. This is the great 21 century debate regarding the Supreme Court. I’m sure you are aware of it. Let's get over this and confirm the first Latino, who happens to be a woman, to the bench of the highest court of the land. Why not? Back to my family, for a minute, before I let you go. My mother's youngest brother served two tours (4 years) in Viet Nam. Back then he was so good looking his high school teachers wanted to date him. I remember him telling me that, when I was just a little girl. I was so upset when he did not return after his first tour. On his return, my uncle was a total wreck, till this day he has not recovered. My bother, at eighteen join the Marines, ended up in Lebanon. My nephew, at eighteen join the army, for five years, just returned a year ago from Afghanistan. My half sister, right now is in the Navy. I'm not even including my other uncles and my first cousins who have served this great nation. Congress granted the Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico citizenship, and that citizenship is not guarantee by the Constitution. People that are born in the mainland U.S.A. are full Blooded American Citizens, there's not Puerto Rican, Irish, Italian, English, Etc, only if the person hold duel citizenship (a policy I disagree with). Me, I'm American; Sonia Sotomayor, she is American; yes our parents are Puerto Rican, but we are Americans; our citizenship is guaranteed by the constitution; with full rights. My parent's people have been serving this nation too long. Our histories are paralleled, and common, because of the people of the island of Porto Rico’s support, protection, and defense, from day one, since America's infancy, of her sovereign. If you want to sit down with me and debate that, I'll be more than glad to do it, but I think we would have to ask the Feds to unclassified the numerous hidden from the public, for a couple of hundred years now, regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. That is why people like you think like you do, because of the back room policies making this nation has practiced, too long. I going on my knees, to talk to the Good Lord, about you. I going to ask his to give you wisdom, and some knowledge, and some strength to reverse. God bless you, and God bless America Sincerely, Gynnie Ann De Jesus gadnynj@yahoo.com

-

May 30, 2009 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

is the Hispanic or is she Puerto Rican?

- ecbell

May 30, 2009 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't it strange that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and various South Americans are considered "people of color" but Italians, Greeks, Indians and Arabs are "not"?

- Jim

May 30, 2009 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason we see Goverment Discrimination against persons of different Races is because we enable it. It is immoral for the Goverment to classify us by Race. We must make it impossible for them to do so. When the 2010 Census arrives, we should all check off we are Mixed Race Hispanic. It would destroy the Goverment ability to use our Races against us.

- SalemCat

May 30, 2009 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, this entire Hispanic Movement is a Stroke of Genius. It's just a way for some White People to claim they are superior to other White People. If you took Geraldo Rivera (whose mother was Jewish!), or Sonia Sotomeyer anywhere else in the World and asked the natives to identify their Race, they'd answer "White." Only in America can you shove a Duck in our face, feathers flying everywhere, and because we're afraid of being called Racist we'd say "Nice Kitty" - and smile. We've become a Nation of Imbeciles.

- SalemCat

May 30, 2009 at 9:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A racist narrow minded judge is the last thing we need on the court. Vote against judge Sotomayor.

- Dan

May 30, 2009 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bottom line is she is a racial activist only when she perceives an injustice towards her hand-picked "disadvantaged" groups. As clearly illustrated in her judicial paralysis during her review of the case brought by white firefighters, who played by the rules, studied, then scored highest on the promotion test, and then were denied those rightfully earned promotions, her activism is racially governed. In other words, she'll only open her big mouth (judicially speaking) if you are in her perceived racially disadvantaged minority group. That is classic reverse racism - George Wallace understood and lived by that thinking. She should not be confirmed.

- Steve

May 30, 2009 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rosen, this is some of the poorest writing I have ever seen. Which all former clerks is he talking about? The "all" that like her or the "nearly all" who don't like her but will not speak on the record followed by the one who will speak and has nothing but praises for the judge. When one is trying to make a point about high standards it is important that a high standard is held while making that point.

- Nate Jackson

May 31, 2009 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does Mr. Rosen fail to see that his work falls shorter than the standards he calls for? Is he blind or what? Calling for restraint so as to base important actions on the "full picture" he fails to do the same, admits it by noting that he has not read her opinions or fully explored the full range of possible views, but goes ahead anyway to publish what could be gossip or malicious disparagement by unknown parties. He also fails to look for and put forth observations that could provide an alternative to the picture he presents. This is really shoddy stuff, barely worthy of what a freshman in an English composition class at a mediocre college could produce. This affirms in my mind my having dropped my subscription to TNR years ago.

- Tito Gutierrez

May 31, 2009 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The US Census invented the term "Hispanic" many years ago. Some surfing on their site might get you their definition. I believe the most widely accepted definition relates to Spanish-speaking people of the Americas and their descendants whether they speak the language or not, thus ruling out Iberians. Where that leaves Brazilians has always been a mystery to me.

- Tito Gutierrez

May 31, 2009 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I said before my comment was censored by TNR, this truly is an awful piece.

- Nick

May 31, 2009 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh ... it is Bush's fault.

- Robet

May 31, 2009 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ok, so u think limbaugh's all about ratings? what do u call obama's pick? There are alot of conservative latino's and a lot of liberal latino's.... this pick is to win votes and sway them to the left.. so don't go talking about ratings when this is what that pick is all about

- sam

June 2, 2009 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is not journalism. It doesn't matter what you write when every source is anonymous. Where is your accountability? Is it so captivating to watch the dirt fly that no one cares about the standards of reporting anymore?

- Morgen

June 2, 2009 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In my humble opinion, what I have read and researched about Sonia M. Sotomayor she is capable and experianced enough to handle the job. Her rulingings and opinions do not seem to take an political partisonship view let alone, as some have charged a ethnic bias one. I voted for Barrack Obama because I herd and believed in what his policies on the issues were. I belive him capable of making the right reccomendation for our nation. He is doing a fine job so far and has been dealing in a lot of foreign issues. We have a lot of fences to mend and our domestic resession is going to have to work through the pains of revitalisation.

- Lazarone

June 2, 2009 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as Americans are considered people of color. They represent America to the whole world beautifully in the Olympics. Just as "they" became part of our country those "people of color" became part of theirs. Also, the Spanish and English were the ones who owned people of color and when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation they were given their freedom in 1863,and they stayed in the country they were in. Did you attend school? I learned this in sixth grade.

- reader

June 2, 2009 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact that prison gangs, inner city neighborhoods, and college dining commons are divided strictly along racial lines should not lead one to conclude that this behaviour should be emulated anywhere else in business, school, politics, society or life. It's fearful ignorance incarnate, not a model for behaviour. The idea that one should, AS A MATTER OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, automatically favor, irrespective and in lieu of considerations of merit, justice, and innumerable other relevant factors, those of his own race or gender in determining guilt or liability, reveals a disgraceful lack of comprehension of basic civics. Such a creed presupposes the lack of even vague familiarity with a concept whose fundamentals should be solidly in place by the time a person reaches six years of age: right and wrong. The prison yard, where white protects white, black protects black, and brown protects brown, is not a model for society. It's the worst case scenario, the absolute antithesis of the good society, the utter opposite of civilized behaviour. Yet leftist-liberals demand that the U.S. Supreme Court be re-made to model this prison yard. How insulting to Judge Sotomayor. To promote the idea that any court, agency, company or group must be "represented" by persons of a specific race in proportion to the number of individuals in the society who identify themselves with that race, is the very definition of racism. Quota systems do not promote justice; they promote the opposite: injustice. The reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold is precisely to represent the importance of avoiding this type of vacuous thinking. You'll find no such symbol nor admonition associated with the legislative branch of our federal government, nor with the executive. Neither of these is asked to turn a blind eye to race or gender in their proceedings. But the judicial branch is specifically advised to. Why? Could it be because such color- and gender-blindness is instrumental in dispensing "equal justice for all"? To proclaim that Latinos will, first and foremost, favor the interests of other Latinos, irrespective of the facts of a case, is to call all Latinos racists. This attitude treats a group of millions of individuals as wholly interchangeable, one as good as the next; as if there were no individuality, no differences, no richness of culture among these millions. "If you've heard one Latino speak, you've heard them all" is presumed accurate and legitimate, when it is neither. To maintain that a Justice's race is a factor so important to him that he will decide in favor of whichever litigant shares his race, is to say that the Justices are no smarter than the O.J. Simpson murder trial jury members. It displays a woeful ignorance of what justice is, and reveals in its supporters the basest motivations to take revenge on any individuals of a different race, blaming their vengeful desires on an amorphous "society." Creating new injustice to "right past wrongs" is wrong. There are no two ways about that. A policy of choosing Justices by race reveals in its supporters the very racism they publicly decry; worse still, it validates a denial of human reason, of the ability to think, to weigh, to judge, to dispense justice according to objective facts wholly independent of the race, ethnicity or gender of the parties involved, and, by extension, independent of whether the Justice shares any of these characteristics with the litigants. It endorses a free-for-all looter's mentality, in which people are expected to grab and gobble as much of whatever they can, to "get theirs." To declare that [insert race or gender] deserve their seat on the Bench because there are X percent of them (us) in our population reflects an ignorance of jurisprudential history as well as a misapprehension of the role of diversity. Diversity is not a goal to be achieved a priori; it's a result. Diversity for its own sake is a morally bankrupt proposition because it supplants what should be cardinal qualifications of intelligence, character, and wisdom, with color, ethnicity and gender. It rewards people not for what they've accomplished, but for the geography of their birth, the structure and color of their nose, eyes, lips and hair, and their type of genitalia, all utterly irrelevant to what comprises a superior jurist. Are we to entrench in our public juridical institutions the very presumptions of racism and sexism we seek to uproot? Not unless we're idiots. Or, not unless we're willing to accept racism and sexism as legitimate sources of judicial decision-making. That leftist-liberals champion this policy as a state of affairs devoutly to be wished is no shock; most have sold their souls to the false god of Political Correctness long ago. But it is embarrasingly shameful. What a huge step backwards for a nation where people were to be judged by the content of their character, instead of by the color of their skin.

- Fresto03

June 2, 2009 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alexander Hamilton: The interpretation of the law is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat. Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.” Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June. Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” THE SUPREME COURT IS NO PLACE TO EXPRESS PERSONAL FEELINGS NOR IS IT A PLACE TO PRACTICE RACIST POLITICS -- THE JOB OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS TO INTERPRTET THE LAW OF THE LAND -- FULL STOP!!! SOTOMAYOR IS THE WRONG CHOICE!!! The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice.” Judge Sotomayor’s personal views will cloud her jurisprudence. WRONG CHOICE!!!

- igloo

June 3, 2009 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you people ever hear what you sound like - the poor maligned conservative, the angry liberal, etc. Is there no one who appreciates a balanced approach? Rosen's article is not bad. His windup indicates how difficult it is to assess a judge (if you aren't woefully biased) and he wants to be fair. If you are partisan, of course, it is easy, but you have nothing worthwhile to say. Let me guess, those of you with pre-packaged opinions never read one of her opinions, a long detailed evaluation of her and never will.

- David

June 3, 2009 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Congratulations Judge Sonia Sotomayor, For being the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Nominee. Largely due to George W. Bush's possible candidates of Emilio Garza and Alberto Gonzales were threatened with filibuster by Harry Reid and the Democrats before they were actually nominated. Also, for possibly being the third female justice to server on the court. Harry Reid suggested that President Bush nominate Harriet Miers for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's position, but then Democrats threatened to block her nomination as well. This was not the first time that your name has come up for consideration. In 2005, when Judge O'Connor announced retirement, RINOs Bill Frist and Arlen Specter along with Democrat leaders Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy presented President Bush with your name as one of their choice of "moderate" Hispanic federal judges that they could accept. However, National Review, a conservative magazine, suggested that your nomination from the Democrats was in bad faith because you were too liberal for a conservative president to seriously consider. I suppose next to President Obama's normal company, you are "moderate". You have had a long experienced career as a judge. You have also had previous experience with the Supreme Court as you have had five decisions as an appellate judge go before the High Court. Granted, that three of them were overturned. However, you still have one more case decision headed to the High Court, but this one doesn't look like it will help your winning percentage. Democrats are pushing for an accelerated timetable for you confirmation. This falls in line with President Obama's actual application of his promise of a five-day public review period after Congress passes a bill before he signs it. With everything that was hidden in the 1132-page Omnibus Bill, we have to wonder what surprises you hold in store for us. Prior to your nomination President Obama pledged "I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives." This gave us insight to his standards for a nominee. Possibly leaving room for a justice who would prefer to legislate from the bench than interoperate the constitutionality of a law or court ruling. Justice O'Connor has said "that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." Your retort to her comment was "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life". I am not certain where heritage determines your duties. In closing, it is with this letter of congratulations I will leave some parting words. I hope that when the time comes you use all of your wisdom and previous experiences when reviewing cases that come before you. Especially when the case is regarding Texas' Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment and any other state that wishes to affirm the Constitutional Limitations of the Federal Government. Thank you for your service to OUR Country the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, Jason Sanborn From the soon to be former State of Texas

- Jason Sanborn

June 4, 2009 at 7:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If saying racist and sexist things makes one a bigot, then our President has just nominated an unapologetic bigot as a candidate for Supreme Court Justice. I imagine that if were to say to a group of my colleagues at work that the “richness of my experience as a white man” would in any way elevate my decision making capabilities over that of a woman of Hispanic origins, I would rightly be judged to be unfit to manage others in the organization.

- Blogosphere

June 4, 2009 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well Blogosphere I'm sure you have heard worst things at your job, but I'm also sure it was dismissed as a joke. What Sotomayor said is only a big deal because she is being appointed to such an honorable position. No one is perfect, everyone has said things they regret or thought was cold or cruel. I have heard so many racist comments from more white people than any other race, they meant them too. Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice is great and long overdue. My opinion deal with it.

- Richard

June 6, 2009 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found this article to be balanced and helpful. I am disappointed that other comments on this article are so mean spirited and divisive. Healthy debate does not have to be personal.

- Todd

June 9, 2009 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just love how the author fails to name any of the sources or witnesses in the article. He acts like w don't live in a "free speech" country and their identity's must somehow be protected. Give me a break. I'm proud of Sotomayor's record and her accomplishments. How many people do you know who grew up in the projects & graduated Princeton with honors???

- Proud_Americana

June 9, 2009 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was worried that through lack of real questions we would not know of her actual "life". Divorcee? when was that brought out,I thought that she may be another Lesbian or what ever.

- Thom

June 10, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is garbage! If you submitted this bilge to your high school freshman political science or english teacher, the only reason you would receive a D is for a lack of typos. Your argument is not persuasive. Your title is a misnomer. You made no case against the soon to be Supreme Court Associate Justice Sotomayor..

- sammcarr

June 13, 2009 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Specious.

- Tim

June 25, 2009 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Affirmative action absolutely has cheapened the accomplishments of minorities....I absolutely 100% agree with that.

- a.p.

June 26, 2009 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jerry, i find it funny, that a clear hard-line conservative such as yourself would say liberals "steal elections" (2000 election come to mind for republicans stealing elections?) That said, I think it is fairly obvious that this article is written by a left leaning columnist. The supposed arguments against Sotomayor laid out in this article are weak at best. I would like to see people give me a good reason to be for or against her nomination by using her voting records, not her personality flaws or excellences.

- AJ

June 29, 2009 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's pretty disappointing that so many people can overlook facts and nominate someone to the Supreme Court just because of race and gender. It is even more frightening that these same people will call her critics racists, considering that their nomination is entirely based on race and gender. Goodness, they obviously haven't read her track record. Maybe liberals have decided that there is a "good version" of racism that they can use whenever it's convenient.

- Not Buying

June 30, 2009 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Those "clerks" and "lawyers" who place into doubt Sotomayor's intellectual capacity are clearly jealous of and threatened by a woman and on top of that a Latina. In typical white supremacy fashion, they see themselves as the authorities on judging intelligence in accordance to their white brand of intelligence. The United States will not survive in this increasingly brown population if whites fail to recognize the intelligence that minorities bring to the table. Colored people have overcome hardship that I doubt most white Americans would have been able to overcome. The day may come when minorities will become majority and define intelligence. Whites will no doubt whine and complain and cry for affirmative action programs for themselves, as if the 200 years of affirmative action that they gave themselves wasn't enough. AS FOR THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE, STOP HIDING BEHIND ANONYMOUS AND ADMIT THAT YOU MADE UP THOSE PUT-DOWNS BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE HELD TO YOUR WORDS UNLIKE A BRAVE WOMAN LIKE SOTOMAYOR WHO SAYS WHAT SHE THINKS.

- Latina Wisdom

July 1, 2009 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's obviously trying to win points with the Hispanic vote, which I'm not saying is bad, but it is a clear political move. There are some legitimate questions about the qualifications of the nominee. I would be very much opposed to a less-qualified minority on the bench in order to win some Hispanic votes, but we'll see if that's the case ...

- oCerejinha

July 6, 2009 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How closed minded is that comment. Let's be real Latinos have been in this Country for hundreds of years. They are true Americans to the fullest extent. They did not come here in the Mayflower like Europeans did from the old world. This is THEIR Country. It's time they elected someone to the bench who will bring the flavor and professionalism that is needed. She will do just well. Latinos are a people of mixed races, and Sotomayor does have conservative views here and there. What republicans need to realize and accept is if they continue to be in denial that Latinos are going to be the majority some day, how sad for them. Accepting that she is Latina, educated, bilingual, bicultural is the way to go in this great Unites States of America. She is an American three times. One through blood lines, two through her native taino blood, and three through her citizenship...period.

- AGEAG

July 9, 2009 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I great that you're conservative and hispanic. Do not be intimidated by the term "Latino." Many Hispanics in the Southwest do not like the term "Latino", but does it really matter. She's Catholic like the majority of Hispanics in this Country. Yes...that is including the Majority of Mexican-Americans living in this Country.

- AGEAG

July 9, 2009 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are correct in that justice is supposedly blind. However, we have become a country in which the truth is forbidden at times when it may offend a minority. Our society has eroded into one that is fearful to exercize freedom of speech, a right gaurantted by the constitution, for fear of being labeled racist. Oddly, the real racists continue to exploit this, and continue to strip us of our rights and freedoms, one by one. People ignorant enough to make the kind of statements she has not only prove she is a racist, but also prove she didn't learn much from her free Ivy Leauge education paid for by the taxpayer.

- WithYa

July 13, 2009 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity.There are white- Hispanics, but, non Hispanic -whites love to forget that fact.Also , how is Sotomayor a person of color? she looks white to me.Sotomayor is an American of Hispanic background, heck even her parents are American. Remember every person born in Puerto Rico is an American -citizen, not "illegal" immigrants like some of you may think.

- rj

July 14, 2009 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, I see. You suggest the GOP forget what they stand for to appeal for votes. Sounds like "politics as usual" so much for the "change" I thought your party supported.

- concerned

July 15, 2009 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To me nominee Sotomayor, comes across as an arrogant female who would circumvent tnhe law if she saw it was nessecary. I have wathed the confirmation hearings and have seen where she can not answer a question without going into a long dissertatio. There were several questions put to her that only required a short answer or a yes or no. Instead she ranted instead of directly answering the question.

- Leslie Jamison

July 15, 2009 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a minority and I find this woman bigoted.

- Put Off

July 16, 2009 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as Jennifer RUbin asks at Contentions: "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" Obama, being mediocre selects mediocre..his agenda is based on Black Liberation teaching of the Rev Wright where their understanding of 'social justice' trumps everything. I am certain, questioning Sotomayor's wisdom is being lined up to be characterized as racist and hispanics are being set up, almost prompted to, be offended.

- Charleston

July 16, 2009 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article, the blog, this entire site is a bunch of off-color rhetorical comments & political propaganda. S

- Cheryl W.

July 16, 2009 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sotomayor could not publicy survive the question “does she think a wise latina could more often than not provide a better legal conclusion than a white female.?”…you should all have the guts and courage to ask such questions and quit being mindless bigots and ask decent revealing questions…maybe more women than you know don’t like this wise latina putting those "stupid white men that are always draining the blood out of their bodies for your freedom" to be trashed by this “latina queen” What does she know about reality other than prejudice? Is it whites or men that she refers to or both in her commonly repeated phrases? Gee, if you plan on having any children that are white or male, you should be revulsed that someone with such an attitude could even approach the ultimate bench. Maybe she thinks wise latinas could run circles around thier hispanic men also, far exceeding mere equality in this respect also….what say you, blog pundits? "got tough?" SL

- steven L

July 18, 2009 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article was not helpful at all. I read it hoping to hear the negative opinion of Sotomayor and make an informed decision for myself. The author is not qualified to write this article, which has absolutely no point or (more important) MERIT. The author even admits at the last paragraph that he "hasn't read enough of sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them" and that he doesn't have "a balanced picture of her strengths". What a waste of our time.

- Person

July 18, 2009 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, I consider the woman a biased fake. She has no business being a judge, Let alone one on the Supreme Court. People's Court, yes. Federal Law, No way in hell. plus she talks like her jaw & saggy jowels are wired. gross. hah

- Proud American...

July 20, 2009 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think President Obama and his wife are Anti-American Racist.President Obama wants an Hispanic anti white supreme court judge on the bench.President Obama had a racist minister.President Obama refused to wear an American Flag while running for president untill his handlers advised him he had to put on a Patriotic front.The presidents wife is an Anti-American rasict,untill her hunband won the nomination she said that was the only time she was proud to be an American.Now a black Harvard Professor (Gates) who with another black man was forcing his way into his home; when someone called the police they entered and asked him for ID and he refused to show any untill arrested,he was than unarrested. Of course the racist professor blamed the police and President Obama agreed called the white police officer Stupid.I think the president is beginning to show his real colors.

- Tony

July 23, 2009 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dan Marc...you forgot Reid,Durbin and Emmanuel.

- Gene

August 9, 2009 at 3:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close