Legislative Update XXIII

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31, including 9 Republicans. The Senate also unanimously confirmed the new ambassadors to China and Japan and the first U.S. attorneys appointed by President Obama. And the Senate joined the House in passing a $2 billion extension of the "cash for clunkers" program that was quickly signed into law by President Obama. Both chambers are now in recess until after Labor Day when, hopefully, they'll do something about health care.

Native American to the Supreme Court?

Well, now this is interesting:

The president has cheered diversity on the Supreme Court with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic and third woman to be appointed to the bench. For his next pick, we turned to you in our most recent Whispers poll.

Respondents chose racial diversity over religious diversity or difference in sexual orientation. A whopping 50 percent of those surveyed said they would like to see President Obama choose a Native American for the Supreme Court if the president got a second selection. Nineteen percent said they would like to see Obama appoint an Asian and 16 percent an African-American justice. Only 13 percent hoped to see a gay or lesbian justice as Obama's next pick. And coming in last, with 2 percent, was a Muslim justice.

As near as I can tell those were the only choices, the implied question being if Obama goes with a minority candidate, which minority group should he select from. Unfortunately the pickings are slim, as right now there are no Native Americans on the federal bench.

Legislative Update XXII

Congress quickly adopted legislation that adds $7 billion to the highway trust fund, replenishes the federal unemployment insurance trust fund and gives new lending authority to Federal Housing Administration programs that play a large role in providing low-interest housing loans.

The House of Representatives passed $2 billion in emergency funds to keep the CARS or "cash for clunkers" program going and and unanticipated amount of people rushed to take advantage of it (the Senate will likely vote on it next week). The House also passed a bill restrict Wall Street pay and passed a far-reaching food safety bill requiring more government inspections and imposing new penalties on those who violate the law. Additionally, the House passed a defense appropriations bill, cutting the F-22 but not other programs the Obama administration and Pentagon want cut, but differences will need to be worked out with the Senate. Oh, and House members unanimously approved a resolution that in part recognizes President Barack Obama as being born in Hawaii which the Senate joined.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the full Senate, which will take up confirmation on Tuesday (there's no firm date for a vote yet). Sen. Lindsey Graham was, sadly, the only Republican on the committee to vote in favor.

Unfortunately, a full House vote and a Senate Finance Committee vote on health care reform have both been put off until September.

Texas Progressive Alliance Round-Up 7/27

Time again for the Texas Progressive Alliance weekly blog roundup.

Off the Kuff takes closer look at that story about Texas turnout in last year's election.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson adds some context to what's being said in Texas about Unemployment insurance, the stimulus, and Gov. Perry.

This week at McBlogger, Krispy Kreme takes a moment to tell of her personal experiences with folks desperately in need of adequate health care.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston thinks Clear Lake Hospital has a heart of Cold.

No matter what Governor Rick Perry says or hopes for, Texas is part of the federal union. Neil at Texas Liberal offers a video this week of him reading Federalist Paper #9 on the site of the San Jacinto battlefield. Federalist #9 talks about the need for a strong union and San Jacinto is where Texas won independence from Mexico.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that John Cornyn chooses to be an a**hole over Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation.

TXsharon is combining Principles of Community Organizing (POCO) training with a vacation in Colorado so several of her posting this week contained pictures of the Durango & Silverton train ride, clean air, huge deer and breathtaking beauty. But, be sure to check out the progress made from working on the Railroad in regards to land farming toxic drilling waste.

Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker explains why the language we use in defending Health Care Reform matters more than we may think. Hint: They want to have a discussion of Government takeover of health care. We should want to discuss the necessity and fundamental fairness of publicly assisted health care for all. We can win one of these debates, but probably not the other. Check it out...

Miss Hypocrisy, meet Mr. Ignorant. Kay Bailey pricked Rick Perry for snubbing stimulus money she voted against. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs serves.

WhosPlayin was on vacation all week, but still ended up spending some time reading the Health Care Bill and has written a summary of the 'Public Option' part of the bill, noting that it looks an awful lot like a PPO.

This week Teddy from Left of College Station covers the Bryan-College Station Chamber of Commerce resolution to oppose any national health care, and reviews what the resolution says and what the resolution means. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.

After Citizen Sarah at Texas Vox read the Austin American Statesman's report on how poorly the Green Choice power program was selling, she felt motivated to write a rebuttal on how Austin Energy's pricing of wind energy left something to be desired. And this week, the Statesman reports that Austin Energy may re-evaluate the price of their latest batch of clean energy When folks start asking questions, the powers that be (get it?) pay attention. Ya gotta agitate to get the dirt out!

Legislative Update XX

The House of Representatives to protect wild horses from slaughter and give them millions of more acres to roam.

The Senate confirmed retired astronaut Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden to be the next head of NASA. The Senate also added a hate crimes provision for sexual orientation and genders as part of the defense appropriations bill to be completed next week. The House had already passed a bill, but the defense bill this is attached to is under a veto threat for F-22 spending that the White House and Pentagon don't want. And it looks like the infamous "card check" provision will be dropped from the Employee Free Choice Act to win over enough support from conservative Dems.

The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings for Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Most observers think Sotomayor was cool and collected and impressed even her GOP questioners. Her confirmation by the August recess seems assured, as even some Republicans are going to vote for her.

The House Intelligence Committee will investigate whether the CIA broke the law by not telling Congress earlier about a secret program for terrorist assassination teams.

The House Ways and Means Committee and the Education and Labor Committee have approved a sweeping health care reform bill (which has been endorsed by the AMA), but it still needs to be approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee before going to the full House.

Native Success Stories (And Aside on Sotomayor and Cultural Experience)

MORE Native lawyers please, especially ones like these three women, who overcame adversity to become successful attorneys who fight not only for their clients, but for their tribes. This story is an inspiration to anyone (man or woman of any race) who faces long odds in their quests to do what they want with their lives.

There's something else about the article that I believe is worth noting:

[Leonika] Charging, 35, grew up in White Shield, N.D., on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Unlike Smith’s tribe, Charging’s people — the affiliated tribes of the Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa — follow a matriarchal tradition. Women are given more leadership roles and control. That helped spur her to become a lawyer.

When she was young, she heard stories about how the federal government moved her people off their native lands in North Dakota and flooded the reservation to create a lake and park. The move caused decades of trauma that still lasts today, and Charging believes it wasn’t fair.

So she decided to take action to help prevent something like that from ever happening again. She decided to become a lawyer.

It's not that unusual for minorities who are aware-or particularly proud-of their cultures, to feel motivated to do something on behalf of their ethnic group once they achieve a position of influence in society. Or if not that, then at least to find their decisions in their lives and careers informed or influenced by their own personal cultural experiences, or the experiences of their culture and ethnicity as a whole. Many Native Americans grew up hearing about the history of the government's mistreatment of their tribes; perhaps as an attorney, this makes someone like Charging sympathetic to those who are mistreated by the government, or employers, or people who otherwise have some measure of unaccounted for power over their client's life. There's nothing at all unusual about this, which is why it boggles my mind that someone like Sonia Sotomayor can say that "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" and then almost immediately be accused of racism (against-presumably-whites) for that statement. All that she meant was that as a woman of her background, she is familiar with ethnic and sex discrimination (and to a lesser degree oppression), certainly moreso than the average white, male judge who has not faced such discrimination in his life, a familiarity that is likely to make her more sympathetic to those who come before her court who are treated unfairly by those more powerful than they. This is not really that remarkable of a proposition; many white people who never face any discrimination are similarly influenced by their cultural experiences to believe that racial discrimination no longer exists in America. But the idea that a minority might have a better sense of fairness and unfairness is apparently a highly offensive notion to (mostly white) conservatives who believe that, all things being equal, racism, discrimination and unfair treatment has all been but oblitereted in our society.

Immigration reform to be tackled too?

Congress has a busy rest of the year with health care now at the forefront in both chambers, a "cap and trade" bill set to be voted on tomorrow in the House, the call for new financial regulations, and Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearings in the Senate, but now another big issue may be around the corner. President Obama is meeting today with Congressional leaders on the issue of immigration reform.

Seeking to build momentum, Obama will meet today with at least 20 House and Senate members from both parties, officials said. But White House aides have worked to lower expectations, noting Congress's inability to deliver legislation to former president George W. Bush in 2006 and 2007, and vowing to proceed with debate this year only with strong bipartisan support.

"The president wants to make it clear he is serious," a senior White House official said yesterday. "He also wants to make it clear he's going to need strong partnership and leadership on both sides of the aisle to get the right policies moving."

Like so many issues, immigration reform is one with pressing need. But I can't say the chances look good with everything else on the Congressional plate right now. And like those other contentious issues, if it doesn't get done this year, it may not get done since Congress doesn't like to take those kinds of things up during an election year. It will take some serious political will to make it happen.

Is it there? We'll see, but it's good the conversation is getting started again.

Friday Round-Up

Some reading for your Friday afternoon:

1. Ayatollah Khamenei escalates the rhetoric and says opposition leaders will be responsible for "bloodshed and chaos" if the protests continue (a possibility that members of hard-line militias may seek to ensure becomes a reality.) He denies that Iran's election was rigged, though he's contradicted by what evidence is available. Roger Cohen lauds the protesters, and says Obama should be more firmly on their side. I disagree. I think Obama has struck the proper tone of concern and and caution. Were it not for our history of meddling in Iran's internal affairs, I might think otherwise.

2. More details on Obama's new financial regulations plan. Changes no doubt, but maybe not the sweeping kind that we need, according to Paul Krugman. The bad news on the economy in general has slowed, but Martin Wolf says we shouldn't be too hasty about thinking we're out of the woods yet. Certainly some (like small businesses) are having a very rough time of it.

3. Check for flying pigs outside your window, because today Ken Starr has come out in support of of Sonia Sotomayor.

4. John Shalikashvilli, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs under Clinton, says that arguments against gays in the military are poorly reasoned and insupportable.

5. Egypt shocked Italy 1-0 in Confederations Cup play yesterday, a result that perhaps shouldn't be so surprising given their play against Brazil. Fortunately for the U.S. this means that a win against Egypt tomorrow means the US will make it out of the first round. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt is playing so well against the giants makes such a victory highly unlikely.

6. Today is Juneteenth round these parts, a celebration of the day that slaves were liberated in Texas.

Fellow Republican puts Gingrich in "hall of shame" over Uighur remarks

Tell us something we don't know:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got into a public spat with fellow Republicans this week after he denounced the 17 Chinese Muslims who're being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison as "terrorists" who should be sent back to China, where they're likely to face persecution.

Gingrich, the Republican party's most prominent spokesman, is "in the Hall of Shame" for his remarks, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said in his opening statement during a Tuesday hearing of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Human Rights. Democrats and other Republicans also piled on Gingrich for "fear-mongering" and allegedly peddling Chinese propaganda.

The Uighurs are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority concentrated in the northwest part of China. According to the 2008 State Department Human Right's report, they've been the target of human rights abuses in China.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., the committee's chairman, said that Gingrich is either misinformed or intentionally circulating false information about the 17 Uighurs to "appease the Communist Chinese," who've repeatedly asked the U.S. to return the Uighurs to China. He said the Chinese "brutally persecute and oppress the Uighur minority."

And this guy's supposed to be the "intellectual" of the Republican Party? This is worse than saying Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. Either he's completely ignorant about the Uighurs or he's fear-mongering to those who are. In any case, he's a shining example of what's wrong with the Republican Party. But how ridiculous is it to look to someone who was Speaker of the House for 4 years in the 90s and left in disgrace for your future electoral hopes anyway? If that's your savior, you're in pretty sad shape.

Kill the Non-Lawyers

I've decided that we need a rule in this country. From now on, only lawyers or those with a deep and abiding interest in law should permitted to discuss and/or have any influence on Supreme Court nominations. I say this, because at least then it would be relatively easy to identify the hacks, because it would be presumed that everyone has at least a basic understanding of what judges do, and how law work. Why do I say this? Because of things like this:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told a senator Thursday that she would follow a historic ruling affirming Americans' right to own guns for self-defense, but pro-gun activists said they still believe she'd work to limit gun rights if confirmed for the high court.
Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

But the statement gave little comfort to gun rights activists. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that earlier in the week, Sotomayor told him in a similar closed-door session that she stood by an appellate court decision she signed this year that said the Second Amendment protection from curbs on the right to bear arms applied only to federal laws -- not state or local ones. That ruling, Maloney v. Cuomo, left it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the rights recognized in the Heller case applied throughout the country.

The dueling statements called attention to a simmering and politically fraught debate over gun rights that transcends partisan lines. The issue is a tricky one for many Democrats who, like Udall, hail from conservative-leaning states in the South and West and often find themselves at odds with their party's liberal leaders' strong support for gun control measures. They're under intense pressure from gun rights advocates to oppose Sotomayor's nomination, so pinning her down on the topic is a major concern.

My rule would also preclude reporters from characterizing as "dueling statements" statements that in each case reflect a willingness to abide by judicial precedent. Allow me to explain. Sotomayor indicated that she has every intention of following the precedent established by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Heller, which binds the Federal Government in recognition of an individual right to own guns. However, Sotomayor was also a member of a 2nd Circuit panel that earlier this year issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo ruling that the 2nd Amendment doesn't similarly apply to state and local governments. In their opinion, the panel plainly indicated that they were bound by an 1886 Supreme Court opinion, Presser v. Illinois wherein the Court held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. So in both her statement regarding Heller, and her ruling in Maloney, she has indicated her commitment to abide by precedent. Of course this makes no difference to pro-gun organizations, who believe-like many idiotic Americans do-that judges "make" law based solely upon their feelings and their political inclinations:

The Gun Owners of America, another gun rights group, has already come out in strong opposition to Sotomayor and is urging senators to vote against her confirmation.

"We're communicating to the Senate that you may have cast some pro-Second Amendment votes, but those are all going to be canceled out if you vote for her, because when she gets (to the Supreme Court), she's just going to cancel out everything you've voted for anyway," Pratt said. He said the judge has "an unabated hostility to individual gun ownership."

Right, because that's what psychics in the employ of the gun lobby were able to discern I suppose. That statement reeks of the "judicial activist" trope that right-wingers love to drone on about. What they fail to realize (or simply dismiss) is that had Sotomayor done anything other than follow Supreme Court precedent in the Maloney incident, she would've been guilty of the worst kind of judicial activism, ignoring direct precedent to reach a politically convenient opinion. It's easy to say this because no less a conservative judge than Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit signed onto a decision earlier this month that held that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states, also because he felt that his court was constrained by Supreme Court precedent that spoke directly to the matter at hand. The pro-gun lobby isn't happy with that outcome either, but they don't run around protesting Eeasterbrook's "unabated hostility to individual gun ownership" because, well, that would just be stupid.

So-at least in this instance-Sotomayor indicates that she carefully considers the binding nature of precedent when issuing a ruling on a matter. This is the exact opposite of the definition of "judicial activism", though the pro-gun lobby's psychics would like you to think otherwise I guess.

The War on Empathy is Not Going Well

Following up Adam's post from yesterday, only the right-wing could think that a full-on blitzkrieg against the word "empathy" (defined as "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" and thus a state of mind that 98% of Americans would agree in general is a positive attribute to possess) would somehow derail the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. As usual, they are wrong. I suppose no one could have predicted that attempting to cast Sotomayor as a racist empath (an oxymoron if there ever was one) would fail to persuade the American public. 

The right's staggering hypocrisy over Judge Sotomayor

In an effort to prove that Sonia Sotomayor is some kind of racist against whites, conservatives are pointing to her decision in Ricci. In the case, the panel she was on ruled against a discrimination claim from a white firefighter who was denied a promotion when the city of New Haven threw out an exam that few minorities passed. Their thinking, of course, is that she herself was discriminating against this white man by not taking the claim seriously (even though her actual record shows no greater frequency in siding with minorities with discrimination cases). Conservatives are only emboldened in that many court observers think Ricci will likely be overruled by the Supreme Court (though probably in a 5-4 decision) prior to Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings.

But what's funny about this is that her decision is actually one of judicial restraint - she sided with the city's decision which itself was trying to comply with Title VII of civil rights law, and if the Supreme Court overrules this decision it will be sailing a new course. Normally, conservatives aren't supposed to like it when judges override legislative and executive governments. So could it be in this case conservatives just didn't like the outcome of this decision - something they see as "reverse racism?" (Perhaps they just have empathy towards the white firefighter in this case?). The problem is their whole argument against Sotomayor's nomination is that a judge isn't supposed to care about the outcome of a case. That they are supposed to just "follow the law" and not act like an activist judge (by, say, overriding the decisions of elected officials).

The real problem is that they think Sotomayor will be too predisposed towards outcomes that favor minorities (which, again, the record does not show) and not whites (which would be an irrational, racist fear). It has nothing to do with any intellectually honest or consistent argument surrounding judicial philosophy whatsoever. And that's why this line of attack should be completely disregarded by any conservative who wants to have a real debate on the role of the Constitution and other substantive disagreements in the upcoming debate on this nominee.

Texas Progressive Alliance Round-Up 6/1

This week from the Texas Progressive Alliance blogs, emission from drilling are more than cars and airports, women are running things in Denton County, Liberty University Democrats lose their recognition, President Obama's political coalition leaves out the far-right and the poor, and much more on this weeks TPA Roundup.

This week’s roundup was compiled by Teddy from Left of College Station.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston says Governor Perry signed a bill to stop electricity deregulation in East Texas while we poor saps continue to be screwed with high electricity rates.

On Bluedaze: Barnett Shale operators continued to endanger public health and safety by ignoring the peer reviewed study that showed emission from drilling were more than all the cars and airports in the DFW area. Now the TCEQ data supports the findings. Smogforming nitrogen oxides and volatile organic emissions for the entire 19-counties of the Barnett Shale area are approximately 200 tons per day.

Jesus Hussein Christ, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs agrees with John Cornyn.

Castle Hills Democrats proclaims that, in Denton County, "The Women Are Running Things Now".

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that Republican ambition is messing with Perry, Hutchison and Cornyn. Who cares about Hispanic or female voters?

DosCentavos is not longer a Blogspot blog, we are now at DosCentavos.net, exclusively!.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson points out the important issues that are being neglected as the 81st Legislative Session winds down, Lack of leadership in Texas is painfully obvious.

Teddy at Left of College Station writes about the sexist and racist attacks by the usual conservative voices on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and on Liberty University’s decision to no longer recognize the College Democrats as an official student organization because of their endorsement of pro-choice and pro-gay rights candidates.

McBlogger takes another look at the dump near Andrews after he finds out it'll be taking not just radioactive waste, but PCB saturated dirt from the Hudson Valley. In New York.

Off the Kuff takes a look at a wrench in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary named Leo Berman.

At Texas Kaos, Lightseeker asks the question, What do the powerful do when reform is eminent? (Hint, there's a lotta money to be made in fake reforms...)

Neil at Texas Liberal says that President Obama's political coalition leaves out the far-right and and the most poor. Neil also reports that he will be master of ceremonies at a huge punk rock blast in Cincinnati this upcoming August 15.

BossKitty at TruthHugger is appalled at the short sighted vision of of Texas Politicians. If you donate to their campaign, you are free to destroy the land, air and water of a great state. You can have the blessings of all the state and federal agencies you need to pull off a hazardous trick. Rick Perry and Friends Welcome Toxic Burritos

Jeffrey Rosen Tried His Best

But President Obama has decided to nominate Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Judging Sotomayor

As I have essentially spent all of my time telling you what not to rely upon in judging Sonia Sotomayor's work as a federal judge (Jeffrey Rosen in particular, anonymous comments in general) you might be wondering what you should consider in weighing her as a nominee for the Supreme Court. To answer that question, here's Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog, who breaks down Sotomayor's rulings on various aspects of the law. Go, and be enlightened.

Sotomayor Shenanigans?

If you read this blog, you're well aware of the controversy stirred up by TNR's legal affairs writer and law professor Jeffrey Rosen, who wrote what a gossipy, unflattering piece on prospective SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor that relied almost entirely upon anonymous quotes handpicked to leave the impression that Judge Sotomayor isn't all that nice or all that bright. In response to the flap that he stirred up, Rosen followed up with another article "clarifying" his first, in which he cited to comments made about Sotomayor in a publication called the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, a publication that purports to offer balanced profiles of federal judges by quoting lawyers who have argued cases before them. Rosen cites some comments in the most recent Almanac that support the unsourced criticisms he printed in his initial column (though the comments in the Almanac are hardly as malicious as the ones anonymous commentators provided Rosen.) But Rob Kar, a law professor at Loyola Law, notices an odd change in the tenor of the comments in the Alamanc from 2006 and before to 2007, which he details in Drudge-like fashion: 

Scandal! Scandal! I smell a true scandal in the air!

After wondering about discrepancies between the lawyerly evaluations that Jeff Rosen cited in his hit-piece on Judge Sotomayor and some earlier ones that I had accessible, I had someone retrieve the full set of evaluations from her time on the Circuit Court. It turns out that in every year that Judge Sotomayor has been reviewed, lawyers have literally raved (and I am using their word, not mine) about her legal skills (and have been very respectful, if also a bit fearful, of her judicial temperament)...

Until suddenly, in 2007, and shortly before Obama was elected, everything changed on a dime, and she suddently became a "DUMB BULLY." (The most recent Almanac is 2008, so she only became dumb just during the last election season, when--a number of people are starting to think--some people who haven't wanted her on the Supreme Court may have been doing something scandalous...)

He then goes on to list a selection of quotes from the 2006 Almanac, almost universally favorable, contrasting them with the comments printed in the 2007 almanac that have been widely circulated amongst the blogs and are cited by Rosen in his most recent article. He also speculates without confirmation that Megan Rosen, the editor of the Almanac may be Jeffrey Rosen's sister-in-law. So, why the sudden change in tone? Nobody knows yet, but I have a feeling we'll hear more about this. 

Rosen Responds

Rosen has this response in today's New Republic, to the criticism over his gossip-mongering hatchet job of Sonia Sotomayor on Monday. Excerpts:

Many people have mischaracterized my argument, and I can understand why. The headline--"The Case Against Sotomayor"--promised something much stronger than I intended to deliver. As soon as the piece was published, I regretted the headline, which I hadn't seen in advance. The piece was not meant to be a definitive "case against" Judge Sotomayor's candidacy. It was intended to convey questions about her judicial temperament that sources had expressed to me in the preceding weeks. That's why I concluded the piece not by suggesting that Sotomayor was unqualified for the Supreme Court, but by suggesting that "given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble."

Readers have asked for more information about my sources. A few weeks ago, I received phone calls from eminent liberal scholars I know and trust. These scholars closely follow Sotomayor's work and expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grid or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation--mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her--and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece. None of these people would have talked to me without the promise of anonymity: some still argue before the judge, and others continue to interact with her...Anonymous comments aren't ideal, but there was no other way, in this situation, to get people to share candid questions about judicial temperament.

Rosen then goes on to walk back his criticism a little bit, but he clearly has no remorse over using entirely anonymous sources whose credibility and intentions we are supposed to accept merely at his word, to portray Sotomayor as not-that-bright and not-that-nice. I could say more, but it hardly begins to approach this roasting from Glenn Greenwald:

What really happened here is now manifest -- and typical. A couple of Rosen's secret friends don't like Sonia Sotomayor and called him to encourage him to smear her in the pages of The New Republic. Rather than do the work to determine if these "questions" about her abilities had merit -- by, say, conducting a thorough survey of her key judicial opinions the way a conscientious law professor might -- he instead set out dutifully to undertake the mission assigned to him by these "eminent legal scholars" by calling the people they handpicked for him, who then eagerly attacked Sotomayor. Rosen then mindlessly wrote it all down -- including facts that were either false (the footnote) or highly distorted (Judge Cabranes' New York Times statement about Sotomayor, which was clearly a compliment, not a criticism), and then sent it to TNR, which slapped a provocative and (by Rosen's account) misleading headline on it and then happily published it. That Rosen himself was a chief champion of John Roberts, and had already expressed concerns that Obama might take diversity into account when appointing someone to the Supreme Court, undoubtedly made Rosen more than happy to be chosen to carry out this dirty task against someone who is most assuredly not part of his circle.

In other words, Rosen did what the modern journalist of the Respectable Intellectual Center does by definition: he wrote down what Serious People told him to say, agreed to protect their identity, and then published their very purposeful chatter without doing any real work to verify, investigate or scrutinize it. As a result, a woman who spent the last four decades of her life using her talents and intellect and working extremely hard to reach amazing heights in the face of great obstacles is now widely viewed as an intellectually deficient, stunted, egotistical affirmative-action beneficiary who has no business being on the Supreme Court -- all thanks to the slimy work of Jeffrey Rosen, his cowardly friends of the Respectable Intellectual Center, and The New Republic.

So, mission accomplished, Rosen?

More on Rosen's Hatchet Job

Glenn Greenwald, who unlike Jeffrey Rosen bothers to actually inform himself about the subject of his writing, offers this scathing criticism of Rosen and The New Republic for their ridiculous hit job on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Most especially, he focuses on the strange desire of TNR to be the liberal magazine that right-wingers love to turn to:

Based on those experiences, I'm genuinely amazed at how -- overnight -- she's been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen's piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons. The New Republic thus fulfills its principal function in life: to allow the Right to spout any sort of invective and bile and justify it by reciting the "even-the-liberal-New-Republic-agrees" defense.

In the last 24 hours alone, Rosen's article has been used by three different National Review writers -- who, I'd be willing to bet lots of money, know virtually nothing about Sotomayor -- to declare her to be "dumb and obnoxious." That's a phrase they've revelled in repeating three times now (and counting), culminating with this: "I'm sure Mark H. is right about Sotomayor's being dumb and obnoxious, just as Derb is right about her being female and Hispanic is all the [sic] matters." The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she's stupid and doesn't deserve her achievements -- based on the fact that she's Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception -- is really remarkable.

Greenwald then goes on to recount his personal experience with Sotomayor, which is both fairer, more credible, and more useful than any of the unsourced gossip that Rosen regurgitated in his column.

UPDATE: Via Local Crank, here's an endorsement of Sotomayor by Joe Conason.

UPDATE II: Another couple of interesting links. First, Adam Serwer at TAPPED on Rosen's particular issue with non-white, non-male SCOTUS nominees. And M. LeBlanc on how, strangely, the sorts of assertions that Rosen prints about Sotomayor are never made about white, male judges.

TNR's Hatchet Job on Sotomayor

The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen whips out the hatchet and does a number on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a presumed front-runner to fill the soon-to-be-retiring Souter's seat on the Supreme Court. Frankly, TNR should be ashamed of even running with this sort of nonsense:

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.

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.

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. 

UPDATE: I was too kind to call this journalistic negligence. "Malpractice" would be a more appropriate term.