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.
Print
COMMENTS (642)
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.
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.
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 t ... view full comment
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.
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.
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.
I'm telling you: Salazar.
I'm telling you: Salazar.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I love the smell of gossip in the morning...
I love the smell of gossip in the morning...
...smells like modern journalism...
...smells like modern journalism...
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.
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.
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 t ... view full comment
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.
You're really sourcing this with clerks for other judges, and former prosecutors? See any possible bias there?
You're really sourcing this with clerks for other judges, and former prosecutors? See any possible bias there?
"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.
"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.
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 mak ... view full comment
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."
I want my justices unassailably brilliant. What about Cabranes? The hell with the male-female thing.
I want my justices unassailably brilliant. What about Cabranes? The hell with the male-female thing.
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.
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.
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 l ... view full comment
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"?
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
A good question is, Would Sonia Sotomayor be regarded as less intelligent or thoughtful if she were a white male?
A good question is, Would Sonia Sotomayor be regarded as less intelligent or thoughtful if she were a white male?
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.
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.
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."
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."
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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 curren ... view full comment
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.
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.
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.
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 det ... view full comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a truly awful piece
This is a truly awful piece
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).
... view full comment
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.
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?
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?
"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?
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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 -
this article is a crock pure and simple
this article is a crock pure and simple
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 ... view full comment
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 !
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!
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!
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 goo ... view full comment
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.