Comments on: Sotomayor “not That Smart And Kind Of A Bully” Says Ex-clerk

By: ShawninPHX

ShawninPHX — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:12:02 +0000

One more comment: Why is this now at the bottom of your page? Suddenly this article dropped from the top of the page to the bottom (even though your pages were in date order).

I re-read your analysis after and that day it was at the bottom of the page (even though past articles were ahead of it). May I ask you to explain your policy for stories?

Thanks,
S-

By: ShawninPHX

ShawninPHX — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:10:44 +0000

David - I really enjoy the site. I was disappointed, however, that you did not include what he says at the end of the story:

"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."

To me, this seems like HS gossip and, coming from TNR, I'm pretty disappointed. Rather than giving us any real reporting (or even having taken a look at any of her opinions or talked to former prosecutors) he passes along gossip from other judges clerks.

I'm taking this story as seriously as I take Michelle Bachman.

By: ireign

ireign — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:06:31 +0000

Bullcraplover-Once again, you are unable to grasp context. Repeating something stupid (i.e. since HW Bush appointed her she must be acceptable to Republicans) ad nauseum does not make it correct. Most people can grasp that argument is fallacious. Why you choose to go on a Republican blog to repeat such idiocy makes little sense. Do you honestly expect people to buy into your logic?

I love how people like you can have the nerve to call someone with a graduate degree from an elite school uneducated. Why don't you and everyone else who wants to call others uneducated let us know your alma mater?

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:42:01 +0000

Ireign…you were rude hon. I just returned your snarky onslaught…but anyone reading can see that fact…even if you can’t.As for being wrong in your eyes? I can live with that as being right in your world? Would be a scary place.I was not wrong though as my point is a matter of public record…facts…those pesky little things! LOL they do tend to mess the reality of the uneducated.

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:39:29 +0000

David...On 3/02/09 Politico had this:

President Barack Obama should fill vacant spots on the federal bench with former President Bushs judicial nominees to help avoid another huge fight over the judiciary, all 41 Senate Republicans said Monday.

In a letter to the White House, the Republican senators said Obama would "change the tone in Washington" if he were to renominate Bush nominees like Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond. And they requested that Obama respect the Senates constitutional role in reviewing judicial nominees by seeking their consultation about potential nominees from their respective states.

..since George H.W Bush appointed her, where is the problem???

By: tarazeigler

tarazeigler — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:58:28 +0000

ireign: What? Wow. I’ll give you credit for tenacity and leaps of logic, anyway.sinz54: Well said. Temperament is important but not as important as judicial philosophy and I can’t understand how any good analysis of Sotomayor’s fitness as a nominee completely leaves that philosophy out of the discussion.

By: ireign

ireign — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:57:54 +0000

Taraziegler-there has been plenty of rudeness to go around, especially from bulldoglover. Not only was he rude but to paraphrase you, he was also wrong.

As for your comment, you answered your own question. I never said Rosen's article was an endorsement. He presented a case against nominating Sotomayor. That is far different from not supporting her, should she be the nominee.

Otto(BS) TNR-is known to be a liberal periodical. The only time they didn't endorse a Democrat for President was Carter and in that situation, they endorsed the liberal independent in the race, Jack Anderson. Martin Peretz, while hawkish on foreign policy, is still a partisan Democrat. There is at most one editor who is not a Democrat. Hardly, all over the map politically. A quick google search would reveal that.

I never said Rosen didn't have a "dog in the race." In fact, I believe Frum probably does have a dog in the race, i.e. Kagan. You are trying to demagogue the point, which is that it is rare for former clerks of the same political persuasion to criticize a judge. There is no other Second Circuit judge on Obama's shortlist so it is not like they are pushing their own judge.

krove-Clerks for other judges can be credible sources. Clerks for one judge usually interact with other judges.

By: ireign

ireign — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:55:34 +0000

Sinz-no one is going to attack her directly or oppose her on that point if she is nominee. Temperament is important (more so for Democrats than Republicans). Scalia probably has lost a few battles not because his argument but because he pisses off other judges. Roberts was picked in part because conservatives felt he could convince liberals to vote his way. Breyer is known for being persuasive.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:45:34 +0000

ireign: Attacking Sotomayor's personality, or her long rambling memos, is the type of thing I said I would NOT support--personal attacks in lieu of dissections of her judicial philosophy.

It's pretty obvious that when Souter announced his retirement, no conservatives said to themselves "Gee, I hope Obama appoints a replacement who is easy to get along with and can write pithy memos." What conservatives were instantly terrified of, is Obama appointing an ultra-liberal to the Supreme Court who will pull the Court to the left on social issues and homeland security issues.

So please let's stop discussing the kind of personality Sotomayor is, or even the kind of work habits she has. You and I both know that was never the issue.

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:13:40 +0000

Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 48 minutes ago --

Yep. Some great stuff appears in TNR.

Heck... for that matter I often find stuff well worth reading in the Atlantic.

Krugman? Just because I disagree with him far more often than not doesn't mean he doesn't hit the nail on the head occasionally. (Heck... same with Robert Reich for that matter!)

Anyway... believe me... when Obama names his appointment... we'll no doubt be spending weeks - perhaps months - debating the merits as well as the facts concerning everything about the nomination.

BILL