Skip to main content

View Diary: TNR's (Rosen) sexist hatchet-job against Sotomayor (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unless you're saying Rosen is pulling a (0+ / 0-)

    Stephen Glass, how is this a "sexist hatchet-job".  I mean, should he have ignored the opinion of the clerks he interviewed?

    You also casually forget to mention how in the article, Rosen also points out many positive things said by Sotomayor's colleagues.

    I actually found this article very interesting and I'm sorry that you felt the need to do a "hatchet-job" on Rosen.

    •  Anonymous clap-trap. (8+ / 0-)

      Why no names?

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:40:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, if you're still working (0+ / 0-)

        as a clerk, or now in the private sector, you probably wouldn't want your name out there speaking bad about a potential Supreme Court Justice (especially if she gets the job).  That would not be good for the career.

        •  The whole "piece" is full (7+ / 0-)

          of anonymous quotes, and as pointed out by Dissenting Justice, they were not even from those who have worked for Sotomayor.

          To top it off Rosen hasn't even read her opinions.


          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

          by Denise Oliver Velez on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:50:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right! There's no possibility to verify. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronBa, Deoliver47, chrome327

            There's a place in responsible journalism for anonymous sources, as a supplement to facts for which you are otherwise able to provide some kind of evidence. If Rosen presented in addition to what he does a careful analysis of her legal reasoning and said it was faulty in given specific instances, well then he might be wrong or might be right but it would be an argument that we could verify independently. But anonymous sources when he hasn't read her opinions is not just laziness, it's irresponsibility with respect to the allegations he's making.

            And it's far too easy for me to see these characterizations--especially the "bully" label--as coming from a clerk who received some harsh and embittering criticism. Of course I can't know this for sure--Jeffrey Rosen doesn't give me the resources to know, or to otherwise evaluate his claims.

            So this is just FAIL with a FAIL on top.

            "It's like we weren't made for this world, But I wouldn't really want to meet someone who was." --Of Montreal

            by andydoubtless on Tue May 05, 2009 at 09:21:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  How can you take anything Rosen says seriously (7+ / 0-)

      when he discredits his own piece.

      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.

      This was a attack piece plain and simple with a few positive quotes here and there to provide Rosen cover. You have to wonder what is the motivation of a author if he admits his work is half ass. I beleive this was to begin a meme tarnish the character of Judge Sotomayor.

      The Republican Party = "everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."

      by TennesseeGurl on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:49:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's an example: (6+ / 0-)

      Rosen writes:

      (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."

      What? Judge Jose Cabranes makes a favorable statement about her and Rosen spins it as a back-handed compliment? What a hack.

      The secret code in this article is not that secret. Here's the translation:

      Some people say she's an ignorant,  pushy Puerto Rican from the slums and a product of affirmative action. She's Catholic, but not Catholic enough to reverse Roe v. Wade. She's divorced and childless so maybe she's a lesbian, too. Did I mention she's Puerto Rican?

      Rosen can go fuck himself.

      "It is often pleasant to stone a martyr, no matter how much we admire him"...John Barth

      by Giles Goat Boy on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:58:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My problem with Rosen is failure of due diligence (4+ / 0-)

      By his own admission he never bothered to read her judicial opinions before writing a piece that included anonymous sources suggesting a lack of intellectual fire power suitable for a Supreme Court Justice.

      If he had read her work and offered an unbiased set of facts based on quotes from her that supported this supposition then I would not claim this was a hatchet job but in the absence of facts, this was an unfortunate article that may have very negative consequences for Judge Sotomayor.

      What is more interesting is why he chose to write the piece in the absence of this information and why the TNR chose to publish it. This is just basic journalism to include some supporting information from past cases over which she has presided and specific opinions offered by her. My goodness, we expect that much from diarists on dKos.

      "Statistics are people with the tears wiped away." --Irving Selikoff

      by smartdemmg on Tue May 05, 2009 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site