He indeed makes frequent statements that cause Obama to be embarrassed. But as implied here I was surprised at her lack of in-depth knowledge of important cases. Her statements on Kelo, incorporation, even Ricci left much to be desired. Can you picture the brilliant responses if Obama had nominated a Kagan, Woods, or Sullivan?
I don’t believe she demonstrated a lack of knowledge; she chose her words carefully and demonstrated (as I said before) intelligence, thoughtfulness, and (gasp) judicial temperament.
Nominees are required not to evidence prejudgment of issues that could come before the court.
No, if you read the legal professor blogs her responses have not just been the correct evasive responses we all expect and for confirmation demand. Her legal knowledge is deficient and later witnesses before the panel are explaining her legal errors. She has misinterpreted the legal history and actual supreme court rulings.
I didn’t defend the Bush appointment of Harriet Miers because she wasn’t up to the standards I hoped for. This is not a brilliant appointment, she is going to be just a mediocre justice. I disagree with Ginsburg about 90% of the time but she is brilliant.
Roman Hruska: “”Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”
GNW, all I can say in response is that I watched coverage rather faithfully these last couple of days and none of the legal analysts, on any of the three programs I watched, made a comment about her responses being an incorrect interpretation of prior decisions.
I don’t read legal professor blogs and if I did, I would have to try to determine which of them were reliable.
It was notable that Graham only quoted those few who didn’t like her, and probably lost their cases. It is not the purpose of these hearings to discuss off-hand intricacies of case law, and all the arguments made. I think she did a good job, especially in light of repetition of ridiculous “points” questioners wouldn’t let go of. I hope she can be both tough and inquisitive on the bench, and independent.
BCS: I have posted 2 exact quotes from you. All 3 sources of MSM you watched agreed with your views and only Fox was slanted. Consider an alternative that many of us truly believe, all sources other than Fox are slanted one way and Fox is slanted the other. You like the MSM because they slant your way.
GNW, all I can say in response is that I watched coverage rather faithfully these last couple of days and none of the legal analysts, on any of the three programs I watched, made a comment about her responses being an incorrect interpretation of prior decisions.
Reliability to me means NOT being slanted; though one could say Faux News is reliably slanted all the time.
GNW, actually, Faux News was one of the three sources I watched faithfully these last couple of days. You assumed incorrectly. (and actually my comment on this toonist’s prior day’s toon mentioned Faux News as one of my sources.)
None of the many legal (as opposed to political) commentators, including those appearing on Faux News, suggested her explanations of prior court decisions were incorrect either.
Before the nomination was announced liberal Jeffrey Rosen was pushing for two extremely competent very liberal female possible choices. He wrote a damning article about Sotomayor. It was so negative that many thought it killed Sotomayor’s chances. But Obama wanted to make a political appointment, competency was secondary. Now after the nomination and hearings here is a followup. Most of the quote is from Rosen in the New Yorker. Remember he is approaching from the left, he is not conservative or Republican in any way.
” 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.
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.)
Has she said anything to dispel these concerns? Whether examining her verbal skills, her command of the law or her intellectual acuity, I come away thinking she is one of the least impressive Supreme Court nominees to come along in recent memory. Judge Robert Bork was obviously not everyone’s ideal judge, but the man’s intellectual prowess was undeniable and he refused to lie about his views. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frankly charming and sharp-witted in her testimony and could march the senators through the evolution of a number of strains of jurisprudence.
Then there is this passage:
Rosen was trying to warn his liberal compatriots that they could do “better” than Sotomayor. He was right and should get some credit for his effort. Imagine if Diane Wood or Kathleen Sullivan, both liberal in philosophy but undeniably impressive, had been up there over the last couple of days. I suspect that conservatives would have been staring at their shoes, struggling for reasons to say “no” and grudgingly acknowledging that the nominee was going to add something to the Court beyond her gender.
In reading those two rebuttals I came away unimpressed. They were written after the official nomination to save the candidate. Faulting negative attributes because they were made by unidentified sources is not a defense.
BCS, defend all you want but Sotomayor is a mediocre (by SCOTUS standards) selection. As was Harriet Meier, Clarence Thomas, Carswell etc. Once again quoting Sen Hruska all nominees cannot be a Brandeis, Frankfurter or Cardoza but that is to whom we should aspire.
She is going to be overwhelmingly confirmed. You no longer have to fight the good fight. As I have said all along I would vote yes as she will be much less bothersome than other possible choices. Wouldn’t you rather have the Dean of Harvard Law school (a woman)?
The criticism wasn’t just faulting “anonymous” sources, though that criticism is certainly valid enough. One of those critiques pointed out that Rosen talked to people who had never worked with Sotomayor.
Anyway, GNW, I already acknowledged that you’ve said she should be confirmed — on the post where I thanked you for the NY Times article on her past statements.
Howie, proving what point? I don’t follow your post. I think you either misread my remarks or you haven’t explained your point fully.
What I said above is that none of the commentators on the three programs (networks) I watched criticized her interpretations of court cases as being incorrect, including Faux News. In other words, the commentators remarks on the three was relatively consistent. Had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any of them; I have no independent knowledge of the correctness of legal decisions. That’s why I watch the news, to learn.
And I’ve never watched MSNBC, my cable co. doesn’t carry it.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
He indeed makes frequent statements that cause Obama to be embarrassed. But as implied here I was surprised at her lack of in-depth knowledge of important cases. Her statements on Kelo, incorporation, even Ricci left much to be desired. Can you picture the brilliant responses if Obama had nominated a Kagan, Woods, or Sullivan?
HUMPHRIES almost 15 years ago
Does “lack of knowledge”mean avoiding getting tangeled up with BS questions whose only intent are for political grandstanding ?
Kylop almost 15 years ago
Going with the ‘toon’s theme I suggest adding (on the far right of the panel) G W Bush saying exactly what Biden said.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
I don’t believe she demonstrated a lack of knowledge; she chose her words carefully and demonstrated (as I said before) intelligence, thoughtfulness, and (gasp) judicial temperament.
Nominees are required not to evidence prejudgment of issues that could come before the court.
kylop, another funny one!
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
No, if you read the legal professor blogs her responses have not just been the correct evasive responses we all expect and for confirmation demand. Her legal knowledge is deficient and later witnesses before the panel are explaining her legal errors. She has misinterpreted the legal history and actual supreme court rulings.
I didn’t defend the Bush appointment of Harriet Miers because she wasn’t up to the standards I hoped for. This is not a brilliant appointment, she is going to be just a mediocre justice. I disagree with Ginsburg about 90% of the time but she is brilliant.
Roman Hruska: “”Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, all I can say in response is that I watched coverage rather faithfully these last couple of days and none of the legal analysts, on any of the three programs I watched, made a comment about her responses being an incorrect interpretation of prior decisions.
I don’t read legal professor blogs and if I did, I would have to try to determine which of them were reliable.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
Howie, nope, dead wrong. How boring life would be (not to mention stultifying) if one only associated with views that one agreed with.
Reliability to me means NOT being slanted; though one could say Faux News is reliably slanted all the time.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, responded to your info on Catalino, 7/15
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
It was notable that Graham only quoted those few who didn’t like her, and probably lost their cases. It is not the purpose of these hearings to discuss off-hand intricacies of case law, and all the arguments made. I think she did a good job, especially in light of repetition of ridiculous “points” questioners wouldn’t let go of. I hope she can be both tough and inquisitive on the bench, and independent.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
BCS: I have posted 2 exact quotes from you. All 3 sources of MSM you watched agreed with your views and only Fox was slanted. Consider an alternative that many of us truly believe, all sources other than Fox are slanted one way and Fox is slanted the other. You like the MSM because they slant your way.
GNW, all I can say in response is that I watched coverage rather faithfully these last couple of days and none of the legal analysts, on any of the three programs I watched, made a comment about her responses being an incorrect interpretation of prior decisions.
Reliability to me means NOT being slanted; though one could say Faux News is reliably slanted all the time.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, actually, Faux News was one of the three sources I watched faithfully these last couple of days. You assumed incorrectly. (and actually my comment on this toonist’s prior day’s toon mentioned Faux News as one of my sources.)
None of the many legal (as opposed to political) commentators, including those appearing on Faux News, suggested her explanations of prior court decisions were incorrect either.
I’m not sure what your point is ….
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
Before the nomination was announced liberal Jeffrey Rosen was pushing for two extremely competent very liberal female possible choices. He wrote a damning article about Sotomayor. It was so negative that many thought it killed Sotomayor’s chances. But Obama wanted to make a political appointment, competency was secondary. Now after the nomination and hearings here is a followup. Most of the quote is from Rosen in the New Yorker. Remember he is approaching from the left, he is not conservative or Republican in any way.
” 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.
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 prosecutorsexpressed 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.)
Has she said anything to dispel these concerns? Whether examining her verbal skills, her command of the law or her intellectual acuity, I come away thinking she is one of the least impressive Supreme Court nominees to come along in recent memory. Judge Robert Bork was obviously not everyone’s ideal judge, but the man’s intellectual prowess was undeniable and he refused to lie about his views. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frankly charming and sharp-witted in her testimony and could march the senators through the evolution of a number of strains of jurisprudence.
Then there is this passage:
Rosen was trying to warn his liberal compatriots that they could do “better” than Sotomayor. He was right and should get some credit for his effort. Imagine if Diane Wood or Kathleen Sullivan, both liberal in philosophy but undeniably impressive, had been up there over the last couple of days. I suspect that conservatives would have been staring at their shoes, struggling for reasons to say “no” and grudgingly acknowledging that the nominee was going to add something to the Court beyond her gender.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/07/rosen/
disputes Rosen’s article point by point and offers his own evidence that Rosen got his facts wrong multiple times
this is why I’m so cautious about getting news via the web from web pages and bloggers unless I can find it confirmed by independent sources
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
and yet another constitutional law professor refutes Rosen:
http://tinyurl.com/c4xxkb
ditto my remarks about being cautious about info on the web
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
In reading those two rebuttals I came away unimpressed. They were written after the official nomination to save the candidate. Faulting negative attributes because they were made by unidentified sources is not a defense.
BCS, defend all you want but Sotomayor is a mediocre (by SCOTUS standards) selection. As was Harriet Meier, Clarence Thomas, Carswell etc. Once again quoting Sen Hruska all nominees cannot be a Brandeis, Frankfurter or Cardoza but that is to whom we should aspire.
She is going to be overwhelmingly confirmed. You no longer have to fight the good fight. As I have said all along I would vote yes as she will be much less bothersome than other possible choices. Wouldn’t you rather have the Dean of Harvard Law school (a woman)?
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
The criticism wasn’t just faulting “anonymous” sources, though that criticism is certainly valid enough. One of those critiques pointed out that Rosen talked to people who had never worked with Sotomayor.
Anyway, GNW, I already acknowledged that you’ve said she should be confirmed — on the post where I thanked you for the NY Times article on her past statements.
See, you’re brilliant — you agree with me. :^D
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
Howie, proving what point? I don’t follow your post. I think you either misread my remarks or you haven’t explained your point fully.
What I said above is that none of the commentators on the three programs (networks) I watched criticized her interpretations of court cases as being incorrect, including Faux News. In other words, the commentators remarks on the three was relatively consistent. Had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any of them; I have no independent knowledge of the correctness of legal decisions. That’s why I watch the news, to learn.
And I’ve never watched MSNBC, my cable co. doesn’t carry it.
Lt_Lanier almost 15 years ago
Yes, he got the job, even without the teleprompter…