The smearing of Sonia Sotomayor begins: UPDATED
It didn't take long for The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor by using anonymous sources throughout his piece. And don't you just love how the whole tone of the piece is about what a crazy, hot-tempered Latina she is? Nothing like trading in racial stereotypes to smear someone. (That's the subtext of the Morning Joe segment above, too.)
Of course, it's not just Rosen: Think Progress reports it's coming from all the good Villagers.
Glenn Greenwald does a thorough debunking of the smears and also includes his own personal experiences with Sonia to add some real context to the type of person she is.
Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character -- based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping "sources" -- is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow "journalism" that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent "reporting" generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted. Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen's piece have been fully highlighted by others.
While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen's horrendous use of anonymous sources -- one of the most apt reactions to Rosen's piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette -- I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson...
It's really quite sad when Rosen ends his own piece like this:
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.
Why didn't he just start his piece with this part and then say he'd get back to us? You know, it would be helpful if he was going to preview Sonya Sotomayor to have a more "complete picture," don't you think? Yeah, it's so much easier to smear her character by hanging out at the water cooler than actually do some research.
Likewise, Judge Andrew Napolitano uses anonymous sources to smear Sotomayor as "not a hard worker":
UPDATE: Rosen reacts to the criticism he received on TNR. He was upset with the title of his piece the most and he thought it was misleading to the type of story he wrote. You can be the judge of that.
He also responds to the section I quoted at the end of my piece.
Some readers have also questioned my confession at the end of the piece that I hadn't read enough of her opinions to make a fully confident judgment. Perhaps I conceded too much: I had read enough of her opinions to find them good but not great--like much of the competent but not especially distinctive writing that characterizes most federal appellate opinions. In the past few days, I've read many more opinions, and nothing has called my initial judgment into question...read on
Now he says he did read enough of her opinons...Oh, boy.
It doesn't matter what he says or how truthful it is, we all know that Fox News will run with it. Somebody has to make smears up and I'm sure they are happy when someone does it for them.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Wouldn't it be wise for them to actually wait until there was a nominee before they tossed their feces at the wall.
Are you kidding? For them it's never too early for a little shit flinging. It's an olympic sport as far as they're concerned. They're so good at it because pretty much that's all they are capable of doing.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"before they tossed their feces at the wall."
actually they confuse the feces with wallpaper flecks,
a common gop snack.
With all of this crap coming out, and her not even being nominated yet, there must be a real fear by a lot of the villagers out there of her. Most of that is that she isn't white or a man.
That sounds just like what Rush says about liberals and Palin.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
flapping his gums on FOX.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I have had to give up watching Morning Joe, since the early morning screaming and swearing I do while watching him is a really bad way to start the day. I wish he'd just move to Faux News so I could safely watch the morning news on MSNBC.
The right wingnuts scare me in their ignorance and bigotry. I try to avoid episodes of rage. And I can't watch them without the screaming back at my TV. Whomever the President nominates will be smeared. I'd rather the admin leaked fake names while they vet the candidates they want.
I find that lately Mika gets on my nerves as bad, if not worse, than Joe. I can take about a half hour of the show if they have a guest I want to see and hear, I'll check in ever so often but otherwise longer than a half hour and I am truly talking back to the tv.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I can't watch either. The Scar is not much different that Limbaugh. He lies and has no solutions. I hate to use this as an argument but Mika is just too stupid to watch. I don't think I have ever heard an original thought from her. She just repeats what Joe says and that camera shot of them both that they use all the time is just perfect.
> I'd rather the admin leaked fake names while they vet the candidates they want.
That's a good idea. And the more outrageous the names they leak, the better. After they've gotten worked up over the top on the decoy names, their complaints against the real candidate will seem rather thin! They might even have to save face and credibility by claiming that it was their "outrage" that "made" Obama select a less extreme candidate.
You want to watch a really great show of hysteria, screaming, distracting, blathering, foaming at the mouth, neoNAZIcons will perish if anyone speaks the name of Al Gore for the Supreme Court. Now, that would indeed be the come-up-ence that they all have coming to them, but Rahm...............aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhagggggggggg
So I guess you can expect Hannity to run with it tonight.
Beck too.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Is Beck still on?
Never mind.
Name ONE nationality that the Reslugs don't HATE and spit on.
Israelis?
?
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Brilliant strategy. The Republicans are through when it comes to us coloreds...believe it.
I know I wrote the GOP off a long time ago. And it's sickening they're using the typical anti-Hispanic "lazy" slur/meme against her. Fuck them, I say.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
...only two call themselves Republican(and they admit to having business interests in their political decision). Conservatives should completely give up on us blacks for at least a couple of generations.
too, which they richly deserve.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
I'll enjoy the Conservatives death. It's all about choices and consequences.
*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Glad your carrying the word battles for us persons of color. I often have to laugh when these kind of topics show up here cause it's so easy to push buttons with some on this site. Lots and lots of denial around here but lots of rational thought too!
I'll have to get back to you on that "hispanic" thing some other time. Just think richard m nixon!
Thanks, and you're right, there's a lot of rational thought but some denial too, especially when these sorts of issues come about.
I admit I use "Hispanic" often when not just referring to Chicanos, but you're right about the Nixon thing. I probably ought to stick to "Latino" for that stuff since I prefer it anyway! :)
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
would kill the last minority bastion that the repukes hold
of course, i thought obama picking rahm would cool off the observant jewish faction...but that didnt happen...cuz i hate to say this, but my more observant brethren have strange racist tendencies
for some reason...they see themselves as being white
and let me tell you...i may have white skin...but as a jew, i know i aint white
just ask the kkk and the neo nazis of our wonderful country
or anyone in the christian right
I heard today, sorry can't remember which channel, that two of the possible nominees are openly gay. Imagine what the right will sling at either of those if they are chosen.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
was one, and the other is a faculty member there. Sorry i cannot recalol their names...
neither is a member of any ethnic minority, afaik...
there is NO LOW to which the gop reichwingnuttia
will not fall.
how did the gop party stooping to kiss rush's ass
find their head shoved all the way in instead?
short of Martin Bormann that is. Same thing every 4 years when somehow the Dems manage to nominate "the most liberal Senator" in the US congress. Or most liberal governor. Or most liberal (insert your choice of elected office here).
.Jake Tapper needs to stop giving these people credence.
I'm sorry but who is it exactly that decides the next nominee for the SCOTUS? It seems as though these folks ar trying to make that determination for the president. I know. Just trying to help. Want the best candidate possible.
And make some money.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
Love the Grandpa Munster hairdo.
Actually, "hot-tempered" is probably not a problem for an Supreme Court judge. They typically spend weeks on a decision so a momentary fit of pique is nothing. It's not like they're going to get ticked off and send troops to their death or even tell the enemy to "bring it on".
tempermental, even if you take a while to anger (like myself), so it's the villager stereotyping that worries me....
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
I wonder if the extreme right wing (like O'Mousedick call all liberals the loony left or the whatever he calls us) who are saying this have thought about placing these exact labels on Clarence Thomas?
The President could nominate Jesus Christ and the right would start flinging crap his way. They would probably begin by sayin there was a book written about him and he seems to have a personal agenda.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
That's kinda obvious as the GOP doesn't like liberals.
Plus the dark skin would have caused some problems too.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Praise white Jesus!
;)
Seriously, as a kid in the 70s, I had to go to a rather wingnut church, yes, we had them back then (they just weren't in politics yet), and us kids learned Bible stories with cutout felt figures. Well, I swear I remember one of the Jesus ones was not only blond, but had a crew-cut as well. Plus these people used to worship General Patton, and showed the movie at church, all the time not realizing George C. Scott was a flaming liberal.
No wonder I'm so fucked up.
Their Jesus wasn't blonde haired, blue eyed with a swastika armband?
Jeff, I look like a mouse, Sessions was interviewed today regarding what he thought the next justice should be like. He was telling what he didn't want to see in the next justice and he could easily have been describing Alito, Thomas or Scalia. When he was asked if there was a justice on the court now that he didn't like, he named Ginsburg because she was too liberal and I believe he said she had an agenda.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
sessions is currently the most racist pos in the senate
if thomas could think for himself, he would hate him too
but he loves it when the darkies know their place
Doesn't the right wing realize that if they viciously attack Sotomayor without good cause, they will further drive hispanics into the Democrat's camp? And lambasting Colin Powell will keep African Americans there, whether the candidate is Obama or not.
I don't know if it's a strategy of the Dems or not, but smearing Sotomayor (before she's even offically a candidate) plays right into their hands.
I don't think they do. They seem to be in denial.
Rosen has posted a new article at TNR backtracking on his first Sotomayor column and trying to explain it away...not a very good job, but he's trying!...C
wagonjak
if she is obamas choice, and the repukes go after her with the gusto that it appears they want to..they will be making fools of themselves
appointed by bush 1...gets high marks from the people that count...and not a crazy lib
they cant stop the appointment...only irritate the shit out of everyone
it will be the death knell
...a hard time in the media. Who could have predicted that?
please let's not get all knee-jerk and support someone just because of her race and gender. i'm not going to defend what's been written about judge sotomayor in terms of tone, motive, or thoroughness of research. and i think she'd be a fine justice. but i clerked in her court (in the chambers of another judge) and have to agree with the doubts that have been expressed about her personality and her potential to be an intellectual leader. i sincerely hope president obama chooses someone else, preferably a woman, who has something approximating the charm and intellectual firepower of, for example, justice stevens. with such a closely divided court (now and for decades to come), i simply can't overemphasize the charm factor.
Doofus.
Have any of you actually read the article, or have you all just written knee jerk responses to what John A told you? I've been lurking on C&L for years now, and this is the first time I've felt so incensed that I've actually registered to post a comment.
As it says in the introduction to the article, "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."
It is not a right wing hit job on a single candidate, it's part of a series by a LEFT WING WRITER and legal analyst on ALL of the candidates. And yes maybe it's not the best researched, but it's not the hit job you make it out to be. His main complaint (if he has one - he also lists her qualities) is that he questions her "ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative." How many right wing nutjobs would think that was a bad thing?
Have any of you ever READ the New Republic. You don't seem to realize that TNR is not 'republican' - from the Wiki article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
"The magazine generally supports liberal social and social democrat economic policies, while taking a hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy, especially in its support for Israel."
and if you ever read anything by Rosen, you'd know that he's one of the most thoughtful and liberal commentators around. "The unwanted gaze" is probably one of the best books ever written on privacy.
You guys give the rest of us liberals a bad name. You're as bad as the ignorant right wing asshats who watch Glenn Beck and believe everything they get told. Do some research on your own, get your own opinions, actually read the sources behind what you get told.
if we can't analyze and investigate our own so that we come up with the BEST candidate, then god help us in the confirmation hearings
Don't be so goddamed careless in your anger.
The party that gave us Alito and Thomas are talking about a lazy intellectual lightweight? The only requirement for Alito was that he could legislate Catholic activist moralism from the bench and the bar for Thomas was how well he could lie about a comment he made about a pubic hair on his can of coke.
Comments are closed on this entry