NY Times, McClatchy Parrot Rosen Attack on Sotomayor's Temperament
By Jon Perr Saturday May 30, 2009 12:00pm
Earlier this month, George Washington University professor and New Republic legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen turned to anonymous sources in a blistering - and controversial - attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial temperament. Now just days after the raging right predictably made Rosen's smears a centerpiece in the battle against Sotomayor, the mainstream media are following their lead.
As it turns out, 24 hours after McClatchy claimed, "Sotomayor's take-no-guff demeanor could alter court dynamics," Thursday's New York Times headline announced, "Sotomayor's sharp tongue raises issue of temperament."
That conservative mouthpieces like Michael Gerson, Karl Rove and the Washington Times would amplify Rosen's second-hand smear that Sotomayor is "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench" is unsurprising. (For his part, Rove this week called Sotomayor "a schoolmarm" and a "lightweight.")
But two days after even Rosen acknowledged, "Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court," the New York Times built on his earlier critique. In a piece featuring a preponderance of positive assessments from her judicial colleagues and attorneys appearing before her court, the Times instead emphasized the negative:
But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor's sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner -- some lawyers have described her as "difficult" and "nasty" -- raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability -- and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her...
Other lawyers, though, are not so enamored. In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges, she has gone from generally rave reviews to more tepid endorsements. Among the comments from lawyers was that she is a "terror on the bench" who "behaves in an out-of-control manner" and attacks lawyers "for making an argument she doesn't like."
"I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn't let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions," said Sheema Chaudhry, who appeared before Judge Sotomayor in an asylum case last year. "She's brilliant and she's qualified, but I just feel that she can be very, how do you say, temperamental."
Which apparently is the exact discussion TNR's Jeffrey Rosen would like to see. After all, in his 2007 PBS series and accompanying book, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, Rosen declared judicial temperament as embodied by the great John Marshall the key to determining success or failure on the Court. Of course, early on Rosen praised incoming Chief Justice John Roberts as "resurrecting Marshall's vision." Ultimately, a disappointed Rosen expressed buyer's remorse over Roberts' utter disregard for precedent and unanimity, lamenting, "Will Roberts ever get better?"
Sadly, only Rosen's first opinions and initial judgments seem to make it into the mainstream media.
(Glenn Greenwald has more on Rosen, the New York Times and anonymous sources. This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
Login or Register to post comments.
She's like a Matador to bulls.
Stop letting the right frame the debate.
The issue is that the republicans are still the party of NO.
must be that pesky monthly cycle, all her menstruating and shit.
Or is that 'sharp tongue' right wing code for 'fishwife?' 'Bitchy?' Or is "...she can be very, how do you say, temperamental..." code for 'hot Latin blood?'
Would those attys be egomaniacs who needed their ears pinned back by a Latina judge? I mean 'some lawyers' which ones? Who the fuck are they, and what did they do in her court that deserved admonishing?
Tell me, have no white males in SCOTUS spoken sharply to the morons standing before them? And was it an issue?
She's the CorpoRat Pukez' wet dream:
Corporate, authoritarian, statist, follows the rules, knows her place.
She was a prosecutor and then a corpoRat litigator.
No friend of the people, I promise you.
Mostly I think the Pukez are attacking her to give her cred with the Left. Among those named, she's BY FAR the candidate friendliest to the rightward shift of the Court. She might raise a little stink on a wedge issue, but I wouldn't bet on it...
Look at ther record. I saw some stat yesterday, i fergit now where, that noted when So-so Sonia had ruled in cases with other judges on her circuit, in three-judge panels, she'd agreed with the Puke majority NINETY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TIME.
I totally agree with your sentiment. Try using real words for those thoughts.
John Cornyn, Senator from Texas, has nbow framed the Republican reesistance to the judge in terms of whether one is an ELECTED OFFICIAL inside the Republican Party! What The F...?
Isn't that like blaming THE MEDIA for your problems... but this time Cornyn is saying his own RIGHT WING PROPOGANDA MACHINE doesn't have a right to their opinion! Man... them boys is TWISTED UP IN (k)NOTS over this one.
No doubt the fear is that she has bigger balls than the mealy mouth males who are criticizing her.
Apply the same criticisms to a male nominee,and see how viable those arguments would be!
'Not smart and kind of a bully'?
Sounds more like your buddy George.
Yes, I'm certain that Scalia and Alito are as mild-mannered as a couple of pussy cats, Thomas would never bully anyone with sexist remarks, and Kennedy has never had a harsh word for anyone. Give me a break!
When the last "ill-tempered," "take-no-guff, "bully," "difficult," and "nasty" male justice leaves the judiciary branch of U.S. government, then let the criticism of Sonia Sotomayor's demeanor begin. Could it be any more obvious that Republican men are intimidated by ambitious, successful, intelligent, powerful women?
The latest formula for GOP shrinkage: alienate both women and Latino voters.
about which to complain, it'd be, "She's too soft."
And when a white male conservative judge does the same thing she's being criticised for, the praise is "He's a strong, take-no-prisoners kind of judge," "...doesn't suffer fools gladly..."
When,oh when, will will the Dems realize that one cannot substitute a wishbone for a backbone?
You stole my thought! No one can be as difficult and nasty as Scalia. We need someone to counter and stand up to that ... well I want to say something cold but will just say, person.
"Sotomayor's take-no-guff demeanor could alter court dynamics,"
Why is this a negative?
Actually, McClatchy makes it sound like all sitting justices take guff.
If that were true, the last 8 years would have been Gore's.
The Repug majority on the court definitely got something for crowbarring W into office.
The Corporate owned and run Main Stream Media is complete garbage.
It's stuff like this that has stopped us from being interested in even the New York Times. They're every bit as bad as the others and we are not interested in reading Corporate sponsored sewage.
*
Who are these babies that go before the judge and think she's not being nice to them? They are lawyers, not defendants. What's with these whiners? If she treated defendants in an arrogant manner I would be more concerned, but she's talking to people who should have a thicker skin and realize that if they don't come prepared, they could have their heads handed to them.
I think miss kitty makes a good point. If she were a conservative, or a man, this would not be an issue.
knew that he was lying about his background and the way he would steer the court. The Repugs didn't want another Robert Bork to get Borked, so Roberts lied and the Dems acquiesced to his lying. Sotomayer's temperament isn't my concern. Personally, I'd love to see her scorch "Tony the Wart" Scalia, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas and the other wingnuts on the court. I'm much more concerned with her record, and I suspect the wingnuts are too.
-Eugene Scalia-
Just in passing,check out Scalia's son,and HIS track record as Labor Busting attorney for the GOP.
NOW he is representing Bernie Madoff's partner, Frank Di Pascali.
to the "senior" Justices. She's look for ways to agree with them.
I don't think she even preserves the so-called 'left' wing of the Court. I see her agreeing with Kennedy, for example. Lots of 6-3 decisions.
...just shows how afraid the fascists/authoritarians are of losing control of the court. I guess having a justice who grasps the concept of justice and who might prove faithful to the duty to defend and protect the Constitution is an ultimate sort of nightmare for that crowd. Don't know why they're complaining, though. she's supposed to have a very corporate-friendly record on the bench.
What if it were true? What if she was gruff and acid and hard to get along with?
SO WHAT!!!
Would that make her disqulified in any way shape or form?
the man is a total, self absorbed prick
guess its ok for a man, but not a woman....and definitely not a minority woman
all these arguments are insane
and whats worse....she may end up being more conservative than souter
When will the poster child for Republican Affirmative Action and Porn ask a meaningful question during an argument?
Uncle Clarence isn't argumentative or gruff because he enters the chamber with his mind made up. He knows he'll vote in whatever fashion the Republicans make him.
Agreed. You will never hear his voice on the tapes of arguements because he never asks a question.
Shoot, at this point, it would be amazing if he would ask ANY question, much less a meaningful question.
So?
The Clintons were known for having tempers too. Rumor has it they were both yellers, and in addition he would pound desktops yelling, "This is Bull!" But he could've been saying Bill with his mouth full.
Needless to say no one relished bringing them bad news. But when the time came for meetings they would be so up to date on the bad news they could form their own coherent and probing questions.
Now, we wouldn't want to go back to the ineffectualities of the Clintons do we?
"a schoolmarm" and a "lightweight."
This is what passes for political discourse these days? Karl Rove is immature. He hasn't gotten out of the schoolyard. He's a nerd.
Today I heard NPR's All Things Considered and later NBC Nightly News quote Rush Limbaugh in stories about objections to the Sotomayor nomination. That probably seems like reporting to some people, NPR and NBC's parroting the blather from cable news and the Internets.
Karl Rove wasn't smart enough to finish college. Any college. He attended four or five of them sporadically, but wasn't able to gather enough credits (or good enough grades?) to graduate. Where does he get the chutpah to pass judgment (no pun, etc.) on a judge's record or education?
Meant 'chutzpah.'
Limbaugh is also a dropout who couldn't finish school.
She sounds like a good counterweight to Scalia. It alson sounds like Roberts is the hated "activist" judge.
Has McClatchy or the NYT ever been in the tank with wingnuts? Where were they in the runup to the invasion of Iraq? Where were they during the wiretapping of US citizens? Torture? Do you believe this attack of some folks say...It sounds like FAUX Noise to me.
Get some sources asswipes.
they will jump in a NY flash.
sounds to me like the big boys don't like sotomayor's running her court in a no-nonsense strong manner. tough beans guys, don't come before her unprepared or expect to get dressed down.
It's a joke that Jon Perr should accuse McClatchy of "Parroting" in his opinion article. I read that article and found it informative, not negative. McClatchy is pretty top-notch.
The last line from McClatchy article:
"She ran a tight court," Mazurek said, "and that can result in some lawyers saying that she has a difficult temperament."
I expect better from Perr.
You are exactly right. Scalia elevates the bully on the court theme to new levels.
Anyone who has watched or listened to an oral argument in the SCOTUS knows that Scalia takes a special pride in demeaning and humuliating counsel
think so, Woody.
That's your white manly, fancy me a rogue, view coming through and that's ok, but wrong. Just my opinion of course. I think she will take no crap from them when the law says she cannnot!
What's with CSPAN having all the right wing hacks on in re Sotomayor?
"'I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn't let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions,'" said Sheema Chaudhry, who appeared before Judge Sotomayor in an asylum case last year. 'She's brilliant and she's qualified, but I just feel that she can be very, how do you say, temperamental.'"
Having just graduated from law school, this comment Ms. Chaudry made my jaw hit my desk. For those who are not aware, whenever you argue in front of an appellate court, you submit a brief that addresses every point of your argument. Therefore, appellate judges already know your argument point-by-point before you appear in court for oral arguments.
Basically, oral arguments are a simple reiteration of your written arguments. The foremost point of even having oral arguments is to allow the presiding judges the opportunity to directly challenge the main points of your written brief. What Ms. Chaudry describes is known as a "hot bench," where a presiding judge or judges is very confrontational on the brief points to either clarify or challenge.
The bottom line: there is NOTHING unusual about any judge taking it upon him- or herself to ignore an oral reiteration of the same argument in the appellant's brief and start asking a lot of tough questions. What is HIGHLY unusual is a lawyer to complain about such a commonplace occurrence as if it is some substantively negative point about judicial temperment. I hate this type of abuse of public ignorance of the legal process to score some deeper ideological point. See, e.g., the meme that Sotomayor was unfit for the SCOTUS because her decisions were overturned so often by the High Court.
I can't help but feel that Ms. Chaudry has some personal animus against Judge Sotomayor because the judge was really tough on her (and perhaps ruled against her client) that is clouding her perspective. To Ms. Chaudry's credit, at least she did it on the record.
Login or Register to post comments.