Hmmm.  This kind of article I would have expected to see in NRO instead of TNR.

Recalling Bush and Rove's disappointment at their colleagues' torpedoing of their efforts to reform immigration and thus woo Hispanic voters (which backfired when more Hispanics voted for Obama than McCain a few years later), I eagerly await the Hispanic community reaction to their torpedoing of a Supreme...

I don't see the connection between Sotomayor-bashing and the Letterman clip. The clip seems like an example of the quirky, totally random humor that Letterman is known for. If the clip had been about Sotomayor being dumb, then I could see it. Here, I just don't.

I doubt that Rosen's column has anything to do with the Obama administration trying to sabotage Sotomayor.

Furthermore I thought Letterman's take on Sotomayor was INSULTING. I thought it stereotypical and not worthy of Letterman himself. I am absolutely sure that Letterman got big push back from Puerto Rican community for that racist clip.

And by the way -- this is twice in two days that a huge, jump-to-conclusions headline has appeared on the front page of TPM in an enormous font: yesterday the Specter comment about Coleman that might very well have been a joke, and now this. I'm a liberal and my political sensibilities line up relatively closely with TPM's, but these types of inaccurate, screaming headlines are no better than the things that show up on Drudge or Politico. The right gives us plenty of ammunition on its own -- there's no need to make shit up.

Sad to say, I don't think Sotomayor is going to be the pick. Her image is out of Obama's control with this disgusting whisper campaign. That said, look at Sullivan and Karlan, two openly gay academics with absolutely impeccable credentials. There's nothing be said about them at this point, and if the GOP attacks either of them for their sexuality, they can kiss the gay vote goodbye.

Further, Karlan has worked with Pres. Obama when he was Professor Obama at Chicago. Obama helped edit an Election Law Textbook that Ms. Karlan helped write. I do believe she's got a better than decent shot at being the choice.

Barney Frank is the obvious choice to me.

So let me get this straight: these people approach Rosen; he did not go out and seek anyone's input. Further, Rosen has stated that he is not familiar with Sontomayor's record, something you would think a "reporter" would remedy prior to blathering about her in a national forum.

So what we have here is a bunch of disgruntled former acquaintances telling tales out of school to a TNR reporter, who himself has no data, and hasn't gone out to get different opinions. And, lucky them, the former acquaintances are granted anonymity, so they can say whatever nasty-ass thing they want about Sontomayor. And they're further lucky in that Rosen is ignorant of Sontomayor.

Yeah, sounds pretty fair and balanced. Sheesh.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/05/on-the-brilliance-of-people-like-judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-barack-obama.html
Quote:

"Given these facts, I should probably be less surprised than I am to see some of the initial reactions to Judge Sotomayor mirroring early reactions to Obama’s presidential candidacy. Early in the last primary season, I remember a number of people saying that Obama was not “as smart” as Hillary Clinton—at least until people began to catch onto his sheer genius at things like
(1) reframing seemingly intractable issues in ways that might move us forward and out of stale debates;
(2) identifying and articulating the core values of social practices in ways in ways that people who were once skeptical find compelling;
(3) charitably understanding the fullest range of seemingly diverse positions, and the kinds of concerns and warranted hopes that lead to their articulation; and
(4) maintaining humility, and a sense of calm and perseverance, in the face of seemingly insurmountable difficulties."

"These are rare forms of brilliance, which Judge Sotomayor also has in spades—but that very few on the federal judiciary can claim for themselves..."

Anyway, if Letterman wasn't making fun of possible Supreme Court candidates, you'd wonder why:

"Well, I guess we're all excited that President Bush announced his nomination to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. That's right. Bush searched far and wide before he made the risky choice of a white guy in his 50's. - David Letterman, July 2005

Maybe Letterman has the inside line - or maybe it's Letterman who is calling the shots?

Now, that would be a big surprise... Letterman, the ultimate fixer?

Every time I see the "anonymous source", I know that someone is busy spinning a story...so I take it for what it is worth - Nothing. If these individuals think we are stupid...they need to put it on FOX.

I am more amused that the GOP have started bad-mouthing before anyone is even nominated, which makes them look "silly". Maybe they can find a ground swell amongst their party, but most of us will review individuals AFTER they are announced.

Surely the GOP talking heads have something better to do...well obviously not!

Get somebody on the Court who's actually had to dirty his or her hands in practice.

Not holding the hand of an [insert objectionable/profitable industry here] company, or marching from Law Review to federal clerkship to academia to the federal appellate bench. Somebody who's defended indigents who don't speak English in capital cases. Somebody who's watched his opponents bury his clients in discovery, and then motion after motion, trying to blunt a just claim by exhausting the resources and will of the person making it.

I'm sure Sotomayor's just fine, if you must have yet another federal appellate judge on the court.

Ahem. I seriously hope my anonymity is never compromised in such a way that colleagues in the law know who I am, particularly after what I am about to write.

I have every desire, hop, and dream that we will progress such that the Supreme Court is a little more diverse as far as gender, race, and experience. There needs to be more women on the Court, for starters, given the fact that there are nearly as many women in the law as men. And I fully expect Obama to appoint a woman.

But I certainly hope not Judge Sotomayor.

I have appeared before her. Twice. On two different issues, nearly six years apart. She authored one opinion *the other was authored by another panelist).

Her questions were, if I may be so bold, insipid. She entirely missed the point on the major issue. Her opinion was the sloppiest piece of appellate decision-making I have ever seen. She got the law wrong on at least one matter, and by that I do not mean her judgment was wrong, I mean she cited a case for the wrong standard. Indeed, she got the key holding exactly backwards. Our office contemplated requesting an en banc rehearing, but the matter settled.

When I heard she was near the top of the list, I was disconcerted.

She clearly meets Obama's suggestion of empathy. I think in one of the cases she got the right result, sort of. But she got the law just flat wrong, and as far as intellect and brilliance, she may be a whit sharper than a number of district court judges I have appeared before, but she is, in my humble opinion, and average to slightly above-average appellate jurist.

That simply will not cut it in the Supremes.

I read of this whispering campaign, and for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender or race and everything to do with her intellect my reaction is thus: good.

I don't get it; here's her CV from Wikipedia:

"She earned her A.B. from Princeton University, summa cum laude, in 1976, where she won the Pyne Prize, the highest general award given to Princeton undergraduates.[5] Sotomayor obtained her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal."

Summa from Princeton, Yale law, Yale Law Journal editor, and she's not the intellectual equals of the sitting Justices? Is this racism (because she's Puerto Rican) sexism, elitism (because she's from Brooklyn) or is this just a huge disinformation campaign?

#1 She's too old
#2 She's too fat
#3 She's a bitch

Sotomayor wouldn't last more than a decade on the court before she'd die of a heart attack or stroke or some other disease.

This has been a fun read but you know in your heart that the GOPers are going to shoot down the first two Obama noninees. And they will do it with great indignation. The only thing they have to hang their hats on is making Obama look bad and inefectual.
What do you bet that he will feed them a couple sacrifical lambs and then bring out the real nominee? Chess not checkers. And don't hold your breath waiting.

Not "intelligent enough-to serve on the Court". Look at some of the justices the Republicans have put on the Court. I don't think they can question "intelligence" after some of their picks.

Not getting into this in depth, but when you describe a federsal judge as an appointee of a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican controlled president, you make it appear as if senatorial "courtesy" is not dispositive on these issues. Judge Sotomayor was essentially appointed to the District Court by Senator Moynihan and promoted to the Second Cirvuit with the agreement of the other Senators from the states which make up that Circuit. The president's role in all of this is nominal by custom, even if it appears decisive under a literal reading of the law.

Aside from the racist aspect of calling a Latina "dumb" and "lazy", sounds so paternalistic, not "intellectual" enough. Of course she needs to be bright. But, as long as she meets that criteria, I say we need alot more compassionate logic and a lot less cold logic in government. The absolute fact of the matter is, regardless of who edges out in the IQ test, people from different sub-cultures in America have their own unique intelligences and sensitivities that others, through no fault of their own, simply do not have. For instance, I can study women, hang out with them, etc... but I will still never quite now what life is like for them. It is for this reason that diversity is so important to our government and society. Without, we will continue to have people, often good people, making decisions about things they don't fully comprehend that wind up having unintended harmful consequences.

She is Catholic, folks! Do we want a full 66% of our Justices on the Supreme Court to be Catholic?? I don't care how great or not great she is.

I don't want 66% of our Justices to be any one powerful religion, period. It's bad enough that more than half of us in this country are women and there is only one woman on the court.

The New York Times finally addressed this subject last week.