Anatomy Of The (Unsuccessful) Sotomayor Whisper Campaign
The anatomy of the Sotomayor whisper campaign is pretty straightforward. Once it was obvious that she was a serious contender, an unknown number of Second Circuit prosecutors and former clerks banded together and approached The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffrey Rosen with attacks on the prospective nominee's fitness.
The sources told Rosen, among other things, that Sotomayor lacked the intellectual heft and good manners to serve on the court, and, in an article billed as the first in a series analyses of potential nominees, Rosen went with it.
From there, the attacks went viral.
Conservatives echoed the anonymous complaints (National Review's Mark Hemingway called the summa cum laude Princeton graduate and Yale Law Journal editor "dumb and obnoxious") and beltway journalists cited them as evidence that her Supreme Court fate was suddenly in jeopardy.
Rosen soon returned to the website of The New Republic--this time on their blog--to defend all aspects of his original article (with the exception of its breathless headline: "The Case Against Sotomayor" which he blamed on the magazine's editorial staff).
But in that very post, he changed his tone dramatically, writing, "Sotomayor is an able candidate--at least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices--and if Obama is convinced she is the best candidate on his short list, he should pick her."
That finding stood in stark contrast to the conclusion he reached in his original article: "Given the stakes," Rosen wrote, "the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble."
But by then the meme couldn't be contained. It resurfaced less than a week later in two Washington Post articles and has colored today's coverage of the nomination, and of all cable news coverage of the SCOTUS stakes for the past month.
As for Rosen's series of analyses, he ultimately wrote only one additional article--a flattering piece about the qualifications of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, in which he praised her "ability to get along with people with different points of view."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Thanks, Brian. Glad that you made it clear that the "series" turned out to be less than that, and a pretext.
May 26, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. But this kind of buries the lede, doesn't it? I mean, a bunch of self-admittedly liberal clerks and prosecutors deployed to try and spike Sotomayor, presumably to the advantage of another candidate acceptable to the current administration.
Does the simple fact they happen to disagree with the current administration's ultimate choice automatically make them members of the vast-right-wing conspiracy?
Aren't you at all curious why they did this? Could it be, perhaps, because the assessments found in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary are, you know, accurate?
May 26, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, that's not what happened. One dude wrote an article, and some people who don't like Sotomayor for whatever reason trashed her anonymously. In the face of reason, Rosen walked his anonymously sourced, false attack back.
I could get a bunch of people to anonymously attack anyone who's been involved in law or politics for the past 15-plus years. The story was the New Republic's lack of quality control, not the smears in the article.
May 26, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is scary how effective these whisper campaigns can be. Thanks for digging into the real story.
May 26, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here we go.
Right on schedule, Michael "I Want to Be as Big a Tool as Jake Tapper When I Grow Up" Scheer calls up a conservative smear merchant and acts as stenographer on the "intellectual lightweight" smear. Interestingly, Scheer felt the need to rebut some of the conservative jerk-off's talking points, but only the ones he could rebut without doing any of that pesky research or investigation stuff.
May 26, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Sonia, kick some whitey butt..
May 26, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was great being part of the rebuttal: Sotomayor = Supreme Court Pick! Plus: Anti-Conservative Talking Points. Obama did the right thing.
May 26, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one trust Obama, who taught constitutional law and who himself was editor of the Harvard Law Review, to be able to discern good opinions from bad opinions.
I wonder if any of the people involved in the whisper campaign were women.
May 26, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A whisper campaign? Oh, come on! Why is it not OK for people with genuine doubts about this nominee's abilities to voice them? What is it about you Obama-ites that you have to demonize anyone who dissents from the view that Obama is all seeing, all knowing, all wise, etc.?
I fail to see how Rosen's follow-up statement, "Sotomayor is an able candidate--at least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices--and if Obama is convinced she is the best candidate on his short list, he should pick her," is in "stark contrast" to what he originally said: "Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble."
I don't see any contradiction there: Rosen thought the president should take care that he had a complete picture before he making a nomination, but if, after making a thorough review, he was convinced that Sotomayor was the best available candidate, then that is who he should pick. Seems a perfectly reasonable position to me. And saying that she was no worse than some on the current Court is rather faint praise.
And it isn't just Rosen who found, on reading her opinions, that they lacked intellectual depth. Jonathan Turley is saying the same thing. He is also saying that he, too, thought Diane Wood would have provided a better counterweight to Scalia.
That's not to say that Sotomayor may not be a good justice; it could turn out that way. Turley and Rosen simply felt that Wood would have been a surer bet to be someone who could craft a lasting progressive intellectual framework on which future opinions could be hung.
May 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
slb,
Anyone can voice their concerns. To do so anonymously speaks of cowardice and suspect motives, and not any concern for the quality of the Supreme Court.
May 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. The problem is not that objections were raised. The problem is that no one raising such objections was willing to do so on the record, and that now the opinions of these "anonymous sources" is being given such weight when their "serious objections" essentially break down as "some people think she's a dumb bitch."
May 27, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think that the President has a complete picture or did a thorough review? You mean that he picked a "latina/woman", off the cuff, for those two facts only. If you totally ignore her resume & life then I guess you're right.
The fact that the right had time to form their opinion before any choice was made proves that he took the time necessary to weigh his choices & pick the best nominee considering all factors.
The only gamble here is, will constant defiance help the right-wing cause in any way or extend the slide.
When the actual purpose is, we know we're wrong & will lose, but we can milk the base for funds, it makes much more sense.
May 27, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this Rosen was a Clinton supporter? But it was Bill who elevated her to the Appeals Court. Still outrageous that that the Murdoch media, Rush and Sean were all ready to denounce her with their usual poison. Trouble is, it won't wash. Sotomayor was disarming on TV and I bet she will be great during the confirmation (recall the good impression Roberts made, somewhat making his true colors?). Great pick. Let's hope Obama gets to pick replacements for Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts....
May 26, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing special against Sotomayor, but this will make, what, six out of nine justices Catholics?
It wouldn't matter if it weren't for "natural law," which all Catholic kids are fed on at parochial school and/or catechism classes, and which underlies a great deal of what passes for conservative legal "thought." (Clarence Thomas is a particular fan.) My worry is that even a liberal Catholic like Sotomayor may be influenced by it.
Catholics are less than 25% of the population. This will give them 67% of the SCOTUS. In recent years the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism (such as they are) have become more and more indebted to Catholic theology of the most reactionary stripe. I will risk Wm. Donoghue's wrath and say I find it worrisome.
Sigh.
May 26, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
SLB:
It's a whisper campaign because it was anonymous.
Open, public criticism and debate is praiseworthy. Anonymous, behind-the-back whispering is slimy. That distinction should be obvious, and it has nothing to do with party affiliation or ideology.
In fact, it is entirely likely that the original whisperers were NOT right-wingers. But they WERE (and are) slimeballs.
May 27, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is anyone paying any attention to an anonymous "whisper campaign". Folks, we're talking "gossip" here, not facts. And a kudo for another good example of lazy journalism - The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffrey Rosen repeats garbage and treats it as if it were steak dinner. Good pay; no work and low standards at the New Republic!
May 27, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember back in the 70s, when journalists first began using "anonymous sources". Back then it was to protect the sources from retribution.
Now, it seems that "anonymous sources" are used to protect journalists from being called what they are: liars.
May 28, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you all should check out scotusblog.org
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/
May 28, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink