Rosen Defends Article, Backs Off On Sotomayor, Calls Her 'Able Candidate'
As promised, over at The New Republic Jeffrey Rosen has responded to critics of an article he wrote earlier this week calling into question the fitness of appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.
Rosen defends all aspects of his piece beyond its title, which he says was assigned without his knowledge by TNR's editors, and which he regrets. He makes a number of the same points he made to me yesterday when I asked him about the controversy, but adds a few more.
He writes, "I was satisfied that my sources's concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor's entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments."
That Almanac entry is here. Rosen himself acknowledges that, according to the report, "most of lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability," and "lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument."
There are, to be sure, some very negative assessments as well, and Rosen says they vindicate his critique. But a Sotomayor supporter who once clerked on the second circuit for a different judge disputes that interpretation. "I was...shocked by his implication that because prosecutors dislike her it means she isn't fit -- in fact, it should be the reverse," the source said. "If prosecutors have a low opinion of a judge it's probably because she challenges them, rather than rubber stamping their allegations as many judges do."
As a peculiar footnote to this entire imbroglio, the last paragraph in Rosen's post contains unexpected sentence: "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."
Which is rather different, at least in tone, than 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."
Josh
Matt
Eric
It's still amazing that Rosen wrote his piece without reading ANY of her opinions or other written work. And this from a law professor.
If I reached a conclusion about an issue without researching and commenting on any of the underlying legal opinion on the issue, I would be laughed out of court, and possibly sanctioned. How he thinks neglecting this judge's written output in favor of second-hand opinions about her personality, well, it's simply mind-boggling.
May 7, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He got his ass handed to him in the comments, and elsewhere, over his admitted lack of due diligence.
May 7, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you came away from the article with that idea, then maybe you are judging the article without reading any of it. Rosen did not say he had not read any of her opinions, only that he had not read a sufficient number of them to have a confident opinion of their quality. He has since read more and found nothing to change his initial impression, that they were OK but not outstanding.
May 8, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rosen did not say he had not read any of her opinions, only that he had not read a sufficient number of them to have a confident opinion of their quality."
You are using this as a defense of Rosen? Then you may be able to read, but you need to be able to understand what you read as well.
May 8, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosen has really hurt his own credibility.
May 7, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing what a little anon blogger activism is capable of.
May 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it very interesting that Rosen's defense of his original article attacking Judge Sotomayor does not make even the slightest attempt to defend what was by far the most explosive, and frankly the most ridiculous, cluster of smears that appeared in the original article: the shocking, repeated claim that Judge Sotomayor was "not that smart," "not the brainiest," asks questions that "don't get to the heart of the issue," would be unable to "provide an intellectual counterweight" to the right, et cetera. This not-smart allegation was the one that set off the loudest alarm bells in the legal circles I travel in. Whatever else you want to say about Judge Sotomayor, she has a clear reputation in the real world as one of the intellectual stars of the Second Circuit, a powerhouse of a judge who asks excellent, piercing questions at oral argument and writes thoughtful, brilliant opinions. Practically everyone who has ever worked with (or against) Sonia Sotomayor brings up her intellectual firepower pretty early in the conversation. Thus, the "not smart" allegation was the one led so many lawyers I talk to to conclude that Rosen is either part of, or being used by, some kind of whisper smear campaign against this judge. So I find it extremely telling that Rosen has apparently retreated entirely from the allegations about Sotomayor's intelligence. From reading "More Sotomayor," one could get the impression that the original article was all about temperament, not smarts. But it was the "intellectual counterweight" question that Rosen himself said in the original article was what mattered "most of all"! And it's this allegation about intelligence that most deeply plays into the hands of anti-"affirmative action" conservatives who just love to suggest that this woman, despite graduating summa cum laude at Princeton and so on, isn't as smart as a white guy.
May 7, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice analysis of what happened.
Fascinating that none of the negative comments in the Almanac had anything to do with intelligence, and yet, as you state, that has been the main criticism aimed at her since Souter announced his retirement.
I guess if Sotomayor were Black, they would have hit her with the "lazy" criticism.
The effect of all these attacks is to have me rooting for her (though some of the other names mentioned sound very good also).
May 7, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
One is left to wonder whether if, upon closer examination, all of Rosen's work is similarly shoddy. He really should apologize not just for the title, which wasn't his work, but for the article [which he admits wasn't much of his work either.]
It makes sense to suspect dishonorable motives from surprisingly shabby work.
May 7, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosen may have backed off, but I still stand by my opinion, as someone who has appeared before her twice, that she is perhaps not a good selection for the Supremes.
May 8, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... I still stand by my opinion ... that she is perhaps not a good selection for the Supremes."
"Perhaps not?" Does that mean you think she isn't a good pick, or that you don't have enough information, or you're just noncommittal, or what?
I could say that you're "perhaps not" a particularly decisive person, based on reading your comments, but that really doesn't mean anything. Maybe you are, maybe you're not. Who is to say?
If you want to stand by your opinion, it'd help if you actually voiced one.
May 11, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink