Times: Sotomayor 'Temperament' Raises Questions We Didn't Ask About Other Justices
"To supporters, Judge Sotomayor's vigorous questioning of the Bush administration's position in the [torture case of Canadian Maher Arar], showcases some of her strengths," write the New York Times' Adam Liptak and Jo Becker, "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."
Late last month, in a case which may ultimately result in the elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (which requires certain, mostly southern jurisdictions to pre-clear changes in electoral policy with the Justice Department), Justices Roberts and Kennedy went on quite a tear.
Here's how the Los Angeles Times reported the exchange between the Justice's and Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal.
"Are Southerners more likely to discriminate than Northerners?" asked a skeptical Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.Is the "sovereignty of Georgia" entitled to less respect than "the sovereign dignity of Ohio? . . . Does the United States take that position today?" asked Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, pressing a lawyer for the Justice Department who was defending the Voting Rights Act.
And, as we've noted several times before, the people who are raising these questions seem to have little to no representation in the actual Senate.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Despite the obnoxious headline and lede headline for this story, if you read the whole thing it debunks this sexist "some say" talking point quite well. "Some say" Judge S. is "a terror" and "strident"? Please.
“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”....Judge Richard C. Wesley, another colleague, agreed. He said his interactions with Judge Sotomayor had been “totally antithetical to this perception that has gotten some traction that she is somehow confrontational.”
What's annoying is that in the usual craven fear of being labeled as "liberal," the NYT chooses to frame this story around the few sexist attacks rather than assessing and reporting reality: the real story is that there is this attempt to belittle a strong female judge despite overwhelming support from her colleagues and reasonable-minded observers. Not to mention all the racist crap that is bubbling to the surface from the wingnuts.
May 29, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The article is actually well done. They used concrete examples and got on the record quotes (cf. Dr. Rosenpenis). And if you're a reasonably intelligent person reading the argument, you come away questioning the validity of these criticisms in light of Calabresi's comments and the comparisons to Scalia. She's assertive, doesn't take any shit, and uses argument to advance her viewpoint. Sounds a lot like many SC Justices. Of course, many people are not intelligent, many won't take the time to read the whole article, and some will cherry pick parts of it.
The headline, on the other hand, was poorly done, and is clearly some editor's doing. "The Double Standard over Sotomayor's 'Temperament'" would have been more accurate for anyone who actually took the time to read the article.
May 29, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paddynoons said:
I noticed that headline too, poorly written, thanks for bringing it up.
May 29, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my experience, that's a quality much to be desired, and not at all uncommon in judges at all levels, jurisdictions.
Personally, I prefer to appear before sharp judges who bridge no BS and control their courtrooms
Come to think of it, that describes a fair proportion of law school professors
May 29, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come to think of it, that describes a fair proportion of law school professors
It apparently describes Saint Scalia, as well. In him, though, it's an admirable quality.
In Sotomayor? People's feelings are apparently getting hurt.
I was willing to entertain the notion that a discussion of "judicial temperament" wasn't really a coded discussion of "temperament". I'm not, any longer. It's obvious some individuals don't like being interrupted, or made to feel as if they are less than prepared, and when it's a woman making them feel that way, well, SHE'S NOT WORTHY!
Utter bullshit.
May 29, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
In other words, this uppity bitch needs to mind her betters.
What a crock. Let me add one more voice to the chorus asking "Why do we need a New York Times again?" I can get this level of "analysis" by turning on Fox News any time of the day.
May 29, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, this uppity bitch needs to mind her betters.
Sadly, this is exactly what I think is going on.
On an unreleated note, on this mornings "On Point", the panel was discussing the Prop 8 decision, and whether it could wind up before the Supreme Court, with Sotomayor presumably on the court. The reporter from McClatchy, when asked whether she knew where Sotomayor stood on gay marriage prefaced her remarks with this: "I do know she's divorced and doesn't have any children".
WTF?
Seriously. WTF?
May 29, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change that to "uppity dyke" then.
Really, does anyone remember this level of inquiry into Samuel Alito's personality and private life? The double standard just drives me crazy.
May 29, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much worse than this story was the other one that ran on p1. col1. of the Times this morning. In THAT story, the authors invent right-wing spin out of whole cloth, making an issue that no one else has raised yet over Sotomayor's activity in a Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Oh, the horror.
The authors then proceed to try to weasel out by noting down-page that of course Thurgood Marshall was active in the NAACP for years. All well and good, but why not go further? What about Rehnquist's past and never-repudiated activity in voter suppression efforts in Arizona - which of course continue to this day?
The Times, by originating, legitimizing, and printing this dreck, joins the right-wing noise machine, in which voter suppression activity is not to be questioned but civil rights activity is.
Nice piece of work, Times.
May 29, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exhibit # 10,000 for why newspapers really won't be missed when they finish going out of business. We can't possibly miss their "journalism" when they haven't done any for years but instead engage in this kind of crap.
May 29, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
This:
Was particularly obnoxious. By treating this as a front-page story, the Times has guaranteed that it will come up. Inevitable, indeed.
Note to NY Times: just because wingnuts are gnashing their teeth and crying "reverse racism!" doesn't make a story legitimate.
May 29, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, PUHLEAZE. Shorter version: A man is "assertive," and a woman is "a bitch."
This meme is as old as I am, yet here we are marveling over it as if the Repugs just now thought it up. NO ONE should be giving this crap one ounce of credence any more than we would seriously discuss the ugly but once widely-held meme that blacks are an inferior species.
Giving it so much as one word of "discussion" anywhere in the public domain is absurd. Trust me, Judge Sotomayor has heard it all at least a thousand times over her career and doesn't even bother to roll her eyes at it anymore. Yet here's the media -- and commenters -- gasping with dismay and horror, even as they gleefully repeat it all.
In other words, it doesn't even deserve to be argued against. Just smile and say, "You're still stuck on that old idea? How quaint."
May 29, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for piling on Republicans, but they're not who's responsible for this particular insanity. That responsibility rests with Jeff Rosen, who got the ball rolling by publicizing these anonymous comments, and Jonathan Turley, who gave the ball a nice kick when expressing his concerns about "judicial temperament".
May 29, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the most egregious thing is that now the Senate hearings will spend at least a full week debating this non-issue. What I wouldn't give for someone to say the first time a (Repug) brings it up: "What? You mean you really fell for all that old sexist stuff in the papers? [insert pitying smile] Really, now can we just move on to real issues?"
May 29, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or better: "Yes, I question lawyers aggressively. That's what a judge is supposed to do. You have a problem with that?"
Sigh.
It'll never happen.
May 29, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink