Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR WILL NEVER GET A FAIR HEARING.
Reihan Salam defends Jeffrey Rosen's take down of Sonia Sotomayor:
Jeff Rosen has been raked over the coals for his not-positive assessment of Sonia Sotomayor. What I find remarkable is this -- Rosen was being so cautious and careful that he acknowledged his limitations in passing judgment, a good and responsible thing to do, and his humility is being used as a lacerating strike against him.
As Ta-Nehisi points out, this kind of "humility" is an inadequate substitute for, you know, actual reporting.
Reihan wants us to lay off on Rosen because he exercised "humility." But "humility" is the floor for a decent writer--not the ceiling. You don't get credit for not beating your wife. You don't get credit for admitting that you didn't do your job.The problem isn't that Rosen acknowledged his "limitations in passing judgment," it's that he freely admitted he didn't have enough information to pass judgment, and that he then filled in the blanks with a series of racial and gender stereotypes common to any person of color who has ever made it to the Ivy League. I don't know whether Rosen did so intentionally, and ultimately I don't really care. This isn't an evaluation of his soul, it's an evaluation of his work.
Today's invocation of racial and gender stereotypes is all about deniability, leaving just enough ambiguity to be able to argue that there's no racial animus present. The problem is that the message receivers are rarely as tactful as the transmitter, and so by the time they've begun repeating the message, it's been stripped down to its bare bones. In this case, it happened first in National Review, and the other night it manifested on David Letterman's show, where a federal judge with eighteen years on the bench was reduced to the caricature of a Latino Judge Judy, fit only for handling the disputes of boisterous, violent, fast talking Latinos:
Naturally, some people will argue that this is "just a joke". But the point is that the joke is premised on Rosen's original unfounded critique, which has now been reduced to it's bare essence: that Sotomayor is domineering, unintellectual, and most importantly, Hispanic. And you know how those people are. Letterman just showed you. Do you really want one of them on the Supreme Court?
Rosen admitted he hadn't done enough work to get "a fully balanced picture of her strengths." I'm pretty sure that at this point we'll never get a "balanced picture" of her.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (8)
Rosen's piece was terrible, but this attempt to use Lettermen's bit as a smoking gun is absolutely ridiculous. Do we honestly believe that Rosen's piece was so quickly disseminated into popular culture that a Letterman audience had internalized it? Letterman's bit was a piece of nonsense, the only premise of the joke was "latina." It would have been no different, and no more of a political statement, than showing a clip of a Mariachi band. It was so substance free that the only real idea a viewer would have taken away from it was:"there exists a latina named Sotomayor who might become a supreme court justice."
Posted by: Harry_the_Hop | May 7, 2009 2:37 PM
You dont get how comics think. They already had the video. A video anyone flipping through the Spanish channels would see. They just needed a way to make it topical.
No one internalized any facts about Sotomayer from watching the piece. What they did internalize was that Spanish TV has a version of Judge Judy.
And the reason everyone keeps bringing up Letterman is not because its germane to the argument, but because there is a funny video.
Thats infotainment.
Posted by: jimmy | May 7, 2009 3:21 PM
If i ever become a bomb expert i will never disconnect the red wire. If i ever become a journalist i will never utter or write
" haven't read enough of X's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of X's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of X's strengths."
It just sounds too much like this oldie but goodie
"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right ".
Someone told me that was a no no.
Posted by: red | May 7, 2009 4:16 PM
It sounds too much like this oldie.Hydraulic power units
Posted by: Hyperpressure Valves | May 7, 2009 10:49 PM
All this is thanks to 40 years of Leftist Identity Politics with all the inherent racism, sexism, dehumanization, etc. Identity Politics will probably be one of the major factors bringing on the destruction of our society, which Leftist Nihilist NutJobs seem to want to crave for some reason. My only worry is that everything might end with an unintended bang rather than the unsurprising Leftist whimper.
Posted by: Red in the Morning | May 7, 2009 11:30 PM
Jon Stewart runs a comedy show -- infotainment -- but he doesn't think it's a joke, if you follow me.
"It was just a joke" invites the question of what you thought was funny about it.
Posted by: Ian | May 8, 2009 12:56 PM
Most NY lawyers will tell you (off the record) that Sotomayor is domineering and unintellectual. Give Rosen a break.
Posted by: lawyer | May 8, 2009 4:55 PM
Conventional wisdom is that Sonia Sotomayer has a lock on the Supreme Court nomination. However, what is not generally known is that a complaint was sent to Sonia Sotomayer's 2nd Circuit Court alleging misconduct of one the judges that was to be supervised, Rosemary Pooler. Sonia Sotomayer took no known action on the allegations of this complaint which are supported by extremely strong evidence.
This action or non-action by Sonia Sotomayer may possibly scuttle her nomination, unless she has a good explanation to offer to President Obama and the United States Senate.
Posted by: Loren Christian | May 11, 2009 12:25 AM