Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHAT'S JEFFREY ROSEN'S BEEF WITH SONIA SOTOMAYOR?
Jeffrey Rosen admits that he hasn't "read enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them," and he adds that he hasn't "talked to enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths." Still, he's comfortable putting into print anonymous evaluations of her character and intelligence, concluding that she's possibly "not that smart." Matthew Yglesias notes that "you don’t see a lot of dumb kids growing up in the South Bronx and winding up at Princeton." What Matt doesn't understand is that Sotomayor's journey from BX to Princeton proves that she's not that smart, because everyone knows that minorities only get to the Ivy League by not being white.
Rosen's opinions on the subject are particularly suspicious because, back in January, when asked by The New York Times to offer a confirmation question to Eric Holder, Rosen asked:
Do you agree with Mr. Obama’s implication that the Supreme Court needs someone who will side with the powerless rather than the powerful? What if the best nominee happens to be a white male?
As attorney general, Holder has no official role in naming people to the Supreme Court. Rosen simply chose this moment to get on his soapbox and let the world know how hard white guys have it getting named to the Supreme Court, given that white guys only get named 96 percent of the time. Months later, Rosen pens an anonymously sourced hit piece on a Latino woman who is a likely candidate, charging that she's not that smart, based on anonymous gossip and his not having looked closely at her opinions. Rosen's real problem with Sotomayor may be that she's not that white, and not that male, and therefore not that qualified. By his own admission, it's not based on anything substantive.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (8)
On the other hand, I think we do have enough evidence to conclude Jeffrey Rosen isn't diligent enough to finish his research before publishing an article.
Posted by: spot check billy | May 4, 2009 2:06 PM
Let's be honest. Despite an impressive background, Rosen teaches at George Washington, which is not a top tier law school. He must be an unimpressive scholar to be stuck there.
Posted by: Bill | May 4, 2009 2:08 PM
It's just going to be awful, terrible, and absolutely dreadful to possibly have a Supreme Court justice who isn't going to decide in favor of the powerful all the time.
Posted by: American Citizen | May 4, 2009 3:12 PM
Adam,
Well said!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2009 6:08 PM
i was a fan of sotomayor, but i'm disturbed by her behavior in Ricci v. Stefano. That kind of sick affirmative action case doesn't sit well with me, and I'm really disappointed that a supposedly post-racial OBAMA administration sided with the city of New Haven in denying everyone a promotion just because no black people warranted a promotion based on their test scores.
Posted by: say no to sotomayor | May 4, 2009 10:05 PM
Say no- you mean, presumably, DeStafano. You're paying such close attention that you don't know the case name. And you appear to be unaware that Sotomayor was one of a three-judge panel that decided the case unanimously, that 13 judges on the second circuit court of appeals voted not to rehear the case, and that the decision was reached before Obama was elected.
Posted by: Bloix | May 5, 2009 9:41 AM
He's also apparently unaware of the decades-long history of "perfectly fair" tests that just so happened to only be passed by white people. I'll bet the city wasn't unaware of that history when they decided not to certify the results of a test that just so happened to only be passed by white people.
Nobody ever mentions this when they use this case as a parable of liberal excesses, but when the city threw out the results of that test and didn't promote anyone, what did they do next? The case was in litigation for years, they could hardly abolish their whole org chart while it was pending. Did they have a new test, and if so, who passed it?
Posted by: Chris | May 5, 2009 7:25 PM
A ha ,I agree with you.It's just going to be awful, terrible, and absolutely dreadful to possibly have a Supreme Court justice who isn't going to decide in favor of the powerful all the time.Nobody ever mentions this when they use this case as a parable of liberal excesses, but when the city threw out the results of that test and didn't promote anyone, what did they do next? The case was in litigation for years, they could hardly abolish their whole org chart while it was pending. Did they have a new test, and if so, who passed it?
Posted by: Links of London | September 8, 2009 5:23 AM