Sotomayor and Race

Jeffrey Rosen needs to crawl back in his hole. Shame on you for even giving him the time of day.

I look forward to learning what unnamed sources whispered to Professor Rosen in the powder room this week.

Seriously, there are about a million lawyers in this country. You couldn't find somebody better to write this column than this clown?

KT-Why is Jeffrey Rosen worth a read? He is a irresponsible reporter who when called on his irresponsilibity blamed it all on the fact that he was blogging. So I guess my real question is why is a irresponsible reporter granted space in Time Mag? Is there no or never a price to pay for not meeting basic journalism standards?

Why would anybody read anything that Jeffrey Rosen has to say about anything?
.
Jeffrey Rosen has zero credibility on the subject of Sonia Sotomayor.
.
That's what producing anonymously-sourced smear-stenography does to a writer --it reduces a journalist's credibility significantly. Maybe this doesn't hold true in the Village yet, but it certainly does here outside.
.
By focusing his efforts on the usual Village-style personality analysis instead of the entirety of this nominee's record, and by allowing himself to be the uncritical tool of anonymous axe-grinders, Jeffrey Rosen has forfeited his ability to speak on this nomination, at least to many, many engaged news consumers outside of the Beltway bubble.

Oh...THAT Jeffery Rosen.....
.
I actually didn't think the article was utterly horrible but I found this little snippet quite revealing.
.
At the moment, the court is divided among four color-blind conservatives
.
To describe the standard Conservative position as 'color-blind' is to deliberately ignore History and common sense.
.

At the moment, the court is divided among four color-blind conservatives
*
I wasn't gonna read it anyway, the words "Jeffrey Rosen" being enough of a turn off, but.... Wow.
*
I wanna be an editor at time, 'cause apparently they don't do anything.

Hey, KT! This latest bit of fail won your boss Richard Stengel the coveted Wanker of the Day award!

All of you at TIME must be so proud... except for Joe, who's probably jealous!

Karen I must respectfully disagree, that was not worth my time. Plus ,what # 1thru #7 said

Where the eff was the TIME article on Alito and Race? Or Roberts and Race? Where did THEY stand on "race?"
.
Oh, right, white people don't have race. Africans who moved north and, sun deprived, developed melanin deficiencies, are The Default Race.
.
And what is up with the stupid claim of controversy re Ricci? It rests only on the white guy losing. Sotomayor and her colleagues, in a decidedly nonactivist way, upheld the decisions of local officials to conform with the law. What would these people have her say?
.
"Oh, heavens to Betsy, nice white boys are gonna have to go through a process that complies with the law. Can't have that. Give them a pass because THEY are WHITE."
.
WTF is a "racial moderate"? Does this make John Roberts or Antonin Scalia a racial radical? Or Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III a racial radical?
.
this whole article is an appalling introduction of wingnut (no not just GOP) dishonest talking points into the general media discourse. And it is an appalling demonstration that all the talk we hear about identity politics being important to electorate and therefore exhaustively covered during campaigns is just a frickin' lie. It is part of the Stengel wanking program.

I'll get concerned when Judge Sotomayor shoots a security guard – and then only of someone other than Rosen reports it. Until then this is crap. Plus, what #1 thru #9 said.

Sorry – "if someone other than Rosen reports it." Must be Fat Fingers Thursday.

------
Of white-hot, dastardly Racists in SCOTUS: John Rutledge supported slavery, argued that U.S. society be divided into official classes and believed that only landowners should hold government offices. A wise judge? The Newts of the day held that as a self-evident truth. He served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1789 to 1791. [How would he have voted if a case of a runaway slave (seeking liberty and pursuit of happiness)came before the court? Answer: Without bias or prejudice.]
-------
Of red-hot supremacists in SCOTUS: In 1916, Brandeis became the first Jewish Justice on the high court. Brandeis was an avowed Zionist. A wise judge? He served with distinction until 1939.
[The last sentence is with the compliments of TIME, of course. How would he have voted if a case of anti-semitism came before the court? Answer: Without bias or prejudice.]
-------

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895379_1895421_1895405,00.html

------
So, Sonia says "I hope that ..." and that prompts Newt and GOP-brood to go scared and ballistic - as if the sky is falling down and jesus cometh.

Indeed, if Newt's mother says "Newt, son, I hope that you win that $700 million lottery this time" then Newt will immediately go shopping for a new multi-million dollar home, a yatch and a girl to go with the new wealth.

"the court is divided among four color-blind conservatives"
Please God (or KT, I'm not picky)...give us a "1000 words" with just those four in it. I'm claiming dibs on the first "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" slam.

Regarding the hypothetical voting records at the SCOTUS:

John Rutledge: Answer: Without bias or prejudice - against the "human rights" of the slave and in favor of the rights of the slave master.

Brandeis: Answer: Without bias or prejudice - against anti-semitism.

.

" .. Senate GOPers Ask Sotomayor For More Information"
These are the same GOP hypocrites who protest they feel swamped by the volumes of information that she has already provided!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/senate-gopers-ask-sotomayor-for-more-information.php

" .. They also ask her for copies of materials she edited for the Yale Law Review, and to explain why an all-female organization that she belongs to does not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. .."

Next these GOP creeps will ask her why she doesn't also belong to an all-male group OR why she is, eh, female only ....

" .. Next these GOP creeps will ask her why she doesn't also belong to an all-male group OR why she is, eh, female only ...."
And after then they will ask why she frequents the "females only" bathrooms and does that habit not "violate the Code of Judicial Conduct."
You wanna bet?