Law professor: Sotomayor lacks “intellectual depth”
posted at 4:48 pm on May 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Really? She graduated summa from Princeton, has a Yale Law degree, and enjoys the enthusiastic support of people as brilliant as Stephen Carter. She’s been a prosecutor, a trial judge, and an appellate judge for years. Whatever else she is, she’s not “Obama’s Harriet Miers.” She’s not a bomb-thrower either, though, which is what I suspect this is really about. Turley is known for appearing on Olbermann’s and Maddow’s shows and telling them what they want to hear about torture; doubtless he was hoping Obama would pick a lefty firebrand like William Brennan to do battle with Scalia, not a competent but lower-key judge like Sotomayor. I’m surprised that Obama didn’t, frankly: The One’s political capital right now is likely as high as it’ll ever be and, with 59 Senate seats, he can count on the Dems to rubber-stamp anyone he wants. If ever there was a time to try to ram through a hard-left nominee and dare the GOP to filibuster him/her, this was it. But as with everything else he does, this pick was ultimately all about him, checking the boxes he’ll need to win reelection by making a decent yet politically safe pick instead of a bold but risky one. It’s paying off already. Our pal Geraldo, ever nimble in racial-izing any policy matter involving a Latino, is having an out-of-body experience over her selection.
Update: Further to the above, Obama could have picked a powerhouse like Cass Sunstein if not for the fact that Sunstein’s one of those dreaded un-empathetic white males. Irony of ironies, identity politics probably cost the left a better justice this time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Ya but she is:
1) The right gender
2) The right ethnicity
3) Has the right ideology
4) Has the right philosophy about the role of the courts
5) Hates all the right people
What more can you ask for?
Elections have consequences. We reap what we sow. Enjoy your harvest America!
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 4:51 PM
geraldo… what a tool.
homesickamerican on May 26, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Turley is no great intellect, himself, so this is particularly stinging criticism.
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Brilliant!
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Instead of talking about how much volume her skull contains we need to be talking about the quality of it’s contents.
Limerick on May 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Dude, I can’t believe they let him talk. Maybe the drubbing they are getting by FNC is making them take notice.
therightscoop on May 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I heard Obama described as a legal scholar (again) today.
The term scholar connotes scholarship, as in schloarly writing. Has anyone identified anything Obama has written in the area of the law?
BuckeyeSam on May 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Funny, I’ve been listening to talk radio all day going over this woman with a fine tooth comb and then I come here and read this where she is made to sound like a good, moderate, traditional jurist. There’s a major disconnect somewhere…
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I love her already. She’s gonna rile up poor Scalia so much he’ll probably be in the hospital before the end of the year. “Change has come to America!” — November 4, 2008.
dcwvu on May 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Hard work can get you both of those without you having an above average intelligence.
Esthier on May 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM
An Ivy League education doesn’t mean shit, the courts and the government are filled with TOTAL idiots who graduated from those schools. One is Obama himself.
echosyst on May 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Sonia “So-So” Sotomayor, she’ll make Souter look like an intellectual giant. There’s more penumbras in her future than you can shake a stick at.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM
He did a personal mark-up of The Constitution, fixing all of the silly constraints that our Founders placed there. Does that count?
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I’ll see your Turley and raise you a Chemerinsky.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/why-sotomayor-is-such-a-good-pick.aspx
Proud Rino on May 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Axelrod on Cavuto just said the same thing that Jarrett said earlier about Sotomayor being the most qualified SC nominee in 100 years.
Joe Caps on May 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Is she qualified? Yes. Move on. This is why we have elections.
Zetterson on May 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Doesn’t matter – look at the outside, not the inside.
Vashta.Nerada on May 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Actually, he said that her written opinions lack intellectual depth, which is quite a bit different than saying that she does.
He also said that Thurgood Marshall’s opinions did not have “an intellectual influence on the Court.” So I guess you’d paraphrase this as saying that Turley doesn’t think Marshall was very bright, either. And you’d be just as wrong.
His point is not that she’s a “Harriet Miers” (whatever you might exactly mean by that apparently implied insult), but that she’s definitely not the Left’s answer to Scalia.
notropis on May 26, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I’m pretty sure he has it all locked away. He only releases documents that will undermine our national security.
Daggett on May 26, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Oh and BTW, if the article you linked to is supposed to show how brilliant Stephen Carter is I would say that’s an epic fail there.
Rocks on May 26, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I have to agree, summa from Princeton you cant be an idiot. Well, unless you want to argue she’s only book smart or something, which he is not saying.
Of she is not a “bomb thrower” then all we really have to push is the racist quote she needs to answer for.
Dash on May 26, 2009 at 5:00 PM
No. He’s a fraud, of course.
Having a hard time reconciling Allah’s notes on this selection, as she does seem like an ideolgical leftist, with race/gender identity politics as part of her stated judicial philosophy. And despite the requisite Ivy League grade travesty, she doesn’t seem terribly bright in any way.
I particularly love the one-paragraph discrimination ruling – way to mail it in!
Jaibones on May 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I understand your point, but it is pretty difficult for a truly intelligent person to not write intelligent opinions. That said, Turley is a borderline moron, himself.
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Very true.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Not so fast. Let’s have a look at the percentage of her decisions which are overturned.
Jaibones on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Actually. I think the point here being made is that while she’s certainly not the best. Obama could have made a much much MUCH worse pick and got away with it thanks to his popularity but didn’t. Which is odd until you realize this would be a history making pick.
OBama feels he’s gotta make the history books I bet.
Trov on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
From the Washing Times -
diogenes on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
this pick makes sense though, since there’s not going to be Amnesty anytime soon. I’m sure John McCain is somewhere banging his head on the wall
youngO on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Yeah, wtf was that all about?
Jaibones on May 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I have to disagree. That would be true for someone in the hard sciences, but for the soft-sciences or humanities, summa is no indication of intelligence, as the grading is too subjective.
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM
i read something like it was in the 30’s…. she kept bringing issues onto the bench.
But I can’t find where I read it… memory is going today.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
I have no confidence in Ivy League grading outside the sciences when it comes to protected classes. It’s informed cynicism. It’s unfair to be sure but that’s their doing, not mine.
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
“I’ll raise you one Female Hispanic!”- Obama
“I fold”- GOP.
The Race game continues. Sickening isn’t it?
Wouldn’t it be humorous if Sotomayer had a fire in her Court room and when the fire department arrived, she wouldn’t let them distinguish the fire unless there was enough represented races on the firetruck? No I didn’t think so.
portlandon on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Man, it’s almost as if Obama is scripting this stuff, it’s sooo predictable, like this effluent from Limbaugh today:
Dear Crazy Basers: It’s not all about you. Really.
starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Oops, you’re stupid is showing again. “Rile up poor Scalia?” He pisses on liberals for fun.
Jaibones on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
What is the Precedents quote under the picture on the front page? “Sotomayor’s nomination is a step towards “Equal justice under law” Like without here, all the little people were being persecuted by the SCOTUS and big business. What a jerk.
Spectreman on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
You beat me to it. I see we’ve seen similar things…
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I wonder where the Obama administration is drawing the line on their whole “the most qualified nominee in 100 years” talking-point?
Charles Evans Hughes (1910)
Horace Harmon Lurton (1910)
William Henry Moody (1906)
Joe Caps on May 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Oh my.
Were that that had been the harshest crtitque of Mr. Bork.
Sotomayor is a bigot and a “more equal pig”, and as such, needs to be thrown back into Obama’s Farm, to re-join her “more equal” colleagues.
The Republicans need to “take no prisoners” this time, as Drew W. wrote (FROM: http://ace.mu.nu/):
Lockstein13 on May 26, 2009 at 5:06 PM
From the
WashingTimes -Washington Times.
diogenes on May 26, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Yeah. I like the way you think!
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM
i read something like it was in the
30’s80…. she kept bringing issues onto the bench.But I can’t find where I read it… memory is going today.
upinak on May 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
youngO on May 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM
So you think racial gerrymandering is a principle that should be legally upheld?
You think illegal aliens should have more rights then they do…you think they should get free college tuition?
You think a good supreme court justice “riles” up people?
You think Scalia gets riled up, you think the Supreme Justices think that way?
Tell me, you are maybe 19 or 20 years old?
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:10 PM
This is all about the 2010 elections. They are trying to rally up the women and hispanic voters. I’m hispanic and in no way do I want her as a supreme court judge. And the repubicans better not be afraid to go after her. She is an anti-constitutionalist, and a radical who believes judges should create policies.
jaboba on May 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM
You don’t watch the MSM either?
Vashta.Nerada on May 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM
You don’t get it. Your criteria is not their criteria.
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I’m not asking this to be a wise-guy honestly, but why? Is a high percentage overturned a true accurate measure of one’s qualifications? If so why not just select judges based on low overturn percentages?
Zetterson on May 26, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Quick, before he gets back in, hide the body.
BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM
So she was in a case where appicants for fireman couldn’t pass the test?
How dare “white men” set standards for her job.
Hear thunder see lightning and fog glass. Now there are some standards.
seven on May 26, 2009 at 5:15 PM
No one knows yet, she hasn’t been “vetted”.
The dems set the tone for this with Bork.
No more, no less then what they did to probably the most qualified Justice to ever be nominated. Even had the highest regard and ranking from the very liberal ABA.
She should be treated just like every other equal, Estrada, Bork, Roberts, Thomas…each of them “ran the gauntlet”.
We will be able to tell a lot about her, and find out her judicial goals.
NO MORE, NO LESS…the same as the dems gave to Bork.
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Classic AP post. This is why I love HotAir.
TexasDan on May 26, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Because the Left does not select their judges based on them being good jurists. They select people who:
1) They can get confirmed
2) Who can help the Left win future elections
3) Will pursue a Leftist agenda through judicial activism.
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM
This nation is doomed.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Don’t forget she believes that private ownership of guns has been illegal since the adoption of the Bill Of Rights.
Ammo sales set to peak again, if you can find any.
BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Well he’s technically a professor of constitutional law. As in he was once a lecturer at Chicago and they decided that it counts. Of course they probably decided that 5 seconds after being asked “Hey, this new superstar dem taught a couple of course, does that count as being a professor?” (Answer, it does now. If you asked them 10 years ago they would have probably said, “of course not, the guy isn’t even going to get tenure. Why would he count as a real professor?”)
Dave_d on May 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM
That is one of the test, as to how “constitutional” a justice is.
With a high % of overturn, it would show she has a problem with applying law, and instead is applying her personal beliefs.
Like I stated, no more or no less then what you guys did to Bork…equal justice for the justice.
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM
All good things come to an end.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM
people
FIFY
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM
The internet story going around to that effect is a hoax. See the Volokh Conspiracy for its thorough debunking.
notropis on May 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I’ve read somewhere today that she’s had five Second Circuit decisions reviewed by SCOTUS, and four have been overturned.
SCOTUS recently heard a sixth decision (Ricci), and she’ll likely be reversed there too.
Can you imagine her running into Scalia after he or Roberts writes the opinion savaging her one-page order? “Nice, work, sweetie. Welcome aboard. No go get me a donut.”
BuckeyeSam on May 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM
BuckeyeSam on May 26, 2009 at 5:20 PM
No go get me a donut. = Now go get me a donut.
(sorry. couldn’t help myself.)
Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Go get me a donut, chica.
BigD on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM
You mean like the BA from Yale and the Harvard MBA of W’s that carried so much weight with the Left?
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Yes. If a judge continually has his/her cases overturned, especially with “improper interpretation” as the reason, it surely indicates someone who is not interpreting the law, but is ruling based on other reasons.
It has not yet been shown that Sotomayor has a high percentage, so that argument line is a bit early. I would imagine every judge (trial) has some number of cases overturned on appeal. However, if a large number (or high %) of an appellate court justice’s decisions are overturned, that’s a more serious issue.
BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM
This nation is doomed.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM
All good things come to an end.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM
You seem rather depressed today.
I’ll have Obama FedEx you a unicorn to cheer you up.
TexasJew on May 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Her race comment is a big problem. But I’m sure she is qualified. I doubt on what we know right now there is going to be a great deal opposition. She will get confirmed.
Then she will have the power to punish all you dumb white males for giving us this great country!
I bet the Republicans will take that demand from Obama that it be done by August as a challenge to hold it up until September. And they will consider it a victory.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Hahahahah! Please go ahead with that line of thinking.
This woman won’t make a ripple in this Supreme Court. It takes a lot more than a silly “I was born a poor black child” argument to rile Nino Scalia.
I would love to be in the room the first time she trots out her poor disadvantaged background to make an argument. Clarence Thomas saw stuff in his home town that she could not have imagined. And he has never made that a part of his judging. John Roberts won’t have any of that nonsense either.
So, her real value is only political, as a bone to Hispanics for voting for Barack Obama. That is considerable, but don’t hold your breath waiting for some magical “change” in Supreme Court rulings because she is there.
rockmom on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Do you think racial gerrymandering is a viable concept?
Do you think more rights should be given to illegal aliens?
Do you think racism is only perpetrated by “whites”?
If you embrace these three, then she is forming the foundation of a good justice in your eyes.
Now, do you believe the government can take personal property when they see it is “good for the people”, even if the confiscate it and give it to another private individual?
Well she is more your type if you approve.
How about LaRaza organization, if you support her, you are supporting them.
Now how about low interest mortgages to minorities, you know the type that has gotten us into all this trouble?
She is on a board of directors that promotes this to Hispanic minorities…Still with her?
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I lol’ed.
Obama picks somebody who by AP’s own admission is closer to the average public mood than it is to the left-wing extremists. (Why else would this pick make his reelection easier?)
AP’s verdict? Obama only cares about himself.
Right. Because the best way to show regard for Americans is to appoint a nutcase supported by 1% of the population.
Note to self: When the citizens of a representative republic want “A”, the patriotic and conservative description of doing “B” is “bold”.
radiofreevillage on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Ha. Have you seen and heard this woman talking in clips?? She doesn’t seem like one to suffer fools gladly. I’m sure if that happened, after Scalia or Roberts got up off the floor after being kicked in the cajones, they wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.
dcwvu on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The seeds of idiocracy are sewn by the One.
Hening on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Cindy Munford on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM
No more like the agriculture degree Olbermann has from Cornell. You know, it’s a left thing.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM
In that case, you might best keep your distance.
notropis on May 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM
“Change has come to America!” — November 4, 2008.
dcwvu on May 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Kos is over there, stupid.
TexasJew on May 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM
FIFY.
Steve Z on May 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM
and it wouldn’t be a “legal thesis” but a “memo”.
right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Wow, a Leftist playing the race card? You lack intellectual depth too.
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I am hoping that her Catholicism will kick in the way Souter’s liberalism did. And we will have decent policy on abortions with a bigger majority than ever.
I understand she hasn’t had to rule on abortion yet. Hmmmm.
Pro-choice has become pro-life before–when it’s your name on that line it becomes your abortion.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM
He was the “Editor” of the Harvard Law Review, but never wrote a single article for that publication.
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM
It’s all about timing too. N.Korea tested its bomb and Obama went with a predictable, safe pick to cause distraction.
promachus on May 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM
OK. Good that we no longer bs one another with this notion that it’s only the left that wants to legislate from the bench.
radiofreevillage on May 26, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I had the pleasure of seeing her once in roller derby. She kicked some E. German broad in the nuts and she went right over the rail. Was wild. Can’t wait til she settles in forces those mealy-mouthed ladies on the court to speak Spanish–the language of the conquerors.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Show me that national abortion law again I seem to have missed that one.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Please. We can’t even identify anything he’s written about himself without the unacknowledged co-authorship (at least) of his close family friend/some neighborhood guy he barely knows — Billy Ayers.
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I wonder when all the bean-counters on the Left will realize they’ve been had? This president hasn’t appointed a minority to any position that matters. This Supreme Court slot doesn’t matter because it won’t change the balance on the Court at all. The people in the government who are really making policy are the “czars” in the White House, all of whom are white and mostly male, and uber-white-guy Tim Geithner.
Alberto Gonzales had real influence in the Bush Administration as White House Counsel and then as AG. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice had real influence in foreign policy. Elaine Chao had real influence on labor policy.
Republican administrations have done far more to place minorities in positions of real influence than Democrats.
rockmom on May 26, 2009 at 5:37 PM
You confuse wartime with peacetime.
JiangxiDad on May 26, 2009 at 5:39 PM
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It doesn’t matter if there is or there is not a law. What matters is you would like a judge to make decisions based even on their religious beliefs so long as you approve of those beliefs.
radiofreevillage on May 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Roe v Wade is an incorrect, un-Constitutional decision. To find against it is not to legislate from the bench but to follow the Constitution. This fantasy about “privacy” in finding abortion rights in the Constitution is absolutely ridiculous.
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM
But Obama’s white guys are so dumb. I don’t think anyone calls shots but Obama. Geithner is a figurehead and gives Obama cover. That’s why they don’t need to fill the empty places. It only takes one to make the tyranny of the Emperor known.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM
RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blarg the Destroyer on May 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Let’s simply say that I’m underwhelmed by the depth of your argument.
radiofreevillage on May 26, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Since Roe v. Wade was undeniably “legislating from the bench” (a judicially-created “Constitutional right” to abortion derived from the judicially-created “Constitutional right” to privacy), overturning Roe would be “legislating from the bench” in what respect?
AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Yeah! What he said! I’m too tired I think I need a nap. I was just finding the possible silver lining. She is a Catholic. And not every Catholic feels comfortable misquoting the Pope like Pelosi does.
I’m way over my head saying this… hope I didn’t offend anyone.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Useful idiot?
TheBigOldDog on May 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM
You’ll be well served to learn that most of the SCOTUS justices who wrote that decision disagree with you. That kinda kills that “undeniable” thing right there.
radiofreevillage on May 26, 2009 at 5:45 PM
You’re doing just fine, petunia.
progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Turley’s a strange duck. In 1998, he claimed that he had always been a liberal Democrat, and had voted for Bill Clinton. But he didn’t give Clinton a pass as many of the Left did.
And in 2005, he claimed that Bush had committed a “premeditated Federa; crime” with his wiretap program.
Del Dolemonte on May 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Henry VI, Part II, we are getting closer, appointment by appointment.
gbear on May 26, 2009 at 5:47 PM
There are very few honest people who don’t say it however. The court over stepped, it was a terrible ruling. Those who support it do so because there is no way to get that outcome without it.
petunia on May 26, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »