Feckless Bloggers Evaluate Sonia Sotomayor By Reading Her Opinions
Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog reminds us why we need real journalists instead of amateur bloggers:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an obviously serious candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. We have been struck by how the amount of commentary about Judge Sotomayor has ignored the most accessible and valuable source of information: her opinions as an appellate judge. Last year, I directed a project in which a team of Akin Gump summer associates extensively reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s opinions. Amy Howe subsequently revised and expanded their work, with contributions by me.
Here, we summarize what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them.
What follows is some kind of nutjob effort to summarize her opinions in the most important civil litigation she’s been involved with. The whole exercise is absurd. Why would you waste your time on some silly blog when you could read Jeffrey Rosen peddling anonymous gossip in a professional magazine like The New Republic? After all, by not wasting time doing research on people’s work, Rosen’s able to do stuff like presciently observe that John Roberts is a “principled . . . defender[] of judicial restraint” for whom liberals ought to express gratitude.
25 Responses to “Feckless Bloggers Evaluate Sonia Sotomayor By Reading Her Opinions”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
OK, but in what sense is Tom Goldstein [a partner in Akin, Gump, for crying out loud] an “amateur”? Note that this report summarizes the results of a massive project led by two big-time lawyers with a lot of summer intern help–hardly a typical blogosphere product. Yes, Rosen was slapdash, and in a particularly egregious way that poisoned discussion at the outset; for that he, and TNR, should be ashamed. But the notion that this shows some sort of blogger advantage over journalism is a major stretch. The painstaking and comprehensive work of Goldstein and Amy Howe is poles apart from the bulk of mainstream political bloggers, who pour out vast quantities of words off the tops of their heads and can’t be bothered even to proofread.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
But Matt, analyzing her opinions doesn’t matter, because obviously she didn’t write them–she’s ethnically incapacitated, according to some very serious people.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
but where does she shop?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Has anyone noticed that Yglesias and Sotomayor are both sort of round headed people?
May 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Amen
May 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
But the notion that this shows some sort of blogger advantage over journalism is a major stretch.
No. But it’s a point against the presumption in favor of journalism over bloggers.
The painstaking and comprehensive work of Goldstein and Amy Howe is poles apart from the bulk of mainstream political bloggers, who pour out vast quantities of words off the tops of their heads and can’t be bothered even to proofread.
It’s also poles apart from the bulk of mainstream political commentary from traditional journalism. Though I guess they proofread.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
er, Matt,
Are you being ironic in this post?
Sounds like it to me.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Certainly the resources of an Akin Gump came in handy, and perhaps the need to keep some idle resources busy explains why the study happened to be there on the shelf when the issue came up, but there’s nothing about it — and I say this with sincere respect for the fine lawyers at Akin, Gump — that some blogger with access to LEXIS or Westlaw couldn’t have done in half a day. Any mainstream journalist could have done it easily.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
but there’s nothing about it . . . that some blogger with access to LEXIS or Westlaw couldn’t have done in half a day. Any mainstream journalist could have done it easily.
From the article:
Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions
You are saying any non-lawyer could read and summarize 150 legal opinions in a half a day?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
But Matt, analyzing her opinions doesn’t matter, because obviously she didn’t write them
Bill Ayers ghostwrote those too?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Stepping back the MattY’s ever-so-cute post, the problem with this and other issues is that most journalists are just hacks and have no knowledge of specialized topics. So, it’s a good thing when those who do have such knowledge weigh in. But, their ideologies have to be taken into account when reading their reports. I don’t know anything about these people, but I’d imagine that they’re “liberals”, otherwise MattY would simply be cute in a different way.
P.S. CAP still hasn’t responded to my open letter.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Bill Ayers ghostwrote those too?
Don’t be absurd. Bernardine Dohrn ghostwrote the opinions.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
DonO seems to be hinting that Matt went overboard with the sarcasm. I can’t imagine *what* he’s talking about.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Matt,
You are a progressive. The New Republic is progressive. Therefore, you should speak with one voice. It is this kind of willingness to attack fellow progressives that keeps us from having the same kind of success as Republicans. I am sick and tired of this nonsense.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
For what definition of “progressive” could The New Republic qualify?
May 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
You are saying any non-lawyer could read and summarize 150 legal opinions in a half a day?
You’re right, not just any non-lawyer could do it. And for non-lawyer bloggers half a day is a bit tight. Make it two days, just to be on the safe side.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: Feckless Bloggers Evaluate Sonia Sotomayor By Reading Her Opinions: Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog reminds us why we need real journalists instead of amateur bloggers: [...]
May 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
SHE IS FAT and has diabetes, thus should not be on the court
May 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
er, Matt, Are you being ironic in this post?
Don’t you think?
A little TOO ironic?
Yeah, I really do think.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I love how 24headjackbauerrulz.com thinks his ‘open letter’ is somehow different from his weak blog comments, that is his ‘real’ hard-hittin’ stuff, which must be responded to by someone.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
[...] #6: Matt Y, who links to [...]
May 16th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Very amusing that most of your commenters didn’t get your joke. Maroons!
May 16th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Matt, excellent piece! Great satire. Please continue to find actual data on potential justices.
I my blog I am encouraging the administration to define “Empathy” by showing actual casses and how they would be ruled differently. Hope you and your readers will join that effort.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Demonstrating the keen mastery of political discourse that brought us “tire gauges” and “He wants to spread the wealth” – two messages that future generations will have trouble recognizing as attacks on Barack Obama, rather than endorsements – the Republicans, who are facing long-term political obsolescence owing to their tribalistic identification with the shrinking “white redneck” demographic – responded to the possibility of a Puerto Rican woman being nominated to the Supreme Court by declaring her to be unintelligent, over-emotional, and brash.
Just brilliant. Really, first-rate stuff. Keep it coming.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Of course, it seems her defenders tend to come out of the idealogues as well. Frankly most of the analysis of her opinions have come out as her not being a real heavyweight, just mostly average. Progressives should push for someone that has the intellectual capital to write opinions which will last the test of time. Instead, much as the right has an abortion test, the left seems to be more concerned with a minority test rahter than a results oriented choice. It is foolish and short-sighted, and more than a bit racist in itself.