The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Be Serious

Re: Be Serious

Azer Bulbulubulbul — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:06:42 -0000

video seyret
video izle
dizi izle
dizi izle
Turk porno
am sikiş
rapidshare

Re: Be Serious

MidnightMarauder — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:06:00 -0000

We need food for thought because Sotomayor is someone that the general public knew/knows very, very, very little about as a judge, a colleague, an intellectual, etc. Unless you're claiming that as unbalanced as Rosen's sketch was, you (and the reader) already knew everything you needed to know about that side of her image. You just can't look at the article devoid of its journalistic context. Likewise to Judis' post, the blog typically being the epitome of the running conversation instead of the long-form analytic narrative.

Of course journalists should be doing serious reporting, but to expect that in such a format as Rosen's article is a question of kind, not of degree.

The nuance of the qualifications issue is exactly what Judis was touching on in his post. I didn't mean to suggest that diversity isn't a legitimate value in SCOTUS appointments. As Judis mentions, however, that value has seemed to conflict with "choosing the best man for the job." Sotomayor is not clearly outclassed by any candidate, so the types of matters that Rosen did a poor job of elucidating have every right to be factored in. I only hope that other journalists will create a fuller, more worthwhile picture of the judge.

Re: Be Serious

Mr. Shrimp — Wed, 06 May 2009 11:08:18 -0000

Rosen is a journalist. Even if the indictments are not reflective of his own opinion, they need to be backed up. Why at this point do we need sketches or food for thought? I can do that. People with paid positions at national magazines are supposed to do MORE.

Neither Rosen nor Judis appear to know enough about her to write... anything. Doesn't it go without saying that if there are clearly better people out there for the job, she shouldn't be considered? Duh.

There's no reason to make any ASSUMPTIONS about her. Do some reporting and report back.

Meanwhile, the talk since Obama's election has focused on diversifying the court because many people hold that as a valuable goal that has yet to be even remotely attained. Maybe he is referencing the chatter, but it is not idle chatter.

Re: Be Serious

Mr. Shrimp — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:57:35 -0000

I get your point, but at the moment, we're talking one seat. You could probably find more than one non-white and/or female qualified candidates for a Supreme Court position.

I can understand why the idea that a "brilliant jurist" wouldn't even be considered for the post because he's a white male would drive people batty.

If there is clearly ONE white male jurist who is so far and above everyone, such a genius, that he simply must be on the court, then I suppose he should be considered. But the world doesn't work that way.

If you take diversity, or at least some attempt at representing the actual population of the US, as a worthwhile goal (which is a different argument -- I do think it's important, but there are those who do not), then I think focusing on non-white and/or female candidates is necessary.

Re: Be Serious

MidnightMarauder — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:25:12 -0000

Let me hazard a guess on what was going on at TNR:

Rosen's assigned to write a series on the SCOTUS frontrunners. After doing some bare-bones reporting, he's hearing alot of talk that she's unqualified, not too smart, etc. Was the product incomplete and as a result, unbalanced and irresponsible? Obviously, but the title "The Case Against Sotomayor: Indictments Of Obama's Frontrunner To Replace Souter" never came across as indicative of Rosen's own opinion. I read it more along the lines of "This is The Case that some are making Against Sotomayor: I'm hearing some Indictments Of Obama's Frontrunner To Replace Souter around the water cooler." Placed in perspective as one short article of many to come and the whole thing appears to be more of a sketch, or food for thought, than a hatchet job. People have been jumping on the disclaimer at the end, but the whole idea of "why publish it then?" doesn't mean much when you're reading it the wrong way.

As for Judis' post, I think it's a pretty lengthy stretch to say that he was making a comparison between O'Connor and the non-"diversity-motivated" appointments. To claim that what he said assumes that Sotomayor is unqualified because she's Hispanic is a bit far-fetched..."If she has the requisite abilities, and if her opinions are broadly those of Obama himself, then the President should certainly consider her. What if she is very good, but that there are more brilliant jurists around on the faculties of law schools?" I mean, he does specifically qualify his statement to make clear that he genuinely doesn't know enough to come to his own conclusion about her qualifications. To pretend that the SCOTUS talk since Obama's election hasn't focused on "he'll have to choose a woman" and "he'll have to appoint someone Hispanic" is a bit absurd. I don't think Judis was doing much more than referring to that chatter, and I don't think that merely referencing those expectations tells us anything about his views of her relative qualifications.

Re: Be Serious

Jingo Killah — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:53:48 -0000

Our culture is obsessed with notions of rank, far beyond its rational use. I think people are predisposessed to approach this like an American Idol-type battle to reach #1 most qualified, trouncing all other candidates under his/her heel. We're trained to think in this fashion, but ontologically, we're really more creatures of 'good enough'. Affirmative Action opponents fear that someone 'less qualified' will bypass the aggrieved white male, but this mindset only really works in the uber-quantified, there-can-be-only-one Highlander mentality that pervades their entire world. Surely if they step back, take a deep breath, and stop figuring things out to the thousandths place, they might acknowledge that there's a plateau of highly qualified candidates, perhaps hundreds, that would fulfill the role adequately. At this point, selection becomes a question of aesthetics.

Further, it can be argued that one can't realistically quantify what is going to make a great Justice, because a Justice's challenges are all in the future. A certain amount of the handwringing (from all sides) is therefore pointless. Due diligence and all that, but even just from the comments here, it seems like the Justice selection game is a bit like Deal or No Deal.

Last, affirmative action is not the model being used here; by its nature, the Supreme Court should reflect the diversity of America, not for the benefit of the individuals sitting on the bench, but for the benefit of all. If there's someone preventing a new white male from sitting on the bench, it's all the old white males already there.

For Great Justice!

Re: Be Serious

Lee — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:49:10 -0000

oops- I meant to say the importance of having people who know what they're doing can't be OVERestimated. And, upon further reflection on the demographics of middle-aged lawyers and judges, I'm inclined to say that the proportion of qualified female or diversity candidates to white male candidates is probably more like 1:100. The good news is it gets smaller every day.

Re: Be Serious

Lee — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:39:41 -0000

I think there are a number of non-white, non-male jurists who could serve on the Supreme Court. But is there a "shortage?" In at least one way, hell yeah. It wasn't until the last five years or so that there were equal numbers of men and women in law schools, and minorities (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe even asian and east indian minorities) continue to be underrepresented in law school relative to their percentage in the general population even today. If you're looking among the people who have, say, degrees from the best schools in the country and a 25+ year record of exemplary legal credentials (which honestly, as a lawyer, I think ought to be about the minimum for a supreme court justice- the importance of having people who know what they are doing can't be underestimated), you are looking at people who graduated from law school in the late seventies and early eighties, at the latest. It's a small group of people- Yale law school had about 200 people in its graduating class last year, and it was smaller in 1980. It was also more difficult for women and minorities back then to get the kinds of plum jobs out of law school that will ultimately qualify you for the supreme court. To put it bluntly, your cup runneth not over with qualified, experienced "diversity" candidates. They exist, and I think Obama will be appointing one, but I'd guess there is maybe one qualified woman or minority for every twenty qualified white dudes, max. It's the cumulative result of past discrimination, and that's not cool, but it's real.

Re: Be Serious

neil wilson — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:00:29 -0000

I know this is not the accepted political wisdom but the most important thing for Obama or any President to consider is how history will judge the appointment.

Souter may have been a great Justice or a lousy Justice but Bush will be remembered for Souter not being the conservative that Bush promised.

Johnson would be proud that he appointed Marshall and Reagan would be proud about O’Conner. Frankly, I was disappointed with both Marshall and O’Conner but I digress.

If Sotamayer is a good Justice then Obama will have made a good choice. I don’t care if she is the most qualified left handed cricket player who speaks fluent Chinese. History will judge whether the Obama’s pick is a good one.

I hope that Obama does not pay attention to foolish things and looks at what would be best for the country right now. I don’t know if that means he should or shouldn’t appoint a gay, a woman, a white, a black, an Hispanic, a Jew or a Muslim.

I hope Obama picks someone that history judges as a good choice.

We won’t know whether he made a good choice for years.

Re: Be Serious

Persia — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:39:38 -0000

I can understand why the idea that a "brilliant jurist" wouldn't even be considered for the post because he's a white male would drive people batty.

Except that there are 6 white men on the court now. Does anyone really think this reflects our nation? Is there really a shortage of non-white, non-female jurists who could serve on the Supreme Court? Really?

Re: Be Serious

Incertus(Brian) — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:02:22 -0000

Doh! That'll be 6 of 9 spots on the Court, not 7.

Re: Be Serious

Incertus(Brian) — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:01:20 -0000

You set it up, so I'll play Captain Obvious--it's because the writers we're talking about here are blind to their own privilege, and because they believe on some level the bullshit notion that people of color who benefited from Affirmative Action aren't as qualified as those white guys who benefited from a system that was set up to boost them every step of the way. Seriously--anyone who would compare Affirmative Action to hundreds of years where white men had every advantage, where money and legacy admissions and the old boy's club made far more of an impact than actual ability and then would complain about having only 7 of 9 spots on the Supreme Court filled by white men ought to be smacked. And hard.

Re: Be Serious

James F. Elliott — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:37:30 -0000

Rosen and Judis are playing "The TNR Game." It goes like this: "Popular liberal opinion is that the court is too heavy with old white dudes from elite backgrounds and institutions, therefore we should appoint brown chicks. This makes the cool, edgy, going-against-the-grain-so-this-means-we're-actually-the-smart-liberals thing to write that this popular opinion is wrong." Unfortunately, since in this case the "popular liberal opinion" happens to be irrefutably true -- seven out of nine! -- they have to "prove" their case by tapping in to the anti-PC-but-don't-you-dare-call-it-racism schtick that has been the SOP at TNR since Andrew Sullivan's days as editor.

Re: Be Serious

DC Fem — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:31:58 -0000

I hope you're mistaken and the lukewarm reaction you're seeing is folks taking a step back and saying "Who?" before commenting on the woman's abilities. I had never heard of her before yesterday so I definitely have no comment on whether or not she should be on SCOTUS.

Because isn't "The Obama Effect" more group think and almost as racist as automatically dismissing people because of their race? If there are liberals who want to raise the bar for all people of color because of Obama's success than that's an equally stupid and unfair burden to place on applicants of color for SCOTUS or any other job.

Re: Be Serious

CitizenE — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:14:33 -0000

Of course university performance does not define someone's intelligence, but I dare say Mr. Rosen would have found summa cum laude at Princeton and Editor of the Yale Law review daunting--just saying. And then intelligence without other qualities is not necessarily the sign of a good justice. Scalia is smart as a whip and he has done more to set the current court back than any justice in the past 50 years.

It does appear however the Affirmative Action for white male judges has been a pretty darn active lobby for the past--oh, I don't know two plus centuries--why stop now?

Re: Be Serious

Lee — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:13:07 -0000

The underlying thesis- "I don't know anything about her, but if there are more qualified candidates, we should pick them instead," looks pretty much like an excuse to call her qualifications into question on the basis of zero information, except for the obvious fact that she's a Hispanic woman. Boo to that. However, I've seen a lot of articles about the selection process that imply an unreasonable selection process- the most memorable (I can't remember whether it was on this site or elsewhere) was titled something like "Obama's Supreme Court Pick: White Males Need Not Apply." I seriously doubt that the headline actually reflects the administration's ideas on the subject, but I can understand why the idea that a "brilliant jurist" wouldn't even be considered for the post because he's a white male would drive people batty. Surely the Supreme Court is an important enough institution that the questions, in order, should be, "(1) Who are the most intelligent, serious candidates with most distinguished backgrounds? and (2) Among these, who would add diversity to the court?", and not vice versa. Obama clearly takes his constitutional law seriously, so I'm not really concerned that his priorities are out of order on this, and I'm willing to assume that if Sotomayor is in the mix, she's as qualified as anybody on the planet.

Re: Be Serious

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:09:27 -0000

After reading Rosen's article, I agree with Ta-Nehisi that Rosen isn't agnostic about Sotomayor. He does say that he hasn't read enough of her opinions to come down on one side or another, but I think this is a dodge. If he said he had read all of her opinions, or enough of them to come to a determination, he would have boxed himself into having to weigh in on her abilities himself, and he clearly would rather not do that. So we are left mostly with anonymous critics, which is unfortunate, but somewhat understandable, given that the lawyers who argue before Judge Sotomayor would be idiots to criticize her on the record.

More broadly though, I wonder if the lukewarm reaction to Sotomayor by some on the left is an example of what could be called The Obama Effect. Since Obama's intellect, temperament, and persuasive ability are so impressive, he may have raised the bar for expectations of other minority applicants for high office. Ms. Sotomayor was impressive enough for George H.W. Bush to appoint her to the federal bench, and impressive enough for Bill Clinton to promote her to the appeals court, but now, in the Age of Obama, some liberals seem to want more. One liberal commenter on Yglesias's blog, for example, argued that it would be a lost opportunity for the left if Ms. Sotomayor were appointed to the Supreme Court instead of an applicant who might be better able to persuade a swing voter.

Re: Be Serious

dwhite10701 — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:04:59 -0000

The way our political dialogue works these days, if Obama nominates someone who is a white male, that'll be self-evident proof that he selected the best person for the job. If he nominates someone who isn't a white male, that'll be self-evident proof that he did it for quota reasons, and that the nominee isn't the most qualified for the job. So it seems that the only way one can prove they're the best qualified is if they're the owner of a white penis.

Re: Be Serious

Dan Fox — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:04:43 -0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Does that website not work for them? Honestly, I know it's wikipedia, but even using that as a source is better than throwing a skeptical "I don't really know, but something about she's probably not qualified."

Also, at least the Wiki article is sourced. Jeez.

Re: Be Serious

Maya — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:59:36 -0000

Still an inspired post, though.

Re: Be Serious

Bruce — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:54:46 -0000

crap...well...atleast i tried!

Re: Be Serious

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:53:43 -0000

O'Connor retired years ago.

Re: Be Serious

sublicon — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:51:11 -0000

Sorry, not to question the obvious but why does this always come up when it's a minority? Why are we talking about "other more brilliant judges." If the nominee is white and male, do we ever wonder if he's truly the most brilliant selection? There's always going to be someone more brilliant. Do these people think before they write? Honestly.

Re: Be Serious

Devo — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:50:48 -0000

>>next thing you know, there will be pictures of her and O'Connor sipping margarita in downtown washington. Her savvy latina-ways will woo Clarence Thomas into taking salsa-lessons. It'll be awful.

Now I'm *really* excited. Margaritas and Clarence Thomas salsa dancing? Way more fun than watching him defend pubic Coke jokes during the Anita Hill hearings. Of course, everyone knows there are no good margaritas in D.C.

Re: Be Serious

Bruce — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:45:10 -0000

dude...she's a girl and she's brown...of course she can't judge..everybody knows that brown+woman= double the crazy...you have the instability of women, and the fiery hot-chili-spice of the latin community (they're to emotional). if she's appointed, next thing you know, there will be pictures of her and O'Connor sipping margarita in downtown washington. Her savvy latina-ways will woo Clarence Thomas into taking salsa-lessons. It'll be awful...also, did you know, her last name is strikingly to that of Cuban-communist high-jumper Javier Sotomayor...he's been banned for illegal substance abuse and doping...nowamsayin?