While Glenn Greenwald revisits the scandalously bad work of Jeffrey Rosen regarding Judge Sotomayor, I was struck by this statement from Rosen in the NPR piece Greenwald references:

"I've always been interested in temperament because it strikes me as the most reliable predictor for judicial success," Rosen says. "It turns out that over the course of history, the most successful justices have been the more pragmatic, conciliatory people who have put the interests of the court above their ideological agendas."

(Emphasis supplied.) As his staunch defense of Chief Justice Roberts as a "moderate" (and as his severe criticism of Judge Diane Wood's appointment in 1995) attests, Jeffrey Rosen's track record with his temperament criteria has surely been proven wrong. Indeed, can he identify, defend and explain his "temperament" methodology? While Glenn's piece is valuable in debunking Rosen's nonsensical defense of himself in the Sotomayor matter, I think it is just as important to understand that when it comes to analyzing judicial nominees, Jeffrey Rosen has proven himself to be utterly incompetent. He is the legal journalism equivalent of Michael O'Hanlon. This episode will certainly hang over his every work from now on. And rightly so.

Speaking for me only

Via Matt Yglesias, Ramesh Ponnuru argues for a brand of "neutral" judicial decisionmaking:

[C]ouldn't a third judge "perceive" that the Constitution, properly interpreted, doesn't actually empower him to balance, or say anything at all about, the schools' concerns about security and the girl's psychic needs? And wouldn't Brooks's observations about judicial psychology apply a lot less to a justice with that mental "model"? . . . Conservatives have not been denying that they are prone to these influences ["empathy"]. They have been denying that these influences should be given free rein.

An honest conservative would observe that this ideal justice Ponnoru describes will decide against the white firefighter in Ricci. The reason is simple - the law, as formulated by the Congress of the United States, objectively dictates that Ricci's action against New Haven should be dismissed. Why? Because New Haven's actions are consistent with the dictates of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no real argument, other than one steeped in empathy for Ricci, that could dictate a decision in favor of Ricci. More . .

Props to President Obama for taking Michelle out on a romantic date to New York last night.

It was exciting not just for the Obamas, but for the New Yorkers who got to view them, the restaurant chef and staff who served them, the diners in the restaurant who applauded as they left, the actors in the Broadway show they attended --- and the one that struck me the most, the surprised guy sitting next to Obama at the play. [More...]

In an otherwise very good editorial, The New York Times makes one assertion I completely disagree with:

Supreme Court nominees should not go into specifics about cases they might judge.

I have always disagreed with this formulation and I still do. Why shouldn't judicial nominees indicate their views on the issues they are likely to face? What could be more important to know about judicial nominees? I do not understand this convention of evaluating judicial nominees and I never have. It is wrong.

Speaking for me only

Mortgage rates were way, way up last week and because of the rise in rates for 30 year loans the appetite for ARM loans is apparently back, big time.

Borrowers who can't afford the new, higher rates for traditional mortgages are looking at ARMs again and banks are happily handing them out, according to the Field Check Group: [More...]

David Kirkpatrick of the NYTimes writes one of the more remarkable (in a bad way) articles yet on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Kirkpatrick writes:

The selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has opened a new battle in the fight over affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies for patterns of inequality, with each side invoking the election of the first black president in support of its cause.

Really? Why would that be? Actually what the Sotomayor nomination truly highlights is the wholesale adoption of judicial activism by extreme conservatives to roll back through judicial means race conscious remedies enacted by the elected representatives of the people. The champion of this judicial activism is none other than Chief Justice John Roberts. More . . .

I'm sure there's lots to talk about. Since my earlier attempt at an open thread turned into one devoted to Britain's Got Talent, here's one for all other topics.

Marcia Powell, a mentally ill prostitute and drug addict, was in prison awaiting transfer to a psychiatric facility. Prison officials kept her outdoors in an unshaded cage for 4 hours in 107 degree heat. She died.

At least, it won't happen again.

Charles L. Ryan, the department's director, ordered the temporary suspension last week after the death of Marcia Powell at Arizona State Prison Complex-Perryville. Powell, 48, died of heat-related causes after spending four hours in temperatures that reached 107.5 degrees.

Powell's death has led to the suspension of three prison officials and a criminal investigation into their conduct.

The Sunday New York Times Magazine has a long article on how Bill Clinton is mellowing. And aging.

Clinton at 62 looks older than the boy president who dominated American politics in the 1990s, but he remains more robust than most men his age and full of intellectual energy. His left hand trembled a little bit during dinner, as it tends to do late in the day. It worried him enough at one point that he had himself tested for Parkinson’s disease, but the results came back negative; his doctor says he has just signed too many autographs over the years. When I mentioned that he had to get hearing aids during his White House tenure because of the effects of too many campaign rallies, he cheerfully pulled out the latest equipment from his ear and showed off how sleek and virtually invisible it was.

So, What's he up to now? [More...]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is the subject of three investigations for civil rights violations resulting from his policies involving the pursuit undocumented immigrants, is complaining the investigations are politically motivated.

In his letter, [Arapaio attorney] Driscoll said that a civil rights probe of the Arpaio operation began in early March, weeks after four influential Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called for an investigation into alleged discrimination and possible constitutional violations in arrests and in police searches and seizures.

The investigation appeared on a list of accomplishments the Justice Department prepared for reporters in April, after the Obama administration had been in office 100 days. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said that reinvigorating the enforcement of civil rights laws is a high priority.

Another of his complaints: [More...]

Update 2:33 pm: Live stream here and here. I've got more up at PopLeft. And the winner is: Diversity!

Top Three: Susan Boyle, Julian Smith and Diversity. Third place: Julian Smith. Second: Susan Boyle. She was totally gracious. She said, "The best won." She smiled, laughed and raised her skirt and showed some leg.

Will Susan Boyle win Britain's Got Talent? the competition is underway. You can watch live streaming here. [More...]

John Cole takes a moment to laugh at Jon Chait's absurd defense of Jeffery Rosen and The New Republic. John does a nice job of it but really, is there even a point to all this anymore? Who trusts TNR on anything anymore? Who trusts Jeffery Rosen on judicial nominees? Given his track record (consider his strident defense of John Roberts) pretty much makes him someone to use as evidence of the opposite of what he argues, do we really need to debunk Rosen now?

TNR went around the bend long ago. It will take years of actual good work before we can even consider TNR and Jeffery Rosen as having any credibility at this point.

Speaking for me only