Rosen Recants; Turley Takes Up His Standard

After embarrassing himself, Jeff Rosen attempts rehabilitation:

Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response.

Sure Jeff, sure. Not to worry. Here comes Jonathan Turley:

My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. I have now read dozens of her opinions and focused on the most significant rulings. They do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick — like Thurgood Marshall.

A twofer! Slamming Sotomayor AND Marshall. Good work Turley. On a serious note, Turley's analysis is laughable. He writes:

While people have demanded that I show evidence that she has not been particularly impressive in her decision, it is rather difficult to point to the absence of something. Her opinions tend to lack of broader historical or theoretical view. It is easier to point to opinions that show a broader vision of the law. For example, while I disagreed with the decision, her colleague Guido Calabresi showed such gravitas in his ruling in Boy Scouts v. Wyman.

Sotomayor’s decisions and dissents tend to be abbreviated and limited in scope. Once again, that could reflect a certain deference to her appellate status or a lack of broader vision.

I guess Turley is not a fan of judicial minimalism. I do have a question - where were those opinions with "intellectual heft" from Roberts and Alito? Hell, from Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg for that matter. I know Scalia had nothing impressive. And still doesn't imo. But not in Turley's view:

One of the complaints in my Supreme Court class is how often opinions lack a depth of history or theory — creating a unifying body of work in areas of the free speech or privacy. Instead, we often have a series of unconnected and unsatisfying insular decisions. I do not agree with Scalia on many things, but he has been able to maintain a coherent philosophy.

Not on the appellate court he didn't. Turley is inventing a new standard never before seen. Just a coincidence because it is a Latina nominee? You make the call.

Speaking for me only

< White House Conference Call on Judge Sotomayor | Biden Stops For Barbecue in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Garbage from Turley (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    I tried to read the entire piece but I couldn't get beyond the crap about his law school students wanting to feel satisfied with the opinions they read.

    I am no legal scholar so my opinion is just another worthless opinion, but I can't help but think that Turley is mistaking depth for bombast.

    And frankly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    In law school, I would have rather read an opinion that was clear and concise, as opposed to droning with piffle for 100 pages or so. I'm a huge fan of history, and it is important to understand context, but many times I thought it was the justices (or their law clerks) who basically just wanted to hear themsleves "talk" for the sake of it.

    Hey, don't blame history (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    and stay a fan by not reading bad history that reads like, well, bad legal briefs.  I took law courses and had to read a few of those, too, so I know what you mean.  My, but they did go on . . . and on . . . and on. . . .:-)

    Let's call it what it is, what we used to call it when we learned to do it: padding.  Just like the justices, I know it when I see it -- and cross through it to show how something could be said in half the verbiage.


    Turley is trying to prove that he's smarter (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by aeguy on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    Amazing how macho intellectualism comes up whenever there is a woman candidate or nominee. We saw it with Hillary Clinton, now we're going to see it with Sotomayor. Take away the uterus and you won't hear a peep about any qualifications or intellectual rigor.

    Male speaking btw.


    Yeh, I fully expect to see Turley (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    use the adjective "seminal" for a significant court decision.  Love that.  Always like to turn it around on the guys and refer to "pollenal" points.

    I think Prof. Turley's students (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    are telling him what he wants to hear.  Hey, it happens.  Sign of smart students.  Not necessarily sign of a smart prof.:-)

    and if she'd given long, laborious opinions (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Turkana on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    i assume she'd fail on volubility?

    Brown v Board of Ed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    Folks should read it some time.

    Activist judges! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    Balderdash (none / 0) (#132)
    by wystler on Wed May 27, 2009 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    I cite John Paul Stevens as clear example to the contrary.

    Scalia's "good for one time only" ticket (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by lambert on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    ... to the White House for W. in Bush v. Gore was all part of maintaining a "coherent philosophy"?

    Well, now that I come to think of it, I suppose it was.

    Though, personally, I don't regard any decisions that have been made by the Bush Court as legitimate, since the composition of the Court was determined by fraud in Florida 2000. Roll it all back.

    um, (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:06:22 PM EST
    Am I to assume, from your erratic, chaotic, and linguistingly inappropriate blowback,  the notion that you believe Lambert meant his statement to be taken literally?  

    Or is a little poetic license born of a reality based frustration not permitted here?

    You are the hall monitor, aren't you?


    Hey now (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    Personally, I think it all needs to be rolled back to 1876, but to each his own...

    Ho hum (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by lambert on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:42:55 AM EST
    I seem to have sruck a nerve of some kind.  Do you plan to deplay "cling to" in addition to  "bitter"?

    I was really surprised at Turley (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by joanneleon on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    When I've seen him with Olbmermann and Maddow at various times, he seemed to be the only person talking sense about torture prosecutions, definition of torture, and other things.  He didn't seem to inject that much opinion into his explanations.

    But his comments about Sotomayor really surprised me.  First, he seemed to know he'd catch flak for what he said, but his focus on her not being "blazingly brilliant" just took me back.  First of all, I don't think we need "blazingly brilliant" for the Supreme Court, we need the right mixture of intelligence, fairness, experience, etc.  Second, I can't, for the life of me, understand why her intelligence even comes into question when she graduated tops at Princeton and Yale.

    I don't remember very well when Ginsburg and O'Connor were nominated, so I don't know if this happened before, but I'm finding this whole thing of how she's being treated pretty disturbing.  I have no idea is it has to do with being Latina.  I do think it has to do with being female.  

    As for Turley, I hope he does a follow up.  I'd hate to lose that much respect for him all at once.  I'm thinking that maybe he had some favorites in the group that was in the running, and just honestly didn't think she was the best of the group.  But even so, the brilliance thing just floored me.

    They've been talking about her (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    "lack of intelligence", her "temperament", her "emotions" and her "experience" ever since her name floated out. Some of the comments are double whammies, racist and sexist. For the rest, I think to myself, "Would they say it to a Hispanic male of her background?" to see where the comment falls.

    I've heard about the references (none / 0) (#30)
    by joanneleon on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    to the Cohen article for some weeks now, but I haven't heard Turley taking issue with her intelligence before.  Have you?

    I don't watch the shows he appears on (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    so I have no clue about him. And I think we all need to keep in mind, just because someone supports Dem actions/rails against Bush/or whatever, strong powerful women can still bring out the worst in some.

    Look back at the primary . . . .

    On our 5PM news, this one guy was pulling the same crap, his reporting on the 6PM segment was entirely different, which I found interesting. I wonder what caused him to be more balanced in the later one . . . ?


    OK...line 'em up and I'll (none / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:48:26 AM EST
    go get my girl gang...

    Your mom sounds like mine (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:19:08 AM EST
    OY. The no sympathy days when ya just plain ol' F'd up. High five to her.

    Thanks for sharing :) I live across the street from a HS that used to be considered pretty bad. It's better now, but even back in the day, the students were pretty darn respectful towards me and others living across the street. I always attributed it to their home life, aka as Mom. They had manners down seriously, all the way to Miss and Ma'am  when they were hangin' on my stoop, encountering me while out with my dog, etc.  I know they treat the seniors/elders the same way.


    You weren't around during the '90s (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:16:01 AM EST
    were you.

    Nobody who followed the Clinton impeachment crap has even a shred of respect for Turley.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    I hear the name and lower my expectations accordingly.

    Besides which, even if Turley did usually have reasonable opinions, many a sane analyst loses his mind when confronted with estrogen in the object of his analysis. One might ask who kidnapped Jonathan Turley.


    Turley joins a less-than-stellar (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    group of talking heads and legal experts who seem compelled to damn Sotomayor with faint praise - when they aren't damning her with out-of-context clips and statements - none of which add to the average person's understanding of who Sotomayor is.

    It shocks me a little that more people aren't fed up with the fact that women continue to have to always start from a position of, "well, is she really smart enough?  Does she really have what it takes?"   Any moment now..."Sotomayor, who has never married...?"

    I must be getting too old for this nonsense - it's all just starting to seem like an endless loop of irritatingly trivial, mean-spirited and missing-the-point discussion that seems better-suited for the landfill.

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:24:05 PM EST
    Judge Sotomayor is divorced, for what it's worth...

    Really? I had not seen that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    anywhere - just things about how close she is to her mother, how she "adopts" her clerks and treats them like family.  I must not be reading the right stuff...guess I was just distracted by all the talk about her temperment and her intelligence and her moods...

    and her lack of experience! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:12:03 PM EST
    I thought all those anon clerks disliked her, yet now they say she "adopts" them? Is that kinda like she's a b!tch but has too much empathy?

    The fact that she's (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:22:45 PM EST
    divorced is reassuring that she doesn't follow Catholic teachings to the letter -- may even be kicked out of the church because of the divorce, I don't know.

    It's reassuring because she has no real case history on choice rights, so all I have to go on is the fact that she's Catholic, with all the anti-choice implications thereof.  She's centrist, she's Catholic, she could very well be the swing vote that overturns Roe.

    Maybe she won't be the keeper of that nasty vote.  However, I sure would feel better if there was more to go on than crossed fingers.

    And for those who rest assured that she'll support gay rights, she has no real case history on that matter either.

    Bottom line: Obama missed his opportunity to appoint a liberal.  The chance will not happen again.


    Obama didn't miss an opportunity (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    to appoint a liberal. He was always going to appoint center, imo.

    It was (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:00:39 PM EST
    Voters in the primaries who missed an opportunity.

    Kucinich unfortunately (none / 0) (#134)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    didn't have much of a chance with Clinton, Obama and Edwards getting all of the attention.

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:07:57 PM EST
    I seem to remember reading somewhere that she got an annulment, but I could just be making that up.  It's not something that really concerns me either way.

    I'd just note that, as far as the choice issue goes, in the last poll I saw Catholics identified as pro-choice/pro-life in exactly the same proportion as the nation as a whole.  Yes, staunchly conservative Catholics are a different story... but, for the most part, so are staunchly conservative non-Catholics!


    All this Catholic Bashing needs to stop. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by indy in sc on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    Let me apologize right away--I don't take your post as Catholic bashing.  It's one of the fairer ones I've seen on the theme of "the fact that she's Catholic is a negative until she proves she's not too Catholic."  It presented an opportunity for my rant.

    The fact that she's Catholic is probably the least predictive of her judicial philosophy and/or likely opinions of all of her other traits (woman, Puerto Rican, from New York, from the Bronx, Ivy-League educated, former prosecutor).  There are Catholics who consider themselves "practicing" at every step of the way along the spectrum from leftist commie pinko to ultra conservative wing-nut.  I know a number of priests who are among the most socially progressive people I know.  None of them are pro-choice, mind you--but they are activists for social justice.  They work on behalf of prisoners to help them learn skills while in jail and transition back into society once out; they feed the hungry and house the homeless; they work for gender and racial equality.

    Unless she busts out a rosary at the confirmation hearings, you should assume that she falls within the mainstream spectrum of Catholics (and other Christians for that matter), the majority of whom do not follow church teachings in lock-step and the majority of whom voted for the democrat this year.


    No, not kicked out of the church (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    the church doesn't recognize divorce, so they say she's still married. If she remarries, that will be when the church takes a stand.

    Actually, my entire family is either Catholic, or recovering Catholic. Maybe it is regional, but I don't know any Catholics who aren't pro-choice. Not saying there aren't plenty of them, just not in my circle. Catholics actually do have a pretty strong will and most think for themselves.


    On Roe (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:28:39 PM EST
    Your fears are unfounded, imo. President Obama values pragmatism and would almost certainly expect that to be reflected in his first Supreme Court nomination. I think it's highly unlikely that he would appoint a jurist who would easily ignore the practical realities relating to privacy rights generally and abortion rights specifically. Despite the attacks from the pro-life forces, the core protections are safe because most of the justices on the Supreme Court acknowledge the societal reliance that Roe has created over the last four decades.

    I hope your optimism is rewarded. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    It would be dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    if I didn't say that I worry about this too. Unlike John Kerry, I don't believe that Obama promised to appoint pro-Roe Justices. I hope I'm remembering incorrectly, however.

    And in this day and age, there is a strong presumption that his appointments will be pro-choice.


    Pro-Roe is not necessarily the issue (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:23:02 PM EST
    The issue is stare decisis.

    One of the factors SCt justices must examine before overruling a long-established precedent is the societal reliance the precedent created. Setting Roe aside momentarily, I am certain that Obama and Sotomayor had a lengthy discussion about this. How could they not? Given Obama's repeated affirmations of the value of pragmatism, I cannot see him appointing someone who could easily overlook the reliance Roe created, even if that judge didn't personally agree with the decision.


    I don't agree (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    At the Supreme Court level, the question is whether they agree with the reasoning in Roe.

    Nothing else would satisfy me.


    Your concerns are understandable, but (none / 0) (#100)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:50:32 PM EST
    On a practical political level I am skeptical that five conservative justices would overrule Roe because of the damage it would do to the GOP. Roe is decidedly mainstream and very much settled law, and doing anything to disrupt that would cause a political earthquake.

    Politics aside, I think the justices would be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the societal reliance the Roe precedent created. That reliance is inarguable, no?


    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:53:09 PM EST
    But where a judge stands on Roe gives me a pretty good indication of where that judge will stand on other issues I care about. It's not sufficient to acquiesce to the idea that we've all come to rely on Roe. What's important is to genuinely believe in the basis of Roe (Griswold, etc.)

    I think Catholics (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    are allowed to divorce, or go through the fiction of an annulment, which amounts to the same thing, they're just not allowed to re-marry within the church.

    I also think you are confusing the attudes of rank-and-file Catholics with Protestand evangelicals.

    The likelihood that Sotomayor would vote to repeal Roe v Wade is essentially nil.


    Catholics (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:48:39 AM EST
    May remarry within the Church if they get an annulment.  It's that simple. (Actually, non-Catholics need an annulment to if they choose to marry again in the Church).

    Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)

    Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)

    Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)

    Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)

    Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)

    Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.

    Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.

    Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)

    One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.


    so you're saying... (none / 0) (#35)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    she's anti-family!!



    Guess on what front page? (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:13:31 PM EST

    1. Sotomayor's Rulings are Exhaustive,
       ...............But Often Narrow

    2. Pride,
       ...............And some Concerns

    3. Sotomayor, a Trailblazer,
       ...............And a Dreamer

    4. Opinions are marked by diligence,depth,
       ...............but they reveal no larger vision.


    Freedom of Information and Privacy (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lentinel on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:29:30 PM EST
    From Scotusblog  (underlining is mine)

    "Privacy and Information:  Sotomayor has encountered a wide variety of privacy and access-to-information issues in her time on the Second Circuit, including cases involving the Freedom of Information Act and employer searches of employee workspaces.

    In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to "unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making."  Thus, in Tigue v. DOJ, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002), the panel denied a tax attorney's request for a memorandum written by a Deputy U.S. Attorney outlining the office's opinions and policies regarding tax investigations, notwithstanding that the memorandum had been cited in a publicly released report.   And in Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005), while acknowledging that FOIA exemptions should be construed "narrowly, resolving all doubts in favor of disclosure," her opinion denied a reporter's request for an FBI memorandum regarding local FBI agents accused of lying.  She reasoned that the "unwarranted invasion of privacy" for the individuals whose names would be released outweighed the public interest in disclosing a government employee's identity.

    In a case involving privacy issues, Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (2001), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a public employer's search of an employee's computer after the employee was accused of being late, coming to the office infrequently, and spending his free time discussing personal computers with his coworkers.  Although she agreed that the employee had a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer," Sotomayor also cautioned that "workplace conditions can be such that an employee's expectation of privacy...is diminished."  Here, she explained, the search was permissible because it could have revealed employee misconduct."

    What do you think?
    The search of an employee's computer was permissible because it "could have revealed" employee misconduct... Say what?

    Maybe she's just fine. A true liberal. Someone on our side.
    But this stuff makes me nervous.

    the computer (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:38:15 PM EST
    was company property, i assume?

    This does not seem remarkably problematic to me. Foolhardy employee - the office computer is not your private playland.

    No opinion on the FOI cases.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:55:45 PM EST
    the office computer is not your private playland.
    But what she said was that the search was not a violation of the employee's rights because "it could have" revealed misconduct.
    His alleged offenses, being late, talking about computers to his co-workers during his free time, do not constitute to me a necessity to violate the employee's privacy in the hopes of turning up something.
    That's what makes me nervous.
    She didn't say something like companies have a right to search the computers owned by the company and used by their employees.
    She said that the company had the right to search because they might have found something. It's the language she is quoted as using. Why can't a cop just stop anybody and search because they might find something?

    And about the FOI cases...

    As I said, maybe she's a civil libertarian. I hope so.
    But I can't make any sense out of this.


    You miss the distinction (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:39:05 PM EST
    The State as "public employer" is held to a different standard for Fourth Amendment purposes than it is when it is acting in its role as the "government," and the public employee's rights are less protected than the employee's rights as a private citizen.

    The government is playing dual roles. The fact that a search in the employment context is deemed reasonable does not necessarily portend a weakening of Fourth Amendment rights for private citizens.


    based only on the examples you provide (none / 0) (#55)
    by sancho on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    it seems to me that she is comfortable preserving privacy rights up the ladder rather than down it. i would worry that she is concerned to protect the interests of those whose interests are already so well protected, rather than the interests of those most likely to fall through the cracks. not unlike roberts, though i hope she is different from him in most ways.

    He was a government employee. Some (none / 0) (#56)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:24:28 PM EST

    Plaintiff Gary Leventhal ("Leventhal") was employed as an accountant by the New York State Department of Transportation ("DOT") in its accounting bureau.  The DOT received an anonymous letter (the "Letter"), accusing several members of the accounting bureau of job-related misconduct.  The essence of these complaints was that the employees were spending their working hours on personal pursuits.  While the letter did not identify plaintiff by name, it was clear from its content that he was one of the employees it discussed.  The Letter accused plaintiff of excessive lateness and absenteeism, and of talking about personal computers.  It accused others of playing games on their office computers.

    The DOT decided to conduct an investigation to determine the validity of these charges.  As to plaintiff, this included an inspection of his office computer to determine whether it contained any 'non-standard' computer programs that had not been placed on his computer by the DOT.  A similar search was conducted of the computers of other employees suspected of being referenced in the Letter.

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    An employer wouldn't need any reason - they are not (usually) the government.  I used to work for a medium-sized software company, and it was well known that they used software that could track every keystroke and what sites you visited.  It's not your computer. Period.

    My job is as an attorney who does document reviews, where I go from law firm to law firm and project to project and we go through documents from people's hard drives in response to subpoenas and for internal investigations.  All I do ALL day is read documents from people's computers - mostly their emails.  (And if you think something is deleted, it doesn't matter - I see those too).  I can see what websites a person has visited or saved as a favorite, I see word docs, spreadsheets, jokes, pron - whatever.  If it's on your computer at work, someone like me may see it in the future, unless you completely wipe your drive (which may bring other problems to you, depending on the case).

    Rule #1 - if you wouldn't want to lose your job over it, or have your mother see it, don't put it on your computer.


    I assume (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    the point is that while most employers wouldn't need a reason, the government sometimes operates under greater restrictions because of the Constitution.  I'm personally pretty skeptical of the theory that the government-as-employer ought to be treated differently than other employers, but that's the state of the law in at least some areas.

    Having done my share of document reviews, by the way, I know exactly what you mean.  I've seen emails between employees who quite clearly were carrying on an extramarital affair - folders with hundreds of photos of prospective Russian brides - all sorts of intensely personal stuff that people apparently never imagined shouldn't be kept on work computers.


    The government as employer (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:40:39 PM EST
    In cases involving alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights by the state against public employees, the federal courts usually base their decisions on whether the public employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace and whether the state's search or seizure met the standard of reasonableness according to the specific set of facts.

    The Fourth Amendment is pretty straightforward with regards to the relationship between the individual and the state; however, when the state becomes an employer and the individual an employee, those rights shift a little. Because the state is also acting in its role as an employer, it must be accorded some leeway to operate efficiently within the work context.

    That's not to say that the employee loses all privacy rights; rather, the employee's privacy protections are loosened. For example, the state shouldn't be forced to secure a search warrant every time it needs to access its own files or records when those items are stored in an employee's unlocked desk, nor should an employee expect Fourth Amendment rights to apply in workplace areas open to the public or accessible to other employees. Basically the government (as an employer) has the right to conduct certain types of searches within the employment context, so long as those searches pass the critical balancing test: is the state's interest as an employer greater than the privacy interest of the public employee?


    I think the point was (none / 0) (#72)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:09:10 PM EST
    the absence of both a computer usage policy [...], and a regular practice by his employer of searching [employee computers]

    Notably, while the DOT had a policy that prohibited the use of "State equipment," including personal computers, "for personal business," it did not have a written policy that advised employees that their office computers were subject to search, or that they had no expectation of privacy therein.

    How about someday... (none / 0) (#138)
    by lentinel on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    a search warrant - instead of a fishing expedition?

    Her opinion as stated gives me no confidence that she identifies with the working class. Rather it gives me the feeling that she will side with the more powerful.

    She reminds me of Obama.

    A Bush appointee.
    What a credit.


    Bush appointee? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    The news said Clinton appointed her.

    Bush and then Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:51:28 PM EST
    George H W Bush nominated her to the US District for NY (91).  

    Clinton nominated her to the US Court of Appeals in 97 [Republicans said they did not want to consider the nomination because elevating Sotomayor to the Appeals Court would enhance her prospects of being appointed to the Supreme Court.]

    According to wiki she was suggested to GW who picked Alito (05).


    I agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    that what's disturbing is the language, the reason for her decision that's troubling.  

    Searching a computer, owned by the employer and used by the employee is perfectly legitimate.  If that had been the basis of her opinion I would in no way feel anxious.


    Privacy in sphere of public employment (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:28:35 PM EST
    Just from reading the underlined passage you cite, I don't see any reason to be alarmed by her opinion in that particular case. That holding is consistent with case law because the employee in that case was found to be in violation of workplace policy. The plaintiff was an accountant in a state department of transportation who was anonymously accused by letter of basically being a crappy employee. That letter therefore served as a basis for his bosses to take a closer look at the contents of his work computer, at which point they discovered he had downloaded tax programs that he was using for his own tax business. Is that really an unreasonable search? I don't think so. it seems to me that Sotomayor's opinion correctly balanced the interests of the state with the privacy interests of the public employee.  

    Could be worse (none / 0) (#82)
    by jerry on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    It could have been Spy Cam Jan who as governor did everything she could to install cameras at the borders, on freeways, on streets.

    I wonder what it says about us Democrats that in power with an almost filibuster proof lead, are evil commie loving country destroying pick turned out to be a former prosecutor (like Jan).

    Who was the last defense attorney appointed to the court?


    Scalia has indeed maintained a "coherent' (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by tokin librul on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    philosophy, which would be immediately recognized and seconded by Benito Mussolino...

    Vafanculo, Turley...

    Rosen's rehabilitation falls flat (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    FWright said:

    "She obviously wasn't my first choice, for reasons I reported three weeks ago..."

    Gossiped, Jeffrey.  The word is gossiped, not reported.

    You're as bad as Turley, maybe worse (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jerry on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    "Not on the appellate court he didn't. Turley is inventing a new standard never before seen. Just a coincidence because it is a Latina nominee? You make the call."

    You've done this before BTD.

    The charge of racist or sexist is a very serious charge BTD -- I can think of few charges worse than that.  If you are going to call the man a racist, you need much more proof than just your accusation, noting one data point, and saying "you make the call."

    Damnit, you did exactly what you just complained about Turley doing, except with a worse charge, calling Turley a racist when all he did was call her stupid.

    Sigh, you're why we can't have nice things.

    It is remarkable (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:28:38 PM EST
    that it is always the minority candidates who face charges that, notwithstanding an impressive lifetime of accomplishment, they are actually not very bright.  Clarence Thomas has certainly faced his share of this.

    But of course, it could just be a coincidence.  Can't really draw any conclusions, as you say, without ironclad proof of racism, preferably in the form of a signed confession.


    Do you live in an alternate universe? (none / 0) (#81)
    by jerry on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:36:24 PM EST
    The past eight years we've all been acknowledging how absolutely stupid George W. Bush is.  How stupid Cheney is.  And now it's how stupid Geithner is.  How stupid Summers is.

    By any measure, all of these guys had an impressive lifetime of accomplishment even as we called them stupid.


    In my universe (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    Cheney, Geithner, and Summers have not been called stupid.  Maybe in your universe, I guess, or maybe you feel it strengthens your argument to make stuff up.

    Steve M. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:35:09 AM EST
    honestly, Geithner and Summers (and Obama and Bernanke) have been called stupid, using that word and many, many synonyms, on this blog repeatedly, even relentlessly.

    I'm sympathetic to your overall point, but you chose very bad examples.


    I didn't choose them (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:03:18 AM EST
    and regardless, random comments on a blog are far different from the mainstream challenges that are being lodged against Sotomayor's intellect.

    Unless we are interested in being hyperhyperliteral I assume we can agree that terms like "stupid" or "idiot" are often used in a casual way to indicate the simple fact of disagreement.

    I cannot think of a single example where the intellectual heft of Cheney, Geithner or Summers has ever been challenged in any serious way.  Have random people off the street said things like "he's an idiot for believing such-and-such," of course they have.

    Where was the whispering campaign that Sam Alito might not have the intellectual chops for the job?  Where were the questions about John Roberts?  But somehow, when there's a minority appointee like Thurgood Marshall, Sonia Sotomayor, and yes, Clarence Thomas, somehow there's always a question as to whether they're on the same intellectual plane as their white male colleagues.  It's a hard pattern to miss, frankly.


    you didn't know that white man is the (none / 0) (#124)
    by of1000Kings on Wed May 27, 2009 at 02:48:50 AM EST
    smartest species on the earth?

    why else would God himself have anointed us the leaders of the world, as he did...


    But are the troops out carpeting (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:54:15 AM EST
    (or is the term astroturfing?) the media about their intellect?

    I feel beat up for just being born a woman today. Yet again . . .


    If Cheney, Geithner, and Summers (none / 0) (#86)
    by jerry on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:45:45 PM EST
    are considered smart in your universe, than I guess that does explain a lot of your postings here.

    ROFL (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    From my factual statement that Cheney, Geithner and Summers have not had their intellect called into question, you infer that I think they are all smart.  Your logic skills need a serious brush-up!

    From your statement (none / 0) (#96)
    by jerry on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:34:07 PM EST
    I infer you really do live in an alternate universe, and a universe inhabited by morons.

    The other alternative is that you are deaf, and blind, because in this universe, in this blogosphere, at this blog, these characters have been called idiots many times.

    Either of these alternatives explains your posting and does in a kindly fashion in which you are not just disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

    P.S.  It's nice how you left Bush out, because even you recognize the numbers of times he's been called an idiot.  All of this demonstrates my point, that well accomplished people are often called idiots for nothing have to do with race.  But if you wish to see racism in Turley for this one post, this one interpretation from BTD, well have at it, as I said, I am glad I don't live in your universe, and very glad and hopeful you are not a prosecutor in this one.


    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Steve M on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    I thought you were addressing the actual point, which is that Sotomayor's intellectual ability is being seriously questioned in mainstream circles for no legitimate reason, but now I see you think that random pejoratives uttered by random blog commentors amount to the same thing!  I see now why you're confused.

    I'll leave you now to grind your usual axe about the white man's burden.


    I see now you're calling me a racist too (none / 0) (#107)
    by jerry on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:28:05 AM EST
    Okay so Turley is a racist, I'm a racist, and many many people from blog commenters, to bloggers, to economists, to even feminists are unimportant wankers for calling Summers, Geithner, and Cheney idiots.

    I'm sure you're a marvelous lawyer.  When you can't pound even the table, you keep pounding yourself.


    Part of the "white man's burden" complex (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:06:48 AM EST
    is this tendency to fly off the handle with comments like "oh, so you're calling me a racist!" at the drop of a hat.  Believe me, it's a very well-documented and very predictable species of martyrdom.

    Let me clarify that (none / 0) (#108)
    by jerry on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:32:56 AM EST
    You have no evidence that Turley is a racist beyond BTD's interpretation here and no chance for Turley to respond.

    You are happy to smear Turley, and you turn around and you are happy to smear me.

    You have apparently been in hiding for years while people have called Cheney and idiot and people including feminists have discussed Summers stupidity and you currently are saying you believe only blog commenters have called Geithner an idiot.

    You say all this because there is no way you can otherwise defend your point that only minorities are called stupid and when they are it's due to racism.

    And then you tell me I have no idea what logic is.

    I have no idea what profession you are in, but I am certain you are doing your clients a huge disservice.


    one insult does not fit all (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:10:55 AM EST
    People have called Cheney and Summers many names, but "stupid" is not typically one of them. Sure, Summers' comments about women's achievement may have been labeled "dumb," but nobody said HE was dumb. That's a key distinction that you are being too defensive to notice (or acknowledge).

    Sotomayor is being labelled as insufficiently intelligent, lacking in scholarly rigor, etc -- she herself, not individual comments she has made.


    Heh (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:37:15 AM EST
    My gawd, what a thread from you.

    According to the Supreme Court, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:44:39 PM EST
     it doesn't matter where she wrote it...

    In brief, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court held that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is . . . not immunized by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech."

    And of course no one stopped her "freedom of speech"...  the school just did not grant her the privilege of running for class secretary (an extracurricular activity)while she was engaged in uncivil and offensive communications regarding school administrators

    There are a number of exceptions to FOIA (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lobary on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    If you didn't know any better, you'd think that Sotomayor's opinion in Tigue was especially pernicious because it prevented the disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act. However, it's useful to know that the government can invoke a number of exceptions to prevent releasing that information, including 1) issues classified by the Executive as relating to national defense or foreign policy, 2) issues related solely to internal personnel rules or practices, 3) issues specifically exempted by statute, 4) trade secrets, 5) personnel or medical files, and 6) inter-agency or intra-agency memos, letters.

    The document at issue in Tigue was clearly an intra-agency memo that was a product of the deliberative process agencies use in determining what decisions and policies to enact, and if you read the opinion yourself you will see how she arrived at this conclusion. Frankly, her decision in this instance is very much in the mainstream.  

    Remember the old saying (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:38:50 AM EST
    "Your rights only extend to the end of your nose"?

    What this childish girl (hopefully) learned is that while she certainly has the freedom of speech to post whatever she wants online, with that freedom comes responsibility. That's where many people miss the point - just because you may have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean there won't be consequences for saying it. And you if choose to exercise your right to freedom of speech, then you must be willing to accept those consequences .

    In this case, the school was perfectly within their rights to determine who got to represent it. This girl's case was as silly as those where parents try to sue the school because their precious didn't get an "A".

    What do you think (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    about Turley's characterization of Sotomayor's record with respect to civil liberties?

    It;s a characteriuzaton (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    not a supported one.

    Turley is not worth responding to or paying attention to imo.

    I just wanted to have some fun at his expense.


    Hell, Sacalia... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    ...thinks history is just the annoying rulings of inferior jurists in the past that he has an obligation to "correct".  I wish guys like Turley would just be man enough to come out and say what they really mean -- which is, in short, I have to write something cynical, so this is what I chose.  Dope.

    This kind of analysis by (none / 0) (#5)
    by coast on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    Turley and others on the right is pointless.  What is there to gain by trying to question/smear this pick?  The answer - nothing.  So why not do something different for a change and just say she is qualified and move on.

    Turley on the Right?!!! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    Well I guess he is if you consider anyone who is almost a daily guest on Maddow and Olbermann - and who has for a long time spoken out against issues like:

    The Bush administration
    The non-release of torture photos by Obama
    Obama-Bush tribunal system
    Obama-Bush Executive privilege
    etc, etc

    Pretty funny stuff on this thread. A guy who is regularly on the side of the Left if now tarred & feathered because he has an opinion on how opinions should be written.

    He should write a piece on the inconsistency of blogs and title in Love Me & Then Leave Me.

    And someone in this thread calls him a "Dope"!


    Surely you have forgotten (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    Turley's role as Grand Inquisitor during the Clinton impeachment?  Other than Ken Starr, there wasn't a more impassioned devotee of chasing Bill Clinton out of the White House.  

    He is certainly NOT "regularly on the side of the Left."  Far from it.


    Clinton lied to (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:17:07 PM EST
    a Grand Jury. LIED UNDER OATH!

    Are you saying nothing should have been done about a sitting President who is supposed to uphold the law and willingly broke the law? A President who took an OATH to uphold the law and broke that oath by breaking another OATH.

    And Turley who believes in upholding the law should not have criticized Clinton or supported the impeachment hearing because to do so was not being devoted to the Left?

    Perhaps you as a Lefty believe that breaking the law is OK for a Democrat and they should just get off scott free. I don't. Turley didn't.

    But from your post you do. Which makes you no different than the Right Wing Nuts who think Bush should get off scott free.

    Think about that! Where do you line up?


    I think you're entirely too moderate (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:18:24 PM EST
    Bill Clinton obviously should have been indicted for smuggling cocaine and killing Vince Foster.

    I heard he (none / 0) (#49)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:35:51 PM EST
    kicked his dog too. Him and Michael Vick - two of a kind. lol

    You're forgetting (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:31:19 PM EST
    That to impeach and subsequently convict a president requires that he commit "high crimes and misdemeanors".

    So lying, even under oath, about a consensual affair -- in basically an ambush situation about something that shouldn't have been asked about in the first place -- amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors?

    Hmm, I save that judgment for lying to get us into wars, creating preventive detention policies, thereby violating our consititution, and such things.

    Clinton was punished for the lying.  But removing a sitting president for the kind of lie that happens in divorce court every day with no recourse would be beyond extreme -- and that's why the Republican Senate didn't convict.  It was not a precedent they wanted to set.


    So because (none / 0) (#50)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:43:10 PM EST
    others lie in divorce court then that changes the law and makes it OK for a president to lie under oath? Then you would feel the same if Bush did that? Cheney? I don't think so.

    But hey, I'll try looking up your new law in the statues and see if Joe Plumber lying and committing perjury makes it OK for a President to lie and commit perjury.

    But last I looked perjury is perjury and there are no caveats.

    BTW perjury is a felony.


    That silly right wing meme (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    is pathetically silly and makes those who continue to use it as an excuse for what Newt and the other hate mongers were doing look just as silly.

    Bill's lie had nothing to do with a HIGH CRIME, with anything remotely dangerous to the country.  Deal with it...it was a right wing nasty conspiracy started by Scaife and the other right wing nut cases back in Arkansas.  For anyone to repeat this nonsense shows a lack of understanding of the issues.


    Tsk Tsk (none / 0) (#114)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:58:47 AM EST
    Clinton got disbarred for lying and agreed to it. he agreed he lied and to avoid penalty for lying he agreed to be disbarred for 5 years.

    Your the one with silly memes.


    You do not know (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:00:27 PM EST
    what perjury means.

    Just a question (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:27:14 PM EST
    Isn't it only considered perjury if the question is actually pertinent?

    Sure I do (none / 0) (#115)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:02:03 AM EST
    It is intentionally lying when under oath - as opposed to unintentionally lying which is not perjury.


    Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

    "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ... ." [12]

    I don't know what kind of attorney you are but the judge in the case and Clinton himself disagrees with you.


    I thought he was disbarred (none / 0) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    for it. How's that getting off scott free?

    Thanks (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:07:09 AM EST
    You make my case. Had he not done anything wrong he never would have been disbarred.

    BTW he also got fined $90,000 for failing to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.


    I don't think so, but you seem to (none / 0) (#136)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:36:48 PM EST
    be on a roll....why in the world are you still so passionate about that foolish witch hunt that ended in such a farce of a process, anyway?

    Bill Clinton was subjected to a humiliation that no other president before or after has been put through. The only misstep he made was not being honest about a trist, outside of that he handled himself with extraordinary patience and class through those meritless scandals.


    If you go back (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    and read the thread I am not the one who brought up Clinton. Another poster brought him up in a response to my post. And of course he wrote the entire Clinton episode off as a witch hunt like you if I recall.

    Of course you guys want to forget that if Clinton, who I mostly like, was not a dumb a*s there would have not been a witch to hunt. A smart guy in a power position hooking up with a 21 year old and he didn't think twice about her blabbing about it or writing a book!

    And fyi it didn't just end up in a farce process. It ended up in two courts for Bill. One cost him $90,000 in a law suit that Paula Jones brought on him and the other court let him off easy and disbarred him for 5 years.

    He broke the law by committing perjury. Do your homework. And he's lucky he didn't end up in a third courtroom for committing adultery.

    All that was on him - not a witch hunt.

    Not to mention the embarrassment to his wife and child.

    No BJ, and he would have had no problems. He opened the flood gates.


    Probably shouldn't egg you on, but (none / 0) (#142)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed May 27, 2009 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    it's too hard to resist.

    You have to be kidding.

    People who take such a hardline stand on things like this are often hiding their own truth. Not saying you are one of them, but there reaches a level when the only option is to back away from such rantings with the thought, "me thinks he doth protest too much...."

    It's okay. My opinion won't change your life.


    Ditto (none / 0) (#143)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    wow (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    You used ALL CAPS.

    I'm convinced now.


    if they wouldn't have been wasting time to begin (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    with then Clinton wouldn't have been in a position to lie...

    then again, we all know that getting a BJ is something worth investing, whereas things like starting a war under false pretenses and torturing are things that we should just let be....


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    Turley was spouting off as much Clinton hate as he has Bush hate......
    he apparently likes to impeach, or take things down...whatever..

    Maddow and Olberman, not particularly know for their loyalty to the Clinton administration, are not quite the test for whether one is left or right...
    more like, hate Clintons, you're OK with them....


    asdf (none / 0) (#46)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    Are you a Republican or ... (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by aeguy on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:28:55 PM EST
    one of those Clinton hating Dems? Just curious.

    The most fervent Clinton haters (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:37:50 PM EST
    are in a party all to themselves. Not a very successful one, but bitter and pathetic, nonetheless.

    I actually (none / 0) (#122)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    like Clinton. Voted for him twice. A few of his centrist policies I wasn't so keen on though. But all in all a good president and still like him.

    The difference between me and others is I don't ignore the facts of his two court testimonies in which he lied and got penalized for both offenses. Those are facts. Facts don't lie. You can ignore them like you are but they are still facts and the judgments are on the books.

    So definitely not, I don't hate Clinton. I just look at the indisputable good and bad of each person. Some people can't stomach doing that.


    LOL@Love Me & Then Leave Me (none / 0) (#29)
    by dutchfox on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:11:55 PM EST
    Yeah, I just saw him on the Maddow programme. He's not a right winter by any stretch.

    Time for everyone to join in on a round (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:39:52 PM EST
    of "Clinton Got a Blow Job"

    All together now...


    You're right (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:03:40 AM EST
    he's not a right-winger.  He's just a blowhard and a moron.

    Someone on CNN opined (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    the GOP will fuss and delay only for the purpose of rallying the base.

    As part of that base (none / 0) (#17)
    by coast on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:15:52 PM EST
    I would rather see them send her thru without any fuss.  I think it would be  welcomed change from the previous appointment hearings.

    From the bits I'm hearing (none / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:01:52 AM EST
    they're not quite so helpless as that.

    I think they're going to use Sotomayor to establish some ground rules.  They'll confirm her, but they're going to use her to establish the standards by which they will block the next one-- or two or three.

    I heard Jeff Sessions (ranking JCom Republican), Ken Starr (!) and Karl Rove on Fox this evening, all of whom said right at the top they thought she would be confirmed rather easily, but then went on to yada, yada, yada, yada about her various "troubling" statements and judicial opinions and how those would have to be examined and explored in great depth.  Sessions was very concerned that she didn't appear to be "humble" -- a word he repeated several times -- in her appreciation of the Constitution.

    Rove said that when they were vetting Alito, who served on a court with her at one point, they heard in passing all kinds of not nice things about her "temperament," that she corrected other judges memos for grammar and spelling "like a schoolmarm," and that she was incapable of creating consensus because she was too harsh and bombastic.

    (Ladies, does this stuff sound familiar or what!)


    Interesting (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:17:36 AM EST
    Sorta reminds me of something I wrote once...

    By the way, I don't believe the careers of Sotomayor and Alito have ever crossed paths, so maybe you misheard that point.


    Karl Rove (none / 0) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:39:01 AM EST
    "I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court, while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues."

    I'm only reporting what he's saying.  You think he managed to get that wrong somehow?  I have little respect for ROve, but it strikes me as unlikely he would have gotten this carefully introduced bit wrong.


    Don't see how (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    Alito served on the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. She serves on the 2nd Circuit in New York.

    Look who he's speaking for and then ask yourself (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:03:27 AM EST
    again . . .  did he get it wrong or was he just adding to the onslaught. Most people aren't going to check that fact. It seems they have obviously picked their talking points and 2 quotes of hers to smear her with, so it's not surprising that some of the spinners are going to try and make some of those points more "personal". Whether true or not.

    Remember Iraq? Oh hell, remember the past 8 yrs? And then we can also look at the primaries . . .


    I may be wrong (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:08:44 AM EST
    about a great many things in life, but I am confident that the Second Circuit and the Third Circuit are two entirely different courts.  And unlike Sotomayor, Alito never was a trial judge at all, so he couldn't have meant a different court.

    Don't law student always (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    Hope for a tidy package?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    I once encountered a lawyer (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    on jury duty who sd. His favorite course was Con law because it was "bright line."

    Oy (none / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 26, 2009 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    Yes because (none / 0) (#22)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    they are exactly that - - STUDENTS!

    Just learning to walk.


    Speaking for myself only, of course (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    Concerns about Sotomayor (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    In Turley's discussion of Sotomayor (link), he made two references to her decisions involving different aspects of the suppression of civil liberties.

    The first:
    "Open government advocates might be uncomfortable with her involvement in Tigue v. DOJ and Wood v. FBI. Both cases narrowly construed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    The second:
    "In the Second Circuit has ruled against high school student Avery Doninger who contested her punishment for posting an objectionable message on an Internet site about Lewis Mills High School. When she objected to the cancellation of a school event in vulgar terms, school officials barred her from running for Senior Class secretary. In Doninger v. Niehoff, the Second Circuit upheld the right of school officials to punish students for out-of-school speech in a major blow to both the first amendment and student rights

    While federal courts routinely state that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), they honor that rule primarily in the breach. There has been a steady reduction of student rights from mandatory drug testing to school searches to punishment for writings in newspapers and out-of-school activities. Circuit judges Sotomayor, Livingston, and district judge Preska (sitting by designation) followed this troubling trend."

    I haven't seen any discussion of this.
    I don't know if this warrants any concern from people who want the expansion of our liberties rather than the suppression of them.
    But, for the moment, I withhold any personal enthusiasm for this nominee until I have seen these concerns addressed by people on the left.

    Maybe because (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    There's been a steady decline in behavior appropriate for the school setting by students, so much so, that more and diverse disruptions to the pedagogical nature have been seen?  And as pointed out in a previous thread - no way 40 years ago would someone's parent sue because their precious baby girl wasn't the Senior Secretary, when same precious baby girl showed herself to be a disrespectful, childish, a$$hole?

    Class secretary was a privilege not a right (none / 0) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    I laugh at Turley's theory (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoephone on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:35:23 PM EST
    that what Democrats really, really want is a liberal version of Scalia. I've never understood where that talking point comes from. I consider it bunk.

    Sonia 'n Sam 'n Scalia (none / 0) (#129)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    "I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court, while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues."

    Ooh, a scrappy gurl who has an opinion?  An angry girlie?  That's scary.  Fine for Scalia to be like that.  But a gurrrl?  Yikes.

    Sam Alito as a source?

    Say, would that be the same Sam who, at Princeton, was an activist demonstrating against Princeton admitting girls?  Girls like Sonia Sotomayor?  Ha.

    If the word smarmy didn't exist. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed May 27, 2009 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    Someone would have to coin it to describe Jonathan Turley.

    Turley's entitled to his opinions... (none / 0) (#135)
    by JoeCHI on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:56:38 PM EST

    the right wing machine is already citing both (none / 0) (#137)
    by DFLer on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    Rosen's and Turley's comments about  her "intellect"
    as proof that she is unqualified and that this is a affirmative action appt.