Jeffrey Rosen's Inept Analysis Of Judicial Nominees

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

< What Would "Neutral" Judging Look Like In Ricci? | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More likely that temperament (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by oldpro on Sun May 31, 2009 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    is the most reliable predictor of columnist/pundit success...or failure.

    Someone should tell Rosen to stop digging...he's only getting in deeper with every word.

    And now John Cole has to (none / 0) (#2)
    by oldpro on Sun May 31, 2009 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    take Chait to the woodshed for trying to rescue Rosen.


    Rosen is now the Tar Baby of lore.