Rosen's assertions about the added information he now claims he had squarely contradicts his principal self-defense here: that there was no way for him to have written a meaningful assessment of Sotomayor without quoting anonymous sources who trashed her. Quite obviously, he could have and should have done what he now claims he began to do: read her opinions, consult published sources about her abilities, and then state his opinions by citing the evidence for it. After that, if he thought it was necessary, he could get people to speak on the record about Sotomayor. Allowing people to malign her anonymously was, by far, the least reliable of the methods to use, yet it was the one on which virtually the entire piece was based. The fact that he now claims he had other methods available to him simply bolsters the conclusion that there was no justification for passing on malignant gossip from hidden sources masquerading as Serious analysis.

Professor Darren Hutchinson noted:

Given Rosen's background in law, it might surprise many readers of his essay that Professor Rosen does not offer his own independent analysis of Sotomayor's rulings to support his condemnation of her candidacy. Instead, Rosen admits his own ignorance regarding Sotomayor's jurisprudence and the limits of the group of persons he interviewed. . . . Despite his admitted lack of knowledge regarding Sotomayor's judicial record, Rosen urges President Obama to "satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble." Rosen has described Sotomayor as a "gamble" even though he admits that he has incomplete knowledge of her record as a judge. Reaching a conclusion about a person without knowledge or with incomplete knowledge of the individual's qualifications seems like a standard example of prejudice, but readers can draw their own conclusions about Rosen's motivation.

While Rosen does not independently analyze Sotomayor's jurisprudence, he mentions two cases that supposedly raise questions about her capabilities. First, he cites to a footnote in an opinion written by Judge Ralph Winter, a senior judge on the Second Circuit, which discusses a case that Sotomayor authored. Rosen says that the footnote is "unusual" and that Judge Winter finds that Sotomayor's opinion "might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants."

Rosen's assertion is patently untrue, and it grossly distorts the footnote's language. Winter's footnote is not "unusual." Instead, the footnote chides lawyers for misreading Sotomayor's ruling and for trying to expand the case beyond its holding [. . .]

The New Yorker's Amy Davidson noted:

We’re just getting started with the possible replacements for Justice Souter—but Jeffrey Rosen’s “The Case Against Sotomayor” is really a bit much. To review, Sonia Sotomayor sits on the U.S. Appeals Court. She was raised in difficult circumstances in the South Bronx, and is Hispanic. Rosen writes:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. . . . The Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague . . . The Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Actually, Cabranes was making a different point. Here’s the part of his quote that Rosen—oddly enough—omits: “She’s tough and tenacious as well as smart.” That “smart” bit would have been helpful in a piece about whether she’s smart. . . . Also: “Charitably” is just the wrong word to describe how Cabranes speaks of Sotomayor (the Times notes, as Rosen does not, that he was “a mentor and former professor of Sotomayor’s at Yale Law School”), but it is of a piece with Rosen’s condescension. She got herself from the South Bronx to Princeton where—let’s say this before the affirmative-action gears start turning—she graduated summa cum laude, and to Yale, where she was an editor on the Yale Law Journal. She probably got financial aid—perhaps that’s charitable, and perhaps Rosen, indirectly, was reminding us of that. A person could spend a lot of time unpacking the assumptions about race, class, and gender underlying his piece (do tough questions sound less grating in a male, Massachusetts accent?), but the process is more likely to be tiring than edifying. Here’s one question, though: Is the problem that she won’t fit in at D.C. dinner parties? We keep hearing about how Souter didn’t like those, so maybe that’s just fine.

At this point, there are many insinuations being bandied about about Rosen's motivations in writing his piece (they run the gamut from familial connections (his brother in law stands to move up to Solicitor General should another possible candidate, current SG Elena Kagan, be elevated to the Court) to ethnic and gender prejudice. Greenwald noted that Rosen was a staunch defender of Chief Justice Roberts and raised concerns that President Obama may be too concerned with "diversity."

The evidence seems spotty on drawing any conclusions about Rosen's motivations. However, it is not too soon to draw conclusions about the value of Rosen's work in evaluating judicial candidates. His judgment on Chief Justice Roberts was spectacularly wrong. His piece on Judge Sotomayor has been exposed as shoddy and an embarassment. John Cole's judgment on the episode is interesting:

The thing that really stands out for me is that this was so urgent, so vital, so important, that the TNR and Jeffrey Rosen had to smear this woman BEFORE SHE WAS EVEN THE NOMINEE. It wasn’t just that the initial piece was riddled with errors, that it was based on the catty and cowardly chatter of anonymous law clerks, nor that it was such an obviously fact-free smear job that even the Powerline refused to give it any weight and dismissed it as a “gossipy report,” but what seems so particularly egregious to me is that all of this was done before she was even the nominee.

This has irreversibly changed her life, her workplace conditions, and her relationships with the people she works with right now, and she may never be nor was ever in line to be the nominee. Regardless, thanks to Rosen and the editiorial genius of Franklin Foer, a substantial portion of the country has been presented a portrayal of her as “an intellectually deficient, stunted, egotistical affirmative-action beneficiary.” . . . What Rosen and these anonymous sources did to her was not only unprofessional and inexcusable, it was cruel and it was a pre-emptive smearing. How would any of you like a whisper campaign published against you in the TNR for a position you aren’t even seeking or probably aren’t even in line to receive? How would Jeffrey Rosen like it?

(Emphasis supplied.) I think and hope Cole is wrong about the effect on Sotomayor. The energetic, eloquent and persuasive defenses of Sotomayor's judicial qualities and intellect have, in my view, instead reversed the focus onto Jeffrey Rosen himself and his intellectual and professional deficiencies.

It is my view that it is Jeffrey Rosen whose reputation will never be the same after this episode. The case made against Jeffrey Rosen and The New Republic is strong. His response was weak and illogical.

It seems clear to me that anything Rosen now writes on this subject will simply not be treated as "serious." Greenwald writes:

TPM's Brian Beutler notes that, having been widely chided, Rosen today virtually reversed himself concerning his assessment of Sotomayor's fitness, from the original piece's warning that "given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble," to today's praise that "Sotomayor is an able candidate--at least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices--and if Obama is convinced she is the best candidate on his short list, he should pick her." That, I suppose, is progress -- as well as a testament to the growing ability of those outside the Respectable Intellectual Center to impose checks on what they do -- but, I suspect, the damage to Sotomayor's reputation from Rosen's recklessness has already been done.

(Emphasis supplied.) Again, I believe and hope Glenn is wrong but I do think the damage Rosen has done to himself is not likely to be reversed.

Speaking for me only