Today the Senate Judiciary Committee posted a letter supporting confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court signed by over 1,100 law professors from around the country. Organized by the Alliance for Justice, and promoted by professors at various schools (including Columbia, which released the letter to the press), the letter makes the standard case for Sotomayor's confirmation:
Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court an extraordinary personal story, academic qualifications, remarkable professional accomplishments and much needed ethnic and gender diversity. We are confident that Judge Sotomayor’s intelligence, her character forged by her extraordinary background and experience, and her profound respect for the law and the craft of judging make her an exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court and we urge her speedy confirmation.The letter is pretty standard stuff for this sort of thing. One paragraph in particular caught my eye:
As a federal judge at both the trial and appellate levels, Judge Sotomayor has distinguished herself as a brilliant, careful, fair-minded jurist whose rulings exhibit unfailing adherence to the rule of law. Her opinions reflect careful attention to the facts of each case and a reading of the law that demonstrates fidelity to the text of statutes and the Constitution. She pays close attention to precedent and has proper respect for the role of courts and the other branches of government in our society. She has not been reluctant to protect core constitutional values and has shown a commitment to providing equal justice for all who come before her. (emphasis added)Having now read dozens upon dozens of Sotomayor's opinions and other decisions in which she joined, I think this is a defensible summary of Judge Sotomayor's record on the bench (though reasonable people could also reach a somewhat different conclusion). What I wonder, however, is what percentage of the 1,100-plus signatories to the letter are sufficiently familiar with her record to have reached an informed, expert judgment?
I am sure many academics have spent the last several weeks poring over Sotomayor's work, and that many such folks signed the letter. But I am also quite confident that some of those who signed the letter have not read more than a case or two, and based their judgment on news reports and other second-hand information. For some, I suspect, merely receiving a solicitation from a colleague (or from the AFJ) to support a liberal president's liberal nominee was sufficient.
The whole point of a law professor letter is to establish authoritative support for a particular position. It communicates the message that presumed experts have come to a reasoned, and presumably authoritative, conclusion that non-experts should heed. In this case, the position espoused is not merely that Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed — a view which most law professors almost certainly share — but also that her opinions demonstrate certain, specific characteristics that are desirable as a judge. The underlying claim may be true. Yet I doubt all 1,100-plus signatories took the time to assure themselves of this fact before lending their names, and the authority of their positions, to the letter.
Let me be clear that my concern is not with the substance of the letter. I do not oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation and believe that reasonable people could well conclude that her record support's the letter's claims. I assume that many signatories and those who solicited signatures are familiar with Judge Sotomayor's record. I also have little doubt that most all of those on the letter would support Judge Sotomayor's confirmation even after reading every jot of writing she's ever produced. My concern is that some legal academics appear willing to place their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity and would sign such a letter before confirming, for themselves, that everything the letter says is actually true. This is not the first time I've expressed this concern. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE: Jason Mazzone suggests that some enterprising journalist should call random signatories to the letter and ask which Sotomayor opinions demonstrate the traits identified in the letter.
I am not an academic, but I saw enough embarrassments that I adopted the rule of never signing anyone else's document even if I agreed with it; if I felt strongly about something, I wrote my own. (This policy also allowed me to say "no" to a request to sign something that I disagreed with without getting into an argument.)
.
I think their endorsement of Sotomayor was a foregone conclusion.
For liberal academics it's "is she one of us or one of them?"
Or maybe: "Obama good. Obama good"
Re: Ricci, the result isn't controversial, but the panel botched it administratively. It looks like the panel decided to sweep a controversial case under the rug. Sotomayor is not solely responsible for that, but she does bear some responsibility for it, and I hope she gets asked about it.
From the legal perspective that might be valid, but shouldn't they widen their horizons a bit and consider the multi-decade impact on the U.S. from putting a former member of not just one but two far-left racial power groups on the highest court in the land?
There were upwards of 300 for McConnell, and that was for a lowly circuit court position.
.
Against! But not 1,000.
Law Professors Opposing Supreme Court Nominations
Perhaps they're waiting for a petition in opposition, see cboldt's link above.
More like one of the worst cases of complete-failure-by outsiders-to-understand-the-context-of-the-debate.
Of course, if you were at Duke at the time, I'd love to hear your perspective.
The context of the debate???
Do you really mean to defend the Duke 88, here of all places?
More likely, the implication of this letter was, "sign, or kiss tenure goodbye, both in this lifetime and the next."
.
CWA Says Judge Alito Will Withstand Lefts Blood Sport Jan 9, 2006
Don't be coy, Adler.
You're making some serious charges. Name names.
I was surprised to suddenly see both how many experts on the Honduran constitution there were, and how they all agreed that the military ouster of the president was not a coup.
Probably the exact same as the percentage of Senators and Representatives who have actually ( will actually ) READ the 'cap and tax' bill or the upcoming health bill(s) before voting on them.
IOW - Damned few, if any.
"sufficiently familiar with her record to have reached an informed, expert judgment?"
It will be interesting to see if this is true, especially given the view of many on the defense bar that she's not all that willing to protect rights when asserted by criminal defenants. The strong endorsement from law enforcement isn't a good sign. Informed speculation is that she may be the fifth vote to overrule or greatly limit the Court's recent discovery that the Sixth Amendment right to confront your accusers means you actually get to confront your accusers. (Thank you Scalia!)
That said, skepticism or opposition from the criminal defense bar is highly unlikely to damage her confirmation chances. Everyone should get used to saying, "Justice Sotomayor."
[1] For an example of a liberal sewer, see MattY's blog.
1. Given the timing of the letter, I would read NOTHING into who did NOT sign the letter. A lot of this happened during the AALS New Law Profs Conference and a lot of other summer conferences, so I imagine more would have signed. I know at my home institution, my colleagues and I debated sending the letter around again, but half of us are out of town. SO, many more might have signed.
2. I resent terribly your insinuation that those that signed the letter "place[d] their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity and would sign such a letter before confirming, for themselves, that everything the letter says is actually true." That is simply an uncalled for and unsupported accusation. SCOTUSBlog - which to my knowledge is not partisan - did a four part series on Sotomayor's cases. Many other outlets have done the same and have reached the conclusion you itlaicized in your post. Most recently, the Congressional Research Service declared that it conld not find an ideological bent in Sotomayor's opinions. In other words, any law prof that wanted the information to vefify the statement merely needed to click on a few links. As the X-files said, "the truth was out there." The insinuation that the signing profs didn't do their homework is just mean. Given the almost instant attacks on Sotomayor, I'm sure most of them were following the information quite closely. So, thanks to Jeffey Rosen, the profs are probably quite well educated on all sides of the issue.
What bothers me is that your allegation is just a more academic and intelligent way of saying that we've drunk the Obama Kool-aid and the other things the more rabid right-wingers say. Give us some credit. We do think before we support our president and his positions. Just be fair.
I doubt Professor Adler meant to say that you had committed academic misconduct.
No, I think Professor Adler had some specific colleagues in mind. He should simply name them, and present his proof.
RPT: I expect lies like that at MattY's place [1], but not here. Neither Sen Sessions nor I have said anything remotely like what you claim we said. Here's my coverage of one of the racial power groups Sotomayor joined.
[1] For an example of a liberal sewer, see MattY's blog.
</blockquote>
So a poster at VC missrepresents something that you said, and your move is to shit on Matt Yglesias. Way to claim the higher ground.
On teh internets, a signed argument shall always defeat an anonymous argument, regardless of their respective substantive strengths.
I think the random call-up would be a great piece of investigation... but it is a foregone conclusion that it will prove that the signatories don't know all that much about her opinion-writing. So calling for such a tactic is simply a partisan manoeuver here.
I'm sure we all know the nomination process is probably very informal. She makes clear her desire to be nominated up back-channels and at cocktail parties. She gets an interview, gets asked a few questions about abortion, and she's in like flint, with the full weight of the institutional revolution behind her. At no step does anyone need to waste the effort in actually reading what she writes... and in any case, we all know the case disposition is what matters. Rules of law are simply ideological restraints on what should be an ad-hoc decision-making process, based upon the particular class statuses of the parties involved.
Hell bells, you think case law actually matters? I've read a handful of her opinions, and the word choice and grammar are good--- enough to pass as a typical, legal opinion. In fact, eye-popping eloquence and incisiveness is more likely a hindrance here. So long as some critical mass of the public believes she is acting in good faith, what matters the rest?
So sayz The Cabbage
I think you should re-read my post, as you are both responding to things I did not say and ignoring things I said. First, I said nothing about whether to read anything into who did not sign the letter. That was a claim made by one of the commenters.
Second, I repeatedly noted my belief that many who signed the letter are familiar enough with her work to assert the claims made in the letter ("I am sure many academics have spent the last several weeks poring over Sotomayor's work, and that many such folks signed the letter"; "I assume that many signatories and those who solicited signatures are familiar with Judge Sotomayor's record").
That said, I am quite confident that more than a few of those who signed the letter, if asked to identify and explain specific opinions that demonstrate her "careful attention to the facts of each case and a reading of the law that demonstrates fidelity to the text of statutes and the Constitution" would come up blank.
For legal academics, reading SCOTUSBlog summaries, news stories, and blog comments is not sufficient. I have lots of respect for the SCOTUSBlog folks. They do good work. But they are hardly beyond reproach. (See here and here). It's also one thing to say she's a smart, experienced, and careful jurist who respects precedent; quite another to say there is no evidence of any ideological leanings in her body of work. The latter is simply not credible (and, I would note, not disputed by the law professor letter).
We are academics. When we express our opinions about the merits of judicial opinions, we are implying that we ourselves have reviewed the relevant material and reached our own independent judgment. The same goes when we sign a letter that makes a specific claim about a given judge's opinions. Clicking a few links doesn't cut it, and hardly constitutes doing our "homework." That's like a student saying she's prepared for class because she read Gilbert's. You wouldn't reach a firm conclusion about the merits of a Supreme Court opinion based on what Tom Goldstein or I had to say about it, why is Judge Sotomayor's work any different?
If you took the time to read a representative sample of her opinions before signing the letter, then good for you, but you will have a hard time convincing me that all 1,100-plus signatories did the same.
JHA
Funny, Tony, but having read a lot about this from a variety of sources, what I have not seen yet is a plethora of leftists with any analysis of the Honduran constitution and its implications on what happened there at all. The intellectual deliberation I've seen from your team so far about the Honduran situation amounts to "military bad, leftists good, musta been a coup, we demand
HugoFidelDanielMel be reinstated".I'd go into why your contention that this is a "coup" is totally dishonest, but I don't want to hijack the thread. I've read Alinsky too, so how do you like it when Rule #5 comes back at you?
Professor Adler is on the same faculty with signatories:
Professor Adler knows their academic work habits.
True, some legal academics do not appear willing to place their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity.
Two brief points in reply:
First, your initial post said, "My concern is that some legal academics appear willing to place their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity and would sign such a letter before confirming, for themselves, that everything the letter says is actually true." Now, in the comments, you suggest that the *only* true way for each law prof signing the letter to confirm the statements in the letter is by reading each and every one of Judge Sotomayor's opinions for him- or herself. Really? Reading each and every thing she has ever written is a ridiculously high standard. I don't know about you, but I'm trying to get tenure and have no time to read 1,000s of opinions that are not going to result in a law reiew article. I imagine most profs would feel the same. And to counter your analogy, this is a far cry from a student using cribbed cases. This is more akin to a professor having a research assistant do the heavy lifting, and then drawing a conclusion based on the summary of the findings.
Second, in the first post you said, "For some, I suspect, merely receiving a solicitation from a colleague (or from the AFJ) to support a liberal president's liberal nominee was sufficient." Your recent attack on secondary sources of research does nothing to diminish this assertion, which is the point that initially annoyed me. The rationale of your post is basically that all a signatory needed to know was that she was a "liberal" who was appointed by another "liberal." That is the part that adds nothing to our academic discourse. I'm sure, as I said, that given the controversy, most people did some research and thinking about this before making an opinion. You may disagree with their use of sources that are not original, but you can't deny that the use of any sources - primary or secondary - completely negates the "liberals just love other liberals" line of "argument."
P.S. The first part of my post was directed to the commenters, not your post. Sorry about that lack of clarity.
Why would it matter WHERE anyone defended them? Are arguments more or less valid depending on the website where one posts them?
Pathetic.
I read a good swath of both Left and Right blogs. Take it from me, leftist level of discourse is nowhere near "elevated". Indeed, in what other legal forum could an obvious troll like Sarcastro find sanctuary?
You will have a hard time convincing me that your various claims ("I am also quite confident that some of those who signed the letter have not read more than a case or two … I doubt all 1,100-plus signatories took the time to assure themselves of this fact … some legal academics appear willing to place their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity") are anything other than rank speculation. And your irony impairment is severe, since you are ostensibly promoting the idea that people shouldn't make claims unless they're sure the claims are true.
You could promote this idea more effectively if you started by adopting it yourself. That is, try setting a better example.
On the other hand, Lib Law Prof has all but admitted that at least one signing was pretty much based on SCOTUSblog. That's if that poster is for real. I kind of hope it's just an unfunny parody, especially in light of the demonstrated inability to comprehend the difference between "read a representative sample" and "reading each and every one of Judge Sotomayor's opinions".
Lib Law Prof: no one would have said anything if they had signed it not as professors of law. If they're relying on the expert opinions of others, their credentials are of no matter and should not be mixed in with those of people who actually know what they're talking about, first hand.
Very rarely does a potential signatory agree 100% with every assertion in a "dear colleague" or interest group letter. Indeed, in some cases, the signatory agrees with the gravamen of the letter, but finds a sentence or two objectionable.
If the signatory is powerful or otherwise has leverage over the drafter of the letter, the signatory may be able to negotiate a change in the letter's language. But that is rarely the case.
Or the signatory could draft his or her own letter, but again, that only has an impact if the signatory is well-known. A concurring opinion from a Supreme Court justice carries weight; a concurring letter from the Chamber of Commerce of Biloxi makes for water cooler fodder.
Like everything, all this comes down to tradeoffs. It would be tidy if signatories all conducted registration statement-quality diligence on every word in a dear colleague letter. But if that were the standard, nothing would ever get done.
The signatory has to apply some judgment as to how much he wants to nitpick the language and as to whether the language is good enough to get the point across, and weigh that against the risk of putting his name to something embarrassing. The alternative -- sigantories should never weigh in on policy matters unless they essentially draft the letter themselves -- strikes me as unrealistic.
Reading a handful of opinions and observations on blawgs is far more diligence than the average citizen will do, and in any event those opinions and blog posts will probably zero in on the most controversial, and the most relevant, portions of Sotomayor's jurisprudence in any event.
Lastly, if you're uncomfortable with the level of diligence behind these letters, do what gets done with most of them: throw them in the trash.
The Senate Judiciary Committee staff is surely doing deeper diligence on Sotomayor's opinions than did LibLawProf. Outside observers who have read thousands of her opinions can do more than sign a dear colleague letter: they can publish a policy report for a think tank, offer to brief the members of the Judiciary Committee, etc.
Sarcasm aside, the River Temoc has a good point (weird pseudonyms make for weird sentences, don't they?). This was a letter, not a research paper. By itself, that shows the level of diligence put into researching the claims. It certainly diminishes the weight of the assertions.
It's no crime not to get the satire, or if you do get it, not to like it. But don't embarrass yourself by calling him a troll. He's anything but.
Switch the sides. For many of her critics, it seems to me that it's a case of, "Obama bad." For a very long time now, some on both sides of the aisle have claimed that the other side only goes along with what their side does, or opposes what the other does, for purely partisan reasons, while they themselves do not. So blanket statements like yours are null noise.
What I wonder, however, is how long you took to come up with an unsupported snide insinuation that would give you plausible deniability?
some enterprising journalist should call random signatories to the letter and ask which Sotomayor opinions demonstrate the traits identified in the letter.
Some "ethical" blogger should name signatories whom they suspect of "putting their political leanings ahead of academic integrity". Or state front and center that they do not know that anybody has actually done this.
Way to divert the conversation from the point that 1100(!) law professors came out in favor of Sotomayor, who's been labeled as everything from dumb to argumentative in an incessant innuendo campaign. You should consider pursuing a career on Fox and Friends.
Or is there some reason to think that they are more principled?
Peter Friedman . . . Professor Adler knows their academic work habits."
Darya — as I stated above (sorry, I signed in as "Peter" with a link to my web site — before declaring such things I would suggest you do a modicum of inquiry), my signature was hardly uninformed. Nor is your assumption correct. Professor Adler knows nothing of my work habits. I would be surprised too if he knows anything of the work habits of my co-signatories from Case Western Reserve. I would be shocked if he he really meant to impugn the integrity of his colleagues you have listed, and I wish he would make clear to those like you who believe he intended to.
-- PETER FRIEDMAN
Makes one wonder if he even has knowledge of environmental law, given the slothfully-origined displays I see on this blog regarding the wider environmental arena.
Rather than spending time at voluminous readings of Sotomayor's writings, perhaps the blogger could spend some time educating himself on the issues he empty-headedly blogs over, rather than citing and linking to frickin' social studies majors who support his pet theories.
Spare us the academic sniping, and remove the plank from yer own eye, bro'.
I think The River Temoc's points are valid insofar he is talking about interest groups and lobbies, but I do not believe these points are applicable to academics. Signing on to a "law professor" letter is not a signal of support for a policy outcome as much as it is an assertion of authority. It's not "we support position X," but "we experts assert claims Y are true." I maintain that, as academics, we should not sign such statements and assert our academic authority unless we have verified for ourselves that the claims are true.
JHA
That is simply an uncalled for and unsupported accusation. SCOTUSBlog - which to my knowledge is not partisan - did a four part series on Sotomayor's cases. Many other outlets have done the same and have reached the conclusion you itlaicized in your post.
I would like to think that "experts" have a firmer basis for their views than blog posts that I can read myself.
When macroeconomists support massive deficits, or when climatologists express confidence in computerized climate models, am I supposed to think they really understand these things? Or just that they read a bit from some blog or newspaper column?
If I were a prof, all things being equal, I would sign it--not because I am a devotee of SoSo or Barry O, but because she ought to be confirmed under what should be the rules of the system.
What I would NEVER do is join any group called the "Alliance for Justice". (When is the "Alliance for Injustice" going to weigh in on this nomination?)
Looking at the list of signatories from my alma mater, I notice the name of a former Rehnqust clerk and DOJ atty who had a rep as being quite conservative. I doubt he reveres (or even knows a lot about) SoSo, but he probably figures that she is well within the realm of acceptable nominees.
"Lurkerz supports me in email."
:
In before 'post full headers.'
1. Even if the signatories had familiarized themselves with Sotomayor's opinions, it probably wouldn't matter much. They would agree with the content of the letter if they agreed with the outcomes.
2. This same criticism could be made of pretty much every such letter, regardless of the topic, and to those written by conservative lawprofs as well.
As such, it should be held to a higher level of scrutiny for the assertions and representations it makes. A practicing attorney could be held accountable for malpractice in issung an opinion letter without either clearly stating the basis for the representations or showing due diligence in reaching them.
Law professors should understand that. Even if they don't pracice law.
I find it amusing that some think that a blog like this requires evidentiary proof about whether the signers of the letter did their homework or not, when common sense tells us that it is likely that some, perhaps a majority, did not. And somehow, I think the reasons for less than due diligence are irrelevant (Like, I was too busy trying to get tenure and so relied on hearsay on some other blogspot)
Opinion letters, of which this is one form, have professional implications. Law faculty should understand that. Otherwise, it should be clearly marked as having no more value or substance than advertizing.
Perhaps an ethics refresher for law professors is needed.
The 1100 figure looks impressive at first glance, but one must question the value of some of these signatures. E.g., Jagdish Bhagwati. He is a great economist, and a law professor, technically. But, we shouldn't care what he thinks about Sotomayor's "fidelity to the text of statutes and the Constitution."
You continue to misrepresent what I have argued.
I did not say or suggest "that the *only* true way for each law prof signing the letter to confirm the statements in the letter is by reading each and every one of Judge Sotomayor's opinions." Rather I said that academics who are going to offer an assessment of Judge Sotomayor's opinions should be "familiar" with her opinions and, in response to your comment, that one should have read "a representative sample of her opinions before signing the letter." I stand by that claim. If you don't have the time to review her opinions, then don't sign a letter that makes a representation about what reviewing the opinions would show.
I think the analogy to a law professor's reliance on research assistants is instructive. It is certainly appropriate for a law professor to rely upon student research assistants to comb through cases, identify relevant decisions, and the like. But it is not appropriate for a law professor to rely upon a student research assistant's characterization and substantive analysis of a judicial decision and pass it off as her own without reviewing the material herself. To say, as a law professor, that given judicial opinions say "X" without having actually reviewed the opinions is irresponsible.
By the same token, it is certainly reasonable to rely upon blogs and second-hand commentary to identify those cases which may be most relevant or worth reviewing. But it is irresponsible for a legal academic to rely upon such characterizations as the basis for issuing an authoritative statement about those cases.
JHA
Comedy gold. Here's a newsflash, Lib Prof: your credibilty on matters political is zero, because the professorate has mindlessly been in lockstep with the left for so long that only a fool would believe that you have any "credit" at all.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
How dare you be so temperate, realistic and logical. Don't you realize this is the internet?
That sounds familiar:
The blog I'm citing contains a dead link, but the original article is archived here.
================
pbf:
I think darya was being sarcastic.
================
adler:
I maintain that, as ostensibly honorable humans, we should not make defamatory insinuations ("some legal academics appear willing to place their political preferences ahead of their academic integrity") unless we have verified for ourselves that the insinuations are backed by evidence. That is, evidence solid enough to share.
How many of the 1,100 are " 'familiar' with her opinions?" You are acting like you know the answer to this question, even though you don't. That's the core issue.
Trouble is, you don't know how many of the 1,100 did that ("rely upon such characterizations as the basis for issuing an authoritative statement about those cases"). Nevertheless, you're pretending that you do (as expressed in your words like "quite confident"). And that's "irresponsible."
================
ruralcounsel:
Common sense tells us that speculation unencumbered by evidence is worthless.
Any endorsement or opposition public letter is a political document, and law professors ought to be more worried about that than a lot of them seem to be.
This is just common sense. No one who is remotely familiar with legal academia thinks that all 1,100 people really made themselves experts on Sotomayor's opinions before signing this letter. It's a political letter, not a representation of actual expertise. See Ward Farnsworth's excellent article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=260239
Do you disagree with Frank Cross that this is a bi-partisan practice? If you do disagree, isn't that the argument you should make and support? If you agree it's a bi-partisan practice, have you (contemporaneously) posted your concerns when letters were sent supporting confirmation of Republican nominees?
I agree with Frank Cross. The one qualification is that there are more such letters from the law professors advocating "liberal" causes because the majority of law professors are left of center. Were this not the case, I have no reason to believe conservative law professors would, on the whole, be any less guilty of the practice.
I am not aware of an equivalent letter relating to GOP nominees. Are you? The closest I recall was a brief, one-paragraph statement in support of Judge Alito's confirmation that was signed by a combination of law professors, appellate advocates, and DoJ alums. The language of this letter was more constrained and made clear that, while all signatories supported his confirmation, they did not all endorse the same reasons for doing so. (That is, it contained language like: "Those of us who . . . feel that . . ."). Had the AFJ included such limiting language -- or omitted the paragraph about her opinions -- I would not have written my post.
JHA
So let me understand. You actually have documented evidence that there are people who put academic integrity ahead of political leanings. This immediately motivates you to write a post about the nameless, faceless, unknown people who did exactly the opposite, without a shred of evidence of this happening. Is this how logic works?
(Aside from the fact that you chose not to acknowledge the documented evidence about several people not signing based on their lack of familiarity in the post. You just seem to be burnt up that 1100 law professors signed for Sotomayor, and are finding pathetic excuses to divert the discussion and bury the lead on this.)
Other than not being a complete moron, that is. Every time there's a major political issue (from Clinton's impeachment to Supreme Court nominations), there will be a mass letter from several hundred law professors, and only a complete moron thinks that all of these professors sign such letters only when it touches on their specific scholarly expertise.
Alrighty then. I await b
aseless speculationposts by Jonathan Adler on any public statement by any public figure about any issue "Do they know whereof they speak? (not that I know that they don't or have any evidence to that effect). I will also refuse to acknowledge evidence that they do know whereof they speak because nanananananana".You must be a dunce. Adler does not disapprove of mass letters by law faculty per se. He disapproves of them when the signatories clearly haven't had the time or the knowledge to examine the details and yet still choose to affix their names and their scholarly credibility to a public petition.
You try to brush aside this issue by dishonestly using the word "mass", because you know it is important that you don't distinguish between 10 professors writing in to speak on something, and the 1,100 diligent investigators of Sotomayor's appellate opinions in the case.
Those U of I faculty clearly knew the intimacies of the topic they were opining upon. They related tangential facts and occurrences about admissions criteria and Illinois state politics. On the other hand, there is no indication of that breadth of knowledge here. How many times must the good professor repeat this same point?
And he and you know this how? Adler only knows people who did take the time.
Those U of I faculty clearly knew the intimacies of the topic they were opining upon. They related tangential facts and occurrences about admissions criteria and Illinois state politics.
They did? I thought they all signed onto a written letter. I wasn't aware there was a collaborative madlib that created the letter. Did they all independently confirm the facts that they signed onto? Or did they, shudder, sign onto an agenda?
You try to brush aside this issue by dishonestly using the word "mass", because you know it is important that you don't distinguish between 10 professors writing in to speak on something, and the 1,100 diligent investigators of Sotomayor's appellate opinions in the case.
It is 15, not 10. Also, what is the critical number beyond which unsupported insinuations become justified? Is there a comprehension test administered when the number of signatories does not exceed 15? If so, can I be privy to these results so I too will see why the belief in the detailed understanding of those professors is justified?
The Sotomayor nomination was announced on 5/26. The letter was released yesterday. That interval is 43 days. You might have some kind of a point if the interval was three or four days, but it's not.
If a law professor doesn't have sufficient "knowledge" to evaluate the work of a judge, then who does?
What's the basis for your claims about lack of time and lack of knowledge?
The Sotomayor nomination was announced on 5/26. The letter was released yesterday. That interval is 43 days. You might have some kind of a point if the interval was three or four days, but it's not.
If a law professor doesn't have sufficient "knowledge" to evaluate the work of a judge, then who does?
What's the basis for your claims about lack of time and lack of knowledge?
On the bright side for Adler, the only person who's tried to defend signing this ran away when asked if they had actually read any of her opinions. Adler may be right or wrong, but all the evidence as well as the neutral assumption favor his interpretation.
Someone asked that question? Where?
What "evidence?"
... Ok, now you've just pointed out that you didn't read the original post.
the fact that no one will try to defend an attack on her by going to evidence.
Now you've just pointed out that you're being completely incoherent. You said this:
The "person" you are apparently talking about is Lib Law Prof, who first appeared in the thread here. Where was that person asked the question you claim they were asked? You seem to be saying they were asked this question in "the original post." Really? But if that's when they were asked the question, and if they "ran away when asked," then they never would have posted to begin with. So I think you are presenting a narrative which requires a belief in time travel.
More gibberish. Where is the evidence that "no one will try to defend an attack on her by going to evidence?" There are numerous examples (like the SCOTUSBlog posts that were mentioned) of people who "try to defend an attack on her by going to evidence." And even if were true that "no one will try to defend an attack on her by going to evidence," what does that have to do with the claim Adler made?
While it would be irresponsible for, say, an admiralty expert to discuss or predict her record in admiralty cases without more direct and comprehensive knowledge of the details of her record, I think I, as well as hundreds of random law professors, have enough information to feel secure in asserting that Sotomayor is a standard-issue, slightly left of the actual judicial center, mainstream jurist of more than adequate, if not necessarily dazzling, qualifications. If she were a whack-job, or extremist, or unqualified, we would know it.
Who, by the way, holds her critics to more demanding standards of knowledge?
Now that I've pointed this out, you're silent. Did you run away?
Seriously though, the whole time I've been here (about four years) I've always taken long breaks. It has to do with waiting for certain stories that catch my interest. And it's not my fault that our hosts here decided to make VC the only blog on the planet that said nothing about Palin's recent spectacle. I guess they don't mind passing up the chance to boost traffic.
My first reaction to the news was sadness, because I figured it meant that she was planning to not run in '12. But then lots of people started saying that she would still run, so I felt happy. But now I'm sad again, because so many people in the GOP are laughing at her and it looks like she couldn't possibly get the nomination. But I'm trying to keep hope alive.
Anyway, I hope you're well.
If Orin was blogging, Palin might have gotten a mention. As for what remains of her political prospects, I'd be careful what I wish for. I was confident nobody could turn Reagan into a credible candidate, and I still don't think I was that far off about Reagan. It was the relevant meaning of "credible" where I was out of touch. And as GWB said, "fool me once...."
Glad all's well. And have some more liver. Doesn't that shikse feed you?
Exactly. That reminds me of the famous joke about the two ties.
Good point, I didn't think of that.
Yes, but who wants to eat chazerai all day long?
citation: the inverse of Pauline Kael talking about how Nixon could not have won......
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.