home

Media Ignorance? Or Media Racism?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:32:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Digby writes:

Al Hunt just told Andrea Mitchell that Obama could have picked a "more formidable intellectual force" for the court but he threaded the political needle very well. When Andrea Mitchell went on to ask if the White House was holding a conference call later to reassure people about her intellectual abilities, Hunt said that she wasn't as bad as Alberto Gonzales.

. . . I'm sure villagers like Al Hunt, who are so willing to believe that snide backstabbing about Sotomayor's intellect despite the clear evidence to the contrary, don't believe that they are on the same page as Limbaugh, but they are.

Al Hunt is not a lawyer and is utterly unqualified to pass judgment on Sonia Sotomayor's legal and intellectual qualities. But he is not shy to provide his views on the matter. Which makes him an idiot. Or a racist. You make the call.

Speaking for me only

< White Man's Burden | A Fighter >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Media Ignorance? Or Media Racism? | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    sotomayor, gonzales... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Turkana on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    sotomayor, gonzales...

    i'm trying to make the connection. was he ever nominated to the supreme court?

    sotomayor, gonzales...

    hmm...

    The dusky complexion (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:50:05 PM EST


    Parent
    he could have said (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    she is not as bad as Harriet Meyers but he would have been called on that for sexism.


    Parent
    He could have shut his mouth (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    considering that he had not a clue what he was talking about.

    Parent
    he makes his living (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    by continuously talking about things about which he knows nothing.

    Parent
    So very true. n/t (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:45:41 PM EST


    Parent
    My parents often say (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    That the mark of an intelligent person is if they have mastered their own personal edit button

    Parent
    Your mom (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:05:50 AM EST
    must not know many ADD people who often have problems with impulsive behavior and yet are often very bright.

    Perhaps she meant wise or restrained?

    Parent

    He should have said "she's almost as (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    bad as Gonzales in some ways and almost has bad as Myers in other ways, if you know what I mean". And then winked.

    Parent
    oy (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:57:51 PM EST


    Parent
    As for the Miers comparison (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    Matt Yglesias has this helpful chart.

    Parent
    Ah, be fair now (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    he was appointed to the Texas Supreme Court!

    Parent
    Hunt went to Haverford undergrad (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    and Wake Forest for his graduate degree.

    He must still be pissed off about not getting into Princeton or Yale.

    Sorry, but as a graduate of a somewhat notable school with a respectable but unspectacular transcript to show for it - in part because I was a bit of a fool in that era of life - I have to say that Sotomayor's academic achievements at both Princeton and Yale are clear indicators that this woman is pretty freakin' smart and more importantly she is a hard worker.  You don't get into Princeton if you are not smart - especially if your Daddy didn't build a building.  And you don't actually graduate with honors if you don't work your tail off even if you are a genius or your Daddy built a building.

    I have no idea at this point whether I'm going to like this woman's view of justice or if I am going to be happy with her appointment over time, but I won't ever be fool enough to make the claim that she isn't smart given the facts.

    I think for most people (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    such an academic record would close the book on the question of intelligence.

    Parent
    And weirdly it has not. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    But who is most people anyway?

    I think about the people I know in Alabama and how they are assimilating this storyline - I assure you most of them don't have a clue what it means to not only get into Princeton, but also graduate with honors.  Unlike those folks though, Al Hunt really has no such excuse in this case.

    Parent

    Kids in the Bronx seem to get it (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    So do their parents. They know it can't be easy, but that it can be done.

    Parent
    you'd think . . . (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:06:18 PM EST


    Parent
    The woman is (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    a National Treasure; as perfect a candidate as one could hope for.

    But there must be something wrong, there just must be. And we must keep looking, and looking, and looking till we find something.....anything.

    Parent

    She is a human being. (none / 0) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    She is going to have some sort of flaw just like every other human being on this earth.

    I wish people would put some of this in perspective - especially the part about building people up to the degree that any slight disappointment becomes some sort of earth shaking and devastating super event.

    She may be a stellar example of a human being, but she isn't going to be perfect which really should be okay imo.

    Parent

    As long as she hasn't had (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    any tax errors. (shudder)

    Parent
    Maybe my tongue (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    was in my cheek too far; please tell me you didn't take me seriously.

    Parent
    Sorry, I did and I was like (none / 0) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:55:25 PM EST
    whoa!  Well done you.  Fooled me big time. lol

    Parent
    whoa! blushing..... (none / 0) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:37:24 AM EST
    Thanks....

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lilburro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    Al Hunt did NOT go to Haverford College...he went to Haverford School, a prep school.

    As an alum of the College, I find this to be a relief.


    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    Haverford school was a crosstown rival for my school.

    Parent
    I don't know much (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    about the School other than they made the already packed main line roads even more obnoxious at around 830 and 330.  I think this is maybe a growing trend in general though - whatever happened to the school bus???  

    Parent
    My mistake. (none / 0) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    Okay - and by the way - I think Haverford College - at least based on the grads I've known and worked with - turns out great writers.  What is that?  It is impressive at least from my experience.

    Parent
    procrastinatory email writing (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    in my experience!  :P


    Parent
    Thank you. This Debate is Preposterous (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:39:53 PM EST
    what part of SUMMA CUM LAUDE and PHI BETA KAPPA from Princeton does Hunt NOT understand?
    These are not minor honors -- they are major. No one who is just a workhorse could come away from the likes of Princeton with such honors.

    Turley may have had a point when he wrote & spoke about the nominee's lack of a historic, sweeping intellectual perspective on Supreme Court decisions, but he should have been more careful, so as not to allow his remarks, directed at the top one-tenth of 1% of the intellects in this country, to be misinterpreted.  She has the intellectual heft for sure, but hasn't taken it upon herself yet to declare her world view in opinions.  Give her time.  

    Is this the most preposterous debate of the recent political seasons?  Someone should publicly ask the likes of Hunt where they went to school, and where they graduated in their class.  Sure, there are forms of intelligence that aren't necessarily reflected in grades, but anyone with the outstanding record the nominee has cannot be an intellectual light weight.  Clearly the Repugs are out of ideas as to how to attack her.  

    Parent

    Oh, please! Undergrad honors do not make ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    ... anyone an "intellectual heavyweight" -- much less an intellectual heavyweight in a heavyweight occupation and echelon like the federal appellate bench.

    They make her smarter than the average bear, and smarter than the average lawyer. Arguably smarter than the average judge. But smarter than the average on her Circuit, or on all Circuits? "Intellectual heavyweight"??? That does not follow.

    How many Princeton minority students graduated in 1976 summa cum laude and went on to study law?  Where are they now?  Is it fair to dub each an "intellectual heavyweight", sight unseen?

    Parent

    But you are confident (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    Hunt had done his homework on the issue?

    A lot of protest for the indefensible from you Ron.

    Parent

    Pls grant the point before changing the subject? (none / 0) (#69)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    In the thread preceding, it was asserted that undergrad honors at Princeton (1976) sufficed as proof positive that the honoree is an "intellectual heavyweight", presumably in context of the present debate over merits.

    I offered a rebuttal, which I assert all but the most unreasonable discussants would find compelling.

    Do you grant the point? Or do you defend the "honors" thesis?

    Please deal with the point in question before you go on with your chicanery of pretending I said anything about Hunt's homework.

    Parent

    You are misinterpreting what I wrote (none / 0) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    I combined summa cum laude, as earned from a highly competitive institution and Phi Beta Kappa.  According to info I found online, no more than 1% of college students nationwide are elected to Phi Beta Kappa.  Such election not only takes into account GPA, but also looks at the level of academic difficulty of the courses taken, grades in those courses, etc.  Intellectual heft -- I say yes.  

    Parent
    1% of college grads have intellectual heft??? (none / 0) (#87)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:41:45 PM EST
    You are hurting your own case here.

    Does everyone in Mensa qualify, hands down, no further discussion, as "intellectual hefty" in the company of SCOTUS prospects?

    Parent

    Actually, no...not Haverford (none / 0) (#53)
    by oldpro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    College.  Al went to The Haverford School, a private K-12 prep school (also in Haverford, Pa.)  His undergraduate college is Wake Forest.

    Parent
    Yep - got it - stood corrected (none / 0) (#62)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    a few hours ago on the Haverford mix up.

    Parent
    concerning intelligence (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    I wish just once idiot like Hunt would  be instructed to explain exactly what they mean by a comment like this:

    Obama could have picked a "more formidable intellectual force"

    seriously, what does that even mean.
    it like saying "some people say . .  blah blah blah.  but of course I never would".

    Other than an insult (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    what was the point of that remark?  From her record, it's obvious she is no slacker.  I haven't the expertise or the time to evaluate her judicial work, but on the surface it looks like she has a long track record of working hard and being recognized for it.

    Parent
    the point of that remark (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:02:22 PM EST
    IMO, is to associate Sotomayor with negative stereotypes about Latino/as (and other minorities) -- lazy, not very smart, and beneficiaries of patronage not based on merit -- but in a way that avoids explicitly naming the prejudice (like Limbaugh et al. have done).

    You say, accurately, "from her record, it's obvious she is no slacker."

    Precisely. Why, then, would someone imply that she's a slacker? Do you think Hunt doesn't KNOW that she has impeccable academic credentials? I don't.

    Occam's razor.

    Parent

    Why would you imply it implies 'slacker'??? (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:30:11 PM EST
    By what reasoning are the only alternatives:
    A) Sharpest knife in the drawer, or
    B) Slacker?

    "More formidable", in this context, would mean "given to more acute analysis and more forceful advocacy". She can be plenty smart, and plenty hard-working, and still not be the most formidable intellectual horse in the progressive judiciary stable.

    And indeed she is not, despite many considerable virtues.

    Parent

    blah blah (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 10:12:37 PM EST
    And you are basing this on what, precisely?

    Do you actually think Hunt's comments are not insulting? That they accurately reflect her relative intellect?

    You're kidding yourself. He is politely calling her stupid, and you know it. Or do you believe that Alito, Scalia, et al., about whom such comments were not made (quite the opposite), really are that much smarter than she is? Based on what?

    Seems to me you are willfully ignoring or misreading the context of Hunt's comments, trying to claim that they have been made outside the norms of commentary that typically get made about SC nominees (who aren't Hispanic and who pee standing up, mostly). I think that's preposterous.

    Parent

    Nonsense on top of nonsense (none / 0) (#88)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:57:34 PM EST
    Hunt's comments are not insulting, he's not calling her stupid, and the comment accurately describes her relative intellect among her peers.

    Again you pretend that if she's not the sharpest intellect among a few dozen SCOTUS prospects, she must be stupid. So #2, and #3, and so on must be stupid.

    You are calling  lot of very smart people stupid. That's not smart.

    BTW, Roberts has "heft", and has used it to manipulate the Court and the law, out-maneuvering progressive interests.

    Alito, not so much. In fact his evaluable performance exhibits many of the same deficits as Sotomayor's.

    Either one is still perfectly capable of functioning as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Obama, for whatever reason, thinks she will succeed in influencing her colleagues to an extent not evident on the Circuit level. Fine, it's his call.

    Labeling Hunt 'racist' for acknowledging this? Now that's preposterous.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#91)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:07:16 AM EST
    Didn't realize you were the arbiter of insults. It's illuminating that you don't find Hunt's characterization of her as insulting and dismissive.

    Parent
    Hunt's assessment is accurate and judicious. (none / 0) (#92)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 30, 2009 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    Sotomayor is not a top-shelf intellect among SCOTUS prospects. As far as I know, nobody has asserted that she is, much less presented an argument for any such claim.

    You have ducked a fair invitation to rationalize your outrage. That's "illuminating".

    Al Hunt, BTW, is a liberal lion of long standing, whose civil rights credentials are in good order. Cheap shots won't stick.

    Parent

    "an idiot or a racist" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    my call:  'or' in the disjunctive-- not mutually exclusive, particularly in Al's case.

    I'm going to go with (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    intellectually lazy, with a dash of disingenuousness that masks mediocre intelligence, if I can - it allows the racism to ooze through unchecked, and allows the collective public to remain content in their own ignorance, because they saw or heard it on the TV, so that makes it true, and acceptable to be spread around among friends, relatives and casual acquaintances.

    Think I'm kidding?  Listen to Washington Journal some morning - people are stewing in their ignorance and the media is stirring the pot, adjusting the flame and adding seasoning as needed.

    Makes me want to gack when I think about it too long.

    Washington Journal...3 hours daily (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oldpro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:44:47 PM EST
    revealing the underbelly of American ignorance and stupidity.  I often have to turn it off and go back to sleep. (Comes on at 4 ayem here on the left coast).

    Parent
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    I find C-Span to be mostly relaxing. However, when the phone calls start, I immediately reach for the mute button.

    Parent
    They do attract the nutjobs (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:18:30 AM EST
    and the CSpan ethic is to listen politely and non-commitally until they wind down.  C-Span call-ins make you wish for a radio talk show host who will slam the phone down mid-sentence once in a while.

    Parent
    al hunt? idiot or racist? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sancho on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    twofer. active on the former question and passive on the latter. and, to be fair, i am sure some of his best friends are idiots too.

    subtle racism (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Lil on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    or whatever you want to call it, is just as damaging as out and out racism. It props up white supremacy and pushes down marginalized folks. All while guised as "I'm not a racist, but..."  Some of the most racist folks out there consider themselves very fair minded folk, which makes them all the more dangerous to me. I find most racists to be idiots too, so Al Hunt is probably both!

    Yes Al (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    Every other SCOTUS nominee has been the absolutely most formidable intellectual force of his day, measured on the patented HP-8000 Intellectual Force Meter, so it is totally appropriate to speculate about this strange divergence.

    good god, I may have to blow up my TV this summer.

    I demand measurement on the (none / 0) (#82)
    by DFLer on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    Epson 600 Brainalizer as well!

    signed,
    Al Hunt-ingforaclue

    Parent

    Media ignorance = media racism (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    which sickens the heart. You're not crazy.

    But the celebrations must go on, BTD!

    Viva Sonia! Viva Celina!

    What's amazing (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    is that I guess it's only white people that can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  You would think Republicans would like a story like this.  Ah but no.

    no (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    its only white people who DO pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  all others have help.
    unless they are Clarence Thomas.


    Parent
    Not quite true (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:02:48 PM EST
    I don't believe republicans/conservatives like any of the "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" types...they despised Bill Clinton from the get go....looked their nose down at that white trailer trash when he was running for governor in Arkansas.

    The village did not believe Clinton had a right to be in their city......why?  What the hell did that mean?  Bubba was not one of them.....

    Parent

    The thing that is scarry (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    Is that the, "she isn't smart enough stuff" would take off if she didn't have 17 years of experience + lots of nice latin words after her diploma.  Hopefully, Obama using this choice will deaden the impact of these comments (as the public will hopefully come to find them ridiculus) that haunt minorities and women.

    It is a sad fact that a woman/ minority has to be Ms. Curie (2 nobel prizes) to be qualified, and then when she succeeds, they use her as example of why the system isn't broken.

    The Gopers (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:21:02 AM EST
    having successfully seeded this idea among the pundit class, has switched now to calling her outright a racist.  I think they will stick with that one through to the end.

    Parent
    I say we just start replying (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:19:36 PM EST
    to these idiots with the blanket statement:

    She's smarter than you, a$$hole!

    Problem is, the people who are hearing that she's not smart or that she's a reverse racist are never going to look farther than their boob tube to get the real story.  Oh well, such is life in an (illiterate) democracy.  
    Al Hunt (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    the model for a smug condescending elitist village idiot.

    I bet he calls Broder "The Dean".

    Al Hunt has spent (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    his entire career parroting village conventional wisdom.  That's all he's doing here, too.  He's no more competent to evaluate anybody's legal intellect  than I am (ie, zero), even if he had read them, which I'm sure he hasn't.

    Parent
    Surely conventional wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    even for Republicans, regards those with Sotomayer's academic credentials as intellectual heavy weights.  It's really that the opposition pundits will stoop so low as to say anything, regardless of how far it is from reality.  They are not reporters of facts, but purveyors of malicious myths.

    Parent
    You'd think that'd be (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    GOP conventional wisdom, but you'd be wrong.  And it's not just GOP, either.  Thanks to the dynamic due of Jeffrey Rosen and Jonathan Turley, it's conventional wisdom throughout the pundit class.

    Parent
    Gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    good point!

    Parent
    Not sure I think one must be a lawyer to (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    have an opinion re the intellect of a SCOTUS nominee. But it probably helps, depending on the acumen of the lawyer.

    Since you seem intent on provoking me today (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    Let me aks you this, how many opinions by Sotomayor do you think Hunt read before he made his pronouncement?

    Parent
    Probably zero. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    Not trying to provoke you, intentionally or otherwise.  So I'll refrain from commenting for awhile.

    Parent
    I read it the (none / 0) (#25)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    same way you did.

    Parent
    Well, I think it helps a great deal. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:16:37 PM EST
    Lawyers have a much greater depth of understanding of both the language and the basis for legal writing because of their training.

    The law is technically in English, but it really is its own language.  It helps to have been taught to read it imo.

    Parent

    It is also very important (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    to know the field of law being written about. A contract attorney is not gong to totally understand what is being written about in a criminal defense case for example or any other cases in the broad field of law. it is an error for people to think that just because someone is a lawyer that they know  all about every field of law. Kind of like plumbers are not electricians.

    Parent
    And then there's that (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    very good point.

    But generally speaking most any fairly well trained lawyer is going to be better than me or Al Hunt at reading opinions and assessing them; and I'm gonna be better at art history and reading paintings etc. than a lot of lawyers - so its all good. lol

    Parent

    makes him neither (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    it makes him sought after in today's media environment.  Other than Gergen I find that most commentators or guests are looking for the Coulter moment to get more air time.  When the host doesn't ask reasonable follow ups to moronic statements or act as if they have a clue I blame the host.  Stupid is as stupid does after all.

    Maybe this is just for the blowhards? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    Seems that the people on Capitol Hill, who will actually vote on Sotomayor, are fading:

    Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

    More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation.

    "The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill," said a top Senate Republican aide. "If there's no `there' there, we shouldn't try to create one."

    Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sounded conciliatory during a round of television interviews on Wednesday.

    "We need to all have a good hearing, take our time and do it right, and then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court," Sessions said on CNN's "American Morning."

    GOP officials says they realize the party needs to improve its standing among Hispanic voters in order to have any hope of winning a national election, and they admit that trashing the first Latina nominee to the court could cement stereotypes or further alienate minorities.
    the 'kind of judge that should be on the court' (none / 0) (#26)
    by of1000Kings on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    kind of strange language...

    Parent
    pretty much exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    what I said in a previous thread were all the reasons it was smart for Obama to pick her and was called a reverse racist, or something.

    Parent
    Check mate? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    the Admin has selected quite cleverly.  If the Repugs oppose Sotomayer too strongly, they will further alienate a constituency they'd very much like to woo.  Check mate, I'd say?

    Parent
    the very definition of racism (none / 0) (#86)
    by diogenes on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    She was "cleverly chosen" for tactical reasons?  I thought that choosing people because of their race rather than some objectively defined qualification is the very definition of racism.

    Parent
    Oh, Dear (none / 0) (#89)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:35:16 PM EST
    To me, it goes without saying that she is highly qualified for the job, as indicated in my other posts.  If I implied differently here, my humble apologies. It doesn't upset me, however, that in opposing her, the Repugs must put themselves in a bind.  

    Parent
    This thing is just getting started (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lil on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    and will get uglier over time, but justice will prevail and she will be confirmed and the other side will look worse for it, IMO. rverse discrimination, my ass.

    Must I choose? (none / 0) (#38)
    by snstara on Wed May 27, 2009 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    Both idiot and racist apply!

    Neither Hunt Nor Mitchell Are... (none / 0) (#50)
    by santarita on Wed May 27, 2009 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    lawyers and any comments that they make about whether or not there are more formidable intellectual forces than Judge Sotomayer should be considered sound and fury and contributing nothing of merit.  In other words, just more of the gossip that passes for news in the media.  

    And Hunt's remark was racist.

    I have to disagree with this: (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    Al Hunt is not a lawyer and is utterly unqualified to pass judgment on Sonia Sotomayor's legal and intellectual qualities

    We lawyers are not the only people who can comment on the law with some authority in public discourse.  Laypersons (non-lawyers) can give an informed opinion on a supreme court nominee's intellectual ability and legal qualities.  We are in general better qualified to do so, but we are not in an exclusive position to to say whether or not Sotomayor is a good judge, and is an appropriate pick.

    Al Hunt's not being a lawyer does not disqualify him.  Now, whether Al Hunt can make the arguments and cite facts to back up his opinion is another question.  

    Uh (none / 0) (#61)
    by kaleidescope on Wed May 27, 2009 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    Both?

    fair enough, (none / 0) (#73)
    by cpinva on Wed May 27, 2009 at 11:50:20 PM EST
    Al Hunt is not a lawyer

    but, does he play one on tv, or did he stay in a really comfy hotel last night?

    Which makes him an idiot. Or a racist.

    i'll take "idiot" for $500, alex! oddly enough, the majority of the talking heads opining on judge sotomayer's qualifications aren't lawyers. yet, they get lots of air time to do so.

    i'm no lawyer either, i just deal with them frequently. i know that the judge graduated with honors from princeton, did very well at yale law, and has been a judge for 10 years, more judicial experience than anyone presently on the court had when they were nominated.

    though i've not had time recently to look at her cse work on westlaw and/or lexisnexis, i shall attempt to do so, prior to rendering my normally uninformed opinion. would that some of those unabashedly doing so now might do some actual research first as well.

    How about both (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:37:45 AM EST
    P.S. Who is Al Hunt?  I mean I will google him after I finish this but I can't place him right now :)

    The tall thin guy with a lot of hair (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ruffian on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    and the big glasses on The McLaughlin Group

    That's how I distinguish him anyway, in my own dichotomy of conservative blowhards.

    Parent

    35 years at the WSJ sort of explains (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    his ignorance as well as his arrogance that breeds his denial of his ignorance to me :)  Never been a fan of WSJ.  Always considered it biased economic news at best........frequently missing the whole economic picture and never giving a rip if they did.

    Parent
    One thing that this inquiring mind (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    would really really like to know is how Pat Buchanan can honestly tell us all that no white dude made the short list for this job.  I mean really........come on......did he steal the Hefty Steel Sack from in front of the White House, sift through it, and find the 3M sticky note in Obama's handwriting that had a bunch of names written on it along with Sotomayors and none of those other names belonged to a white dude?

    Discussants who favor light over heat ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    ... may find such on all sides in comments on this thread at Crooked Timber. (My apologies in advance to CT for what this cat may have dragged in.)

    In particular I would associate myself with sentiments expressed here:

    ... look, I'm a Puerto Rican from the projects in the Bronx myself. Pretending that any criticism of Sotomayor is racist is precisely the sort of intellectually dishonest and defamatory argument the right accuses the left of making, usually unfairly ...
    and at length here:
    ... The question is whether she can articulate a strong constitutional or judicial vision around which a powerful liberal coalition on the Court can coalesce ... Hers seems to be a more narrowly focused sort of judicial intellect ... likely to be less effective as a liberal voice on the Court than Karlan or Wood or Sullivan ... this does seem to fit Obama's general approach ... It has its advantages, but as we know, will tend to disappoint Obama's liberal supporters.
    Media Ignorance? Or Media Racism? | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment