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