blog 28

Rosen’s article was just a typical example of how news media will take comments made by individuals and twist and turn them around so that they convey the message that they would like it to convey whether it be fact or fiction. “Rosen's article wasn't based entirely on anonymous comments. He quoted 2nd Circuit judge Jose Cabranes by name. Unfortunately, he cropped Cabranes' comment to make it appear he was criticizing Sotomayor's intelligence. That's pretty bad. What's worse is that Cabranes was actually praising Sotomayor's intelligence With all the hype that took place with Sotomayor’s nomination I was no surprised by Rosen’s article. Sotomayor’s nomination did bring into question her tactics on ways that she rules in certain cases and we do as citizens have a right to be concerned and question any individual who is being nominated to such a position. 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. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." Sotomayor was not only a woman, but also a woman of Latino descent which right there should have raised a lot of red flags that there is going to be a lot of dirt digging regarding this nomination. A lot of questions were raised on her being a bully on the bench and letting her own opinion getting in the way of been just and fair and yet the “White House points out, "Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-c_n_194470.html)