Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mother Jones: "Sotomayor doesn't write very well"
Mother Jones' Stephanie Mencimer says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sonomayor is a lousy writer:
Sotomayor's opinions read like she's still following a formula she learned in college and show little of the smart narratives employed by the federal judiciary's brightest lights. Sotomayor's impenetrable legal opus stands in striking contrast to much of the work produced by the court she aspires to. Supreme Court opinions, the best ones, are words for the generations....
The court's influence and lasting legacy is what it commits to paper. Sotomayor may be a force of nature in the courtroom, where she's said to shine, but it's hard to imagine her going head to head in print with, say, Antonin Scalia. The conservative justice is the master of the wicked one-liner and, while something of a smart aleck, he influences the public debate on so many issues because of his writing—whether he's in the majority or dissenting and whether he's right or wrong. Scalia's opinions are cited in leading constitutional law casebooks more than any other sitting justice....
The nine justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to be champions of the Constitution entrusted with preserving key individual rights. How they express their opinions can be as important as their conclusions.
Rest here.
Mother Jones isn't exactly a right-wing publication. Perhaps there's more liberal discontent with Sotomayor's nomination than Obama expected.
(Via The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog)
|6.4.09 @ 12:12PM|#
More support for my contention that she is essentially a middle-of-the-pack judge who got the nom because of her sex and gender (and self-confessed liberal activist orientation), not because she is in the very top tier of federal appellate judges.
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist|6.4.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Some liberals fear she might help overturn Rove v. Wade. Her stance on abortion is unclear.
|6.4.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Look at it this way: Sotomayor doesn't seem to be a terrible pick for libertarians. If there is liberal discontent with her and Obama picks someone else, isn't there a huge likelihood that he'll pick someone worse? I can't imagine he'd pick someone better.
|6.4.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Fuckin' conservative rag.
This whole best and brightest thing, it's not working too well for
Obama, is it? By anyone's standards.
Shannon Love|6.4.09 @ 12:24PM|#
In Sonomayor defense, as a rule leftist value articulation over
substance. They pay more attention to how somebody communicates an
idea than they do to the idea itself. For example, they routinely
assert that an individual's poor public speaking skills indicates a
lack of intelligence.
In the Mother Jone's clip above, the author is more interested in
Scalia's, and presumably Sonomayor's, ability to market his ideas
by the wit of his writing than she is in the validity of his ideas.
What matters about Sonomayor intellectually is her views on the
just power of the judiciary and her attitude towards the rule of
law versus her own preferences. Her skill at representing those
views in writing isn't really relevant.
Articulation isn't thinking. The ability to sell ideas by emotional
manipulation is not an indication of intellectual rigor and
discipline. It would be nice if more people understood that.
Jane|6.4.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Some liberals fear she might help overturn Rove v. Wade. Her
stance on abortion is unclear.
That would be bad because it is the most important and fundamental
right any woman has, the right to the best health care.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Hm, didn't expect Mother Jones and I to be on the
same side, at least in the very narrow question of "Did Obama
mess this up because of racial politics?"
The answer is "yes".
Shannon Love -
How is that a defense of Sotomayor? The fact is, is that Obama
would have done much better for "his side" to find the liberal
version of Scalia rather than go through the forumla of "minimum
qualifications + right color of skin + right genitals = FOR GREAT
JUSTICE".
Brandon|6.4.09 @ 12:35PM|#
When public policy is set by masses of uneducated, unthinking, easily manipulated people, why shouldn't a political movement emphasize presentation and perception as much as substance and ideas?
|6.4.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Jane is hunting for a fight. And not at all subtle about it. Scalia would have phrased it better. You know, because of the penis.
Xeones|6.4.09 @ 12:43PM|#
You know, because of the penis.
He has all the mature wisdom of a white male.
Hambone|6.4.09 @ 12:51PM|#
"Mother Jones: "Sotomayor doesn't write very well""
Will they go ahead and put this fucking woman up for confirmation
so people will stop talking about it?
It's funny I think that if the leftwere not attacking her so much
maybe more Americanswould realize that she's certainly nothing to
get enthusiastic about. Obama could have picked a liberal Scalia
but instead went with a liberal O'Connor...
¢|6.4.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Obama would have done much better for "his side" to find the
liberal version of Scalia rather than go through the forumla of
"minimum qualifications + right color of skin + right genitals =
FOR GREAT JUSTICE".
Not if 'his side' thinks that entrenching political identities is
more valuable to them than a set of clearly articulated
justifications of policy would be.
They're right if they think that.
Hambone|6.4.09 @ 1:01PM|#
FTR, I was paraphrasing MNG from an earlier thread. He is one
fucking retard.
"MNG | June 4, 2009, 10:05am | #
Will they go ahead and put this fucking woman up for confirmation
so people will stop talking about it?
It's funny I think that if the right were not attacking her so much
maybe more liberals would realize that she's certainly nothing to
get enthusiastic about. Obama could have picked a liberal Scalia
but instead went with a liberal O'Connor..."
Jack Thread|6.4.09 @ 1:03PM|#
"Gov. Bill Richardson's appointee in charge of New Mexico's
investments faces a federal tax lien on his property for $577,305
in unpaid income taxes."
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/04/ap6504875.html
MNG|6.4.09 @ 1:13PM|#
Look, Hambone followed a butterfly into this thread, how cute
:)
"Some liberals fear she might help overturn Rove v. Wade"
I think me and TAO going on a fishing trip together is more
likely.
Tucker Stone|6.4.09 @ 1:14PM|#
The people who leave comments on the Mother Jones website are fucking retarded. It's like listening to 40 year olds argue about the Star Wars prequels.
|6.4.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Mother Jones: "Sotomayor doesn't write very well
for a judge, the only insult that is worse would be to say that she
sucks at thinking. MJ - wowowowow!
MNG|6.4.09 @ 1:26PM|#
The really important thing is, how does she feel about the Rule
against Perpetuities?
EAP
On the top of his head maybe.
|6.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#
My #1 objection to Sotomayor is that she's taking up a spot that
Alex Kozinski could put to far better use.
-jcr
|6.4.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Where the hell is Tony to say she would be the most qualified
person to ever sit on the court?
Jane, shut the fuck up.
|6.4.09 @ 1:32PM|#
This whole best and brightest thing, it's not working too
well for Obama, is it?
Say what? Obama's only appointed mediocrity in every post so far.
He hasn't tried the "best and brightest" by any stretch of the
imagination.
-jcr
JB|6.4.09 @ 1:33PM|#
This whole best and brightest thing, it's not working too
well for Obama, is it? By anyone's standards.
Well, Obama isn't all that bright. He didn't release his test
scores for a reason.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 1:41PM|#
"Well, Obama isn't all that bright. He didn't release his test
scores for a reason."
Ah, yes, our Affirmative Action President, bless his heart.
|6.4.09 @ 1:44PM|#
An explanation of the Rule Against Perpetuities is the wrong question to ask. The Fertile Octogenarian is the correct one.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Well, Obama isn't all that bright"
Holy shit, that coming from JB is like a black hole calling a
kettle black!
|6.4.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Jane you ignorant slut . . . ."
Show me an ignorant slut and I'll show you my next new friend.
ad hominem|6.4.09 @ 1:46PM|#
"Holy shit, that coming from JB is like a black hole calling a
kettle black!"
You do any other tricks or is this about it?
Tarzan|6.4.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Jane, get your ass back in the treehouse.
Godamn women. You let put on a pair of shoes and they think they
have a right to an opinion.
wingnutx|6.4.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"Some liberals fear she might help overturn Rove v.
Wade"
Remember when Souter was going to do that?
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 1:56PM|#
MNG - you can always look up Lucas v. Hamm, where is was held that an attorney who misapplied the RAP was not liable for malpractice. HA!.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 1:59PM|#
You know, what would be the libertarian position on the Rule against Perpetuities? It is kind of a restraint on freedom of contract after all...
MNG|6.4.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Well, you're right, that's why I said kind of. But it is a restraint on what you can do with your property, in conveying it...
|6.4.09 @ 2:06PM|#
If you are a conservative, this makes you think that perhaps the magic Latina isn't so bad. Anyone Obama picks is going to vote liberal. But if she rights poor opinions, she won't have much long term effect on the law. This is why liberals hated Bork and lied so much to stop him. They knew what a great writer he was and how influential his opinions will be. They stopped Bork and ended up with Kennedy instead, which was a hell fo a good trade. Maybe the Republicans should live with Sotomayor and liberals ought to be a little more pissed at the appointment.
|6.4.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Most of the weird real property rules are intended to keep property alienable and to prevent it from getting stuck somewhere for all time. If you didn't have it, then some guy five hundred years dead could still be directing the use of the property from "beyond the grave."
MNG|6.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#
I was thinking of how it can occur in a contractual setting,
like a conveyance for consideration, but that was a sucky way to
put it, my bad...
Anyways, if you guys are against it I'll gladly work with you to
put an end to that fucking rule as it makes my head hurt thinking
about it...
|6.4.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"You know, what would be the libertarian position on the Rule
against Perpetuities? It is kind of a restraint on freedom of
contract after all..."
I don't think it is. Dead people can't contract. Further, the law
is written for the living not the dead. You want the living people
who value the land the most to have the property.
|6.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#
MNG,
I don't think it is that difficult of a rule. All it says is that
any property in a will must vest within 20 years of the life of any
person living at the time of the will. Basically all it means is
that twenty years after everyone listed in your will die, someone
has to own your property in fee simple.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 2:14PM|#
I understand that Pro L, but shouldn't you be free to convey your property to the Cato Foundation, and if the land shall be used for socialist purposes to Urkobold and his heirs if you want?
|6.4.09 @ 2:19PM|#
No, I shouldn't. All we need is the dead hand of, say, Queen
Elizabeth directing what we can do with land here in the U.S.
My land can go to anyone, provided that such person is in a state
of active rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. See how this
works?
|6.4.09 @ 2:19PM|#
MNG,
It is tough in its application. The joke during bar review prep is
that they can ask you questions about the RAP that they can't
answer. But the basic idea of the rule is not hard.
"I understand that Pro L, but shouldn't you be free to convey your
property to the Cato Foundation, and if the land shall be used for
socialist purposes to Urkobold and his heirs if you want?"
You really can. You just give it to a trust or a corporation. The
rule says that you can't restrain their alienation of it.
Ultimately, if Urkobod decides to sell it to a Hooters franchise 20
years after you are dead, he ought to be able to. The RAP doesn't
restrain your right of contract. It keeps you from restraining
other people's right of contract after you are dead.
Irving House |6.4.09 @ 2:20PM|#
"Most of the weird real property rules are intended to keep
property alienable and to prevent it from getting stuck somewhere
for all time. If you didn't have it, then some guy five hundred
years dead could still be directing the use of the property from
"beyond the grave.""
So if I want to creat a foundation and donate homes (and adequate
O&M) to it to house the poor in perpetuity, that's an
anti-Libertarian act?
robc|6.4.09 @ 2:22PM|#
MNG,
I oppose the RIAA telling me what I can or cant do with a CD after
I buy it, so I see no reason a dead man should have more power than
a music company.
|6.4.09 @ 2:23PM|#
It's true; the freedoms of the dead are few. Only in
intellectual property are dead people given rights for perpetuity.
Well, almost perpetuity.
Who will speak for the dead?
alan|6.4.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Mother Jones isn't exactly a right-wing publication. Perhaps
there's more liberal discontent with Sotomayor's nomination than
Obama expected.
It would be a miracle if something doesn't come out from her stint
as a corporate lawyer that pisses off a good chunk of the left. I
don't think it is a slam dunk, just yet.
Hambone|6.4.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Here is a great example of the left building strawmen in orde to
bash the right:
Stuart Taylor Jr.: Commentary
Olbermann's Mosquito Bites
June 4, 2009
I hear that Keith Olbermann declared on MSNBC Tuesday evening that
I am "runner-up" for his "hypocrisy award" and also "a
fraud."
In case anyone takes Olbermann seriously, I identify below the
false and misleading assertions of fact that he packed into his
60-second diatribe.
Olbermann claimed that I characterized Sonia Sotomayor's 1974
letter to the editor accusing Princeton University of
discrimination as a "decisive" reason to oppose her
nomination.
False. I wrote nothing close to that, and I do not see Sotomayor's
letter as disqualifying. I have consistently indicated that debate
about this nomination should focus mostly on her judicial decisions
and speeches, which I have analyzed at length. My only critical
comment in my brief post about her 1974 letter was that "some may
see [it] as evidence that she was predisposed to look for the
worst, not the best, in the institution that had afforded her such
opportunities."
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/olbermanns-mosquito.php
|6.4.09 @ 2:45PM|#
What is wrong if A wants his property to go to A's eldest son for life, and then to A's heirs?
|6.4.09 @ 2:49PM|#
libertymike,
If you don't draw a line somewhere, then real property can become
controlled forever by the wishes of a guy long dead. It's not only
a bad idea, but, of course, everyone would just start ignoring or
creating legal fictions to get around G4-grandfather's requirement
that the land only be used for cotton picking by slaves.
Irving House|6.4.09 @ 2:52PM|#
"It's not only a bad idea"
Using one's property for the perpetual housing for the poor is a
bad idea? I guess it's better if the government provides for that
need.
Colin|6.4.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Perhaps there's more liberal discontent with Sotomayor's
nomination than Obama expected.
I think there is fear of the unknown, especially in regards to
abortion. I've read that even Limbaugh is warming to her -- which
must strike dread in the hearts of liberals everywhere.
|6.4.09 @ 2:58PM|#
What is wrong if A wants his property to go to A's eldest
son for life, and then to A's heirs?
Nothing, provided A's heirs get the property unencumbered. You've
satisfied the RAP.
What you can't do is say that the property can never ever ever
(ever) be held by anyone who isn't your heir.
|6.4.09 @ 3:01PM|#
I don't see why anyone in a liberal system would oppose the RAP or something like it. Do you miss feudalism?
KT|6.4.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Yes, there is liberal discontent with her. I just wish that from the start the debate had been about her opinions instead of how she is RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST. But I know that is asking too much.
|6.4.09 @ 3:09PM|#
"I don't see why anyone in a liberal system would oppose the RAP
or something like it. Do you miss feudalism?"
I agree. We are starting down that road a bit with organizations
like the Nature Conservency. They buy up land and keep it in
perpetuity. I don't see how that is any different than the days of
royalty owning hunting preserves in perpetuity. I once made that
argument in a natural resources law class. The prof was a Sierra
Club attorney. He kicked me out of his class. No kidding.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 3:16PM|#
I just wondered what libertarians think about the RAP, considering that while it may promote making the land alienable it is a restraint of sorts. I'm of course inclined to not have the living ruled by the dead hand of the past. I hate the RAP and advocate its abolition sheerly out of frustration with its complexity in application ;)
MNG|6.4.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Wasn't there a Supreme Court case that said that if company A sold a product to company B it could not, as part of the contract of sale, stipulate the price company B could sell it for? And iirc there was a Reason article bitching about that ruling as a restraint on contract. It strikes me that the RAP is similar to that...
robc|6.4.09 @ 3:22PM|#
MNG,
I think the key is that property rights, like all rights, only
extend to the living. Let the dead take care of the dead.
Property passes, at the moment of death*, on to the heirs, with ALL
the property rights passing on.
Not being a lawyer, I dont have to worry about the RAP. It just
seems intuitively obvious to me. :)
*technically, I guess when the estate is settled, but the fact that
that isnt instantaneous is just a human problem.
|6.4.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Scalia always seems to be using sarcasm to express his contempt
for this or that in that time-honored tradition in sophistry known
as "whoever is wittiest is right."
No question Sotomayor is a technocrat. If anything dissuaded me
from going into law it was its horrific disregard for elegant
prose.
But let's not forget, Scalia is an activist judge par excellence.
He can afford to write cleverly since he doesn't really care about
precedent.
robc|6.4.09 @ 3:24PM|#
MNG,
I think Company B can sell for whatever and Company A can refuse to
deal with Company B anymore after that point. Not sure when the
delivery occurred, but if B sold before delivery, they could get
screwed in that case. But if Company B is like a grocery store,
then I think they have the right to sell for whatever price and may
find themselves without a source of beans or whatever.
robc|6.4.09 @ 3:25PM|#
MNG,
Also, who ever claimed (t)Reason* represented libertarian
thought?
*I only use this sarcastically, well mostly only that way.
MNG|6.4.09 @ 3:28PM|#
But robc, it seems to block the property rights of the present, or maybe better put the future...In my example to Pro L above it is Urkobold and his heir's interest that is thwarted...
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Tony - please cite those cases which you feel demonstrate
Scalia's lack of "care" toward precedent. I've read plenty of cases
where Scalia restrains himself when stare decisis is
strong.
you *really* need to stop getting all of your political-legal
understanding ex rectum
|6.4.09 @ 3:32PM|#
"But let's not forget, Scalia is an activist judge par
excellence. He can afford to write cleverly since he doesn't really
care about precedent."
There is nothing activist about reading the law as it was written
rather than as you wish it to be. The "its Scalia that is the
activist" meme needs to be reitred. It is rediculous and no one
believes it. Not even the people who write it.
Tony, if you cared about liberal causes, you would be concerned
about this. The ability to write a well written opinion is very
important. Otherwise, you end up like O'Conner and write a bunch of
opinions that are limited to their facts. Plenty of activist
liberal judges write good opinions. Those are the ones who do the
most good for your cause, such as it is.
|6.4.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Scalia cares about precedent as long as it conforms to his real
standard of jurisprudence: "Scalia's book of common sense."
I don't like the term "activist judge" and I'll gladly retire it as
long as everyone else stops using it to refer to liberal opinions
they don't like while claiming opinions that match their political
stances are handed down directly from the founders from their perch
in the heavens.
robc|6.4.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Like physics, for the SCOTUS, precedent shouldnt matter. You should be able to derive results from 1st principles.
robc|6.4.09 @ 3:41PM|#
MNG,
If I understand your example, Urkobold and his heirs never had any
property rights, the property, and all its associated rights, was
left to CATO.
|6.4.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"I don't like the term "activist judge" and I'll gladly retire
it as long as everyone else stops using it to refer to liberal
opinions they don't like while claiming opinions that match their
political stances are handed down directly from the founders from
their perch in the heavens."
If the Constitution doesn't have a set meaning and instead means
whatever fashion and current morality dictates, then it doesn't
mean anything. You think a malliable Constitution is great because
you think that it will always work to your benefit. It won't.
Fashion sometimes turns against your freedoms. When that happens,
you won't have the Constitution to protect you anymore because it
will mean whatever the fashion means.
We have already seen this start to happen with regard to campaign
finance reform. The fashion became that "fair elections" are more
important that free speech. And guess what you don't have free
political speech anymore.
Tippy|6.4.09 @ 4:02PM|#
"No question Sotomayor is a technocrat. If anything dissuaded me
from going into law it was its horrific disregard for elegant
prose."
I just shit myself laughing.
Paul|6.4.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Gingrich moderates his opposition to her, the left begins to go
apeshit over her nomination. I see a pattern developing.
Obama, meet politics, politics, meet Obama.
Looks like he might have picked the wrong minority
candidate.
|6.4.09 @ 4:57PM|#
I think the key is that property rights, like all rights,
only extend to the living. Let the dead take care of the
dead.
I would note that the Catholic Church was the original "dead hand"
of property ownership, accumulating vast holdings over centuries of
accumulation. Corporations have the same ability today.
Real Property was one of my favorite classes in law school. The
prof (Michelman) was an incredible lecturer, and the angle he took
was to trace the historical development of property law, which is
mostly an accumulation of centuries of custom and common law, only
recently codified in any way. Great stuff.
|6.4.09 @ 5:02PM|#
R C Dean,
You've got to love a class that starts with the Norman invasion of
England. I don't think any other class in law school went back to
1066 for anything.
I liked Property quite a bit, too, but I haven't used it much
since.
|6.4.09 @ 5:06PM|#
I do recall a few cool concepts, like ferae naturae (originally about animals running across property lines but later used for subterranean gas and oil cases) and the right of conquest (Johnson v. M'intosh).
|6.4.09 @ 5:11PM|#
"Real Property was one of my favorite classes in law school. The
prof (Michelman) was an incredible lecturer, and the angle he took
was to trace the historical development of property law, which is
mostly an accumulation of centuries of custom and common law, only
recently codified in any way. Great stuff."
My property class was the same way. Although I was not at Harvard
so no one has ever heard of my prof. But, he was a giant brain from
the University of Chicago. His lectures were fabulous. They went
right over the classes head unfortuneately. I was the only guy in
class who liked the guy. And I was the only one who got an A.
|6.4.09 @ 5:12PM|#
"I do recall a few cool concepts, like ferae naturae"
That was a truly revolutionary concept in its day. Originally all
the wild animals belonged to the king. You could be put to death
for touching them. Imagine starving to death as you watched deer
and bore roam around your farm. That was a fate suffered by many a
medieval serf and French peasents right up until the
Revolution.
|6.5.09 @ 12:42AM|#
I do recall a few cool concepts, like ferae naturae
(originally about animals running across property lines but later
used for subterranean gas and oil cases) and the right of conquest
(Johnson v. M'intosh).
Ah, Johnson v. M'Intosh reminds me of my first experience in law
school. Very first day, very first class is Property. I've just
moved almost 3000 miles across the country and I am still feeling a
bit overwhelmed by the move and its circumstances and details. It's
also humid like I didn't know existed on Earth which only increases
the overall shock of the move. Luckily, I had been informed that,
unlike undergrad, there was no "syllabus day" in law school and
amidst all that was going on I had managed to find enough time to
check the assignment the day before and read cases.
Anyway I'm sitting there, in what is a rather large class, with a
mixture of excitement, anticipation and nervousness waiting for the
prof to start class. Finally, he walks in, doesn't say a word of
introduction or greeting, simply looks at the class list and says,
"Mr. Courts, are you familiar with Johnson v. M'Intosh?" He then
proceeded to question me on the case for the entire first half of
the class. Finally, reprieve came when he looked back down at the
list and said, "Ms. Flynn, did you get a chance to read Talbot v.
Seeman?" And then she was on the hook for the rest of the class.
Was definitely a rude awakening to the Socratic method.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245