What are the chances that any of Prof. Rosen's students will ask him about this. Part of me thinks none will, in worshipful subservience to the "cool" "great speaker" who led them so boldly into the thicket of constitutional law. Another part of me thinks some will, but only out of that notoriously insufferable need of some law students to prove they can outsmart the father figure on his own turf.

Professors like Jeffrey Rosen tend to encourage more of the former. The combination of outsized media profile and in-class persona is often too much for even the most egocentric students to risk a shaming by a popular campus figure. Maybe the rare soul who's actually interested in exploring the topic for its own sake, and is yet unafraid of being unliked by Teacher, will step forward?

And the blogger, himself, must remain at all costs - anonymous.

My brain is stalling and misfiring like crazy today. Could you please elaborate?

I was in this world for quite awhile -- the cultural, ethnic, class, gender and racial overtones in what Rosen is up to -- whether he realizes it or not -- are quite predominant.

To which world are you referring? The court system? The legal community generally?

Apologies if my last comment made it sound like I was saying that Rosen himself characterized Glenn's critiques as bullying (it was, instead, a commenter here).

The point stands, however. It's clear from the tone of Rosen's follow-up that he regards such criticisms as unfair ("conspiracy-minded"), and it goes without saying that the typical establishment media response to a blogger's arguments is that they are unreasonable, shrill, and, if backed by enough vocal supporters, bullying.

I never really heard the term "bullying" used before when the attacks are against people with lots of power, influence, prestige, and a significant platform. Picking on people who can't defend themselves or who have less influence is worthless and just mean-spirited -- I'd question the motives of people who did that, too. That's bullying.

This dovetails nicely with John Cole's observations, which inspired my last comment. While Judge Sotomayor - smart, tough, and having life tenure on a federal court - is certainly not wholly defenseless or vulnerable, she has not put herself out in the crossfire of public discourse the way that well-known public figures like Rosen (or Glenn) have. Also, if she ever were to be in the Supreme Court running, she hasn't even had a chance to make her own case yet.

What a telling inversion that Rosen sees a preemptive attack piece on an un-nominated, relatively obscure person like Sotomayor as perfectly fair, but criticism of such a high-profile piece from an upstart blogger is gratuitous and unfair bullying.

This has irreversibly changed her life, her workplace conditions, and her relationships with the people she works with right now, and she may never be nor was ever in line to be the nominee. Regardless, thanks to Rosen and the editiorial genius of Franklin Foer, a substantial portion of the country has been presented a portrayal of her as “an intellectually deficient, stunted, egotistical affirmative-action beneficiary.” Does anyone here think that if they were in Sonia Sotomayor’s shoes they would be re-thinking their relationship with all their past and current associates? Wouldn’t you be looking around at your co-workers wondering which one had said nasty things about you, knowing full well there was no way to clear your name or defend yourself? What Rosen and these anonymous sources did to her was not only unprofessional and inexcusable, it was cruel and it was a pre-emptive smearing. How would any of you like a whisper campaign published against you in the TNR for a position you aren’t even seeking or probably aren’t even in line to receive? How would Jeffrey Rosen like it?

And given a few days to think about what he has done, Rosen obliviously comes out and apologizes not for what he has done, but for a headline he claims he had nothing to do with. But don’t worry, Sonia. He and his anonymous sources just had the country’s best interests at heart, and he did say that he, personally, thinks you are “able.”

This is such the anatomy of an establishment media smear job on a relatively little-known figure they find threatening on some level. Get those doubts "out there," then retract, apologize, and/or equivocate later, in a much-less-noticed follow up. The tone is always the same, too.

And such incredible nonchalance in the way that people's lives and reputations are severely damaged with this recklessly tendentious wielding of the very powerful weapon of mass communication. No wonder so many people avoid high-visibility public service like the plague. It usually takes a serious megalomaniac with enough ego armor to withstand the attacks, or at least a person already in good standing with the media stars.

My biggest strike against the normal run of Supreme Court candidates is that they are the usual identikit collection, Yale or Harvard, Supreme Court Clerk, back to academia (with a side of appellate practice), straight to circuit court, etc. I would like say 7 of 9 not to be from Yale or Harvard, a few to have been practicing lawyers, who did trial level work. Who worked hard.

You would probably enjoy (or have already read) this column:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/oneill.supreme.court/?iref=mpstoryview

Spot on.

Your racist shtick is tired and you have not been saying anything worthwhile for pages now. So, whether or not your terribly fragile ego and need for attention can stand it, we'll talk about things worth talking about.