This

Journalists use anonymity not because they can't get anyone to speak on the record, but because, like Rosen, they're too slothful to do the work to find on-the-record sources and they crave the sort of sensationalism that is possible only when someone is allowed to spout inflammatory garbage without having their names attached.

seems uncharacteristic inasmuch as you generally decline to attribute motive.

I really enjoyed today's blog Glenn. It was very very informative.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-felt-she-could-be-very-judgmental-in.html

Give me a break. A judge is "judgmental"?

- - Ann Althouse

__________

is used to promote propaganda and hide from accountability. What better way to give voice to the masters behind the scenes?

I'm pretty sure the counter-argument breaks down to "cases should be decided the way my gut feels they should."

Judges should decide the case using whatever criteria is beneficial to the wealthy, Caucasians, males, businesses, heterosexuals, and/or the powerful.

Is indicator #7 in Wikipedia's list of Hare's 20 indicators of Psychopathy.

This is typical conservative irrational rhetoric. It's like catching your spouse having an affair and getting both responses:

1 - I have never even met her -- honest -- I don't even know her name

2 - She was already pregnant when I met her, so I couldn't be the father

"Either judicial cases -- such as Ricci -- should be decided on the law and precedent about affirmative action and discrimination, or they should be decided based on empathy for Frank Ricci and the alleged unfairness of affirmative action. Which is it?" Maybe neither.

I have seen arguments that the Ricci decision violated the law. Informed legal opinion may go another way than how Judge Sotomayor decided.

Certainly Rosen's use of anonymous sources wrong and I'm glad you pointed this out. This whole whisper campaign completely obscures her opinions and actually evaluating them. Rosens's own book shows how insignificant "judicial tempermant" is on the SC, so I don't even see this as an issue. What I do see as important is deference to governmental authority shown in several of her opinions. We need a scrappy fighter for the rule of law. It's hanging by a thread.

Are these people in a damn time machine? Anyway, please. The same types froth at the mouth when Scalia goes off on some cowering lawyer, so spare me the concerns about how mean and peremptory Sotomayor is at oral argument.

“I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn’t let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions.”

I'm sorry, but starting with your very first moot court lesson in law school you are told that no matter how much you prepare your opening statement, you can be sure that at some point one of the justices will interrupt you and drag you way off your intended path. My experiences with ACTUAL appellate courts suggest that this is, in fact, common practice. Frankly, its RARE that you DON'T get interrupted!

"Which is it? "

Rhetorical, correct????

If giving catholics a 2/3rds majority on the Supreme Court doesn't fly in the face of what affirmative action and quotas stand for, I don't know what does?

Just more hypocrisy from Obama and his religious followers.

I have seen arguments that the Ricci decision violated the law. Informed legal opinion may go another way than how Judge Sotomayor decided.

Fine - objecting to her Ricci decision by claiming it was wrong on the law is perfectly reasonable (though there are many judges, obviously, who disagree and, even if wrong, her opinion was well within the mainstream). I'm not addressing legal arguments like that.

I'm addressing those who claim empathy has no place in judicial decision-making and yet simultaneously keep hyping the sad results for Frank Ricci specifically and affirmative action generally in order to claim that Sotomayor - acting as a judge - wrongly decided that case.

That if empathy and human emotion didn't come into play both in writing legislation and in rendering judgments mased on it, we would even need courts or judges in the first place. We could simply ask computers to make all our important decisions for us and call it a day.

Ironically, the attorneys quoted in the NYT may illustrate one of the difficulties of getting people to provide comments on the record: they risk making fools of themselves. Neither one seems to have a very good grasp of the theory and practice of appellate argument.

Ms. Chaudry complains that "she doesn’t let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions.” Many lawyers who infrequently appear in appellate courts make this mistake, and seem to believe that oral argument exists so that the attorneys can read their briefs, including a tedious recapitulation of the facts, aloud to the judges. Such attorneys tend to become flustered and insecure when questions interrupt their practiced, but unnecessary, presentation.

Experienced appellate lawyers, on the other hand, want a "hot bench," i.e., judges who have read -- and understood -- the briefs, and are looking to advance the discussion beyond where it was left off by the parties. These judges typically are not willing to waste the limited time available listening to attorneys make points that have already been more than adequately presented to, and understood by, the judges in the briefs.

Mr. Lefcourt's comments are a little more surprising, since his stated experience with Ms. Sotomayor would suggest that he should have enough experience to know better. One of the crucial distinctions between arguing in the trial court and arguing before an appellate bench is the fact that you have multiple judges sitting. In such cases, oral argument with the attorneys may take the form of an argument by proxy amongst the judges. As a consequence, such judges commonly do "use[] [their] questioning to make a point”; they're trying to persuade their fellow justices about the merits, or lack thereof, of various positions. If you don't understand that that's what's going on -- and why it's a valid part of the process -- then you probably shouldn't be doing the oral argument.