Who you calling a coward?

There are many gross generalizations in the liberal vs. conservative debates. But this exchange encapsulates, the structural and intellectual difference between conservative and progressive movements as they are constituted today.

This is some serious inside baseball here. But it is something that I think gives insight into into the shell -shocked nature of the republican party and its functionaries in the blogosphere.

"publius", is a blogger who contributes to Obsidian Wings ( a fine blog by the way), who did what good bloggers do. Poked holes in the argument presented by Ed Whelan in regards to the Sotomayor nomination.

What results can only be described as some of the most juvenile behavior I have seen. Basically, Ed couldn't defend his argument, and instead decided to "out" publius (posting under a pseudonym is quite common and is generally respected).

Here are the collected posts (here, here, here, here and the Volokh post referenced).

I highly recommend reading them. And I would add that it is absolutely uncontroversial that circuit courts and the Supreme Court do, in fact, make policy. The law is not a perfect instrument. There are times when its intent is far from clear and the application of that law can be even murkier. This the void that judges at time fill.

Also this constant meme that conservatives even care about the rule of law or are strict constructionist, should be absolutely demolished. Conservatives are just as guilt of results oriented rulings as they accuse liberals of being. Just look at the debate over abortion, the Terri Schiavo case, or the Ricci case.

Basically by the conservative metric you are an activist if you rule in a manner that they do not agree with. The fact that this is not pointed our more often is a travesty.

-Cheers

And they said this would be post racial....

Haven't been posting much recently.

Mainly been trying to keep sane while watching the coverage of the pending Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court.

I have had the opportunity to read over some of her rulings and cases. Fairly mundane, slightly left of moderate judge. By no means a firebrand liberal. But the coverage of her opinions (legal) and of her commentary have been down right sickening.

Starting with the shoddy piece by Jeffery Rosen over at the The New Republic. The piece itself is just bad journalism. The plethora of anonymous sources, lobbing invectives, alone should be enough to disqualify it as a responsible critique, but this takes the cake:

I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities.

But then you have the unhinged response of the right-wing. Huffington Post has good round up here, Think Progress has some interesting commentary here, and well it is pretty much a big whine-fest.

Now I do not know what the woman's judicial philosophy is. But the critiques profited thus far are some of the shoddiest I have heard. If you disagree with the idea that simply because some has an opposing judicial view than you, just say you object because of that. Do not try to demean their legitimate accomplishments as "affirmative action based", or "preferential treatment". Graduating Summa Cum Laude, requires hard work and dedication. No one can hand that to you. Especially at an institution like Princeton. Also it is easy to forget that those same individuals who are attacking this now, were praising it for Justice Alito, and Roberts during their confirmations.

It is nice that hypocrisy never goes out of style.

-Cheers