For anyone who is a glutton for punishment, a lengthy and clear explanation of the background facts – which shows the bind that the City was in – can be found at http://www.todaysworkplace.org/

‘Righteous Bubba’ cites one instance, and one author’s self-cite of that same instance, which explicitly disclaim both evaluating her intelligence, and making her intelligence relevant to the discussion.

Clearly. You’re the one suggesting you’re entitiled to deny that words in quotes say what they plainly say, but mean what you say they mean instead. Quite a different thing, RonK, Seattle.

I understand much of the community believes they have witnessed an atrocity, and are engaging in socially-obligatory shaming – but no such atrocity has occurred. I believe it’s prudent to deploy outrage sparing in defense of The Good, and in particular to reserve it for offenses that have actually been committed.

Kieran, yes, Hemingway is characterizing what Rosen wrote, and disapprovingly so (as he has repeatedly taken pains to clarify). Do we sarcasm tags around “Off … Got it.”?

‘sleepy’—Sotomayor is fully qualified. There has never been as argument about that, in Rosen or anything after. Neither is there any argument about whether she is smart—only whether she is “that smart”, with the context and inflection of “that” missing. Neither is there any ‘sleaze’ to argue about – in Rosen, or in SCOTUSblog two years back, for that matter.

The points in controversy, as far as I can find them, are
1. Whether she is an “intellectual heavyweight” (within the reference group of SCOTUS potentials)
2. Whether (in terms of strategic effectiveness for the forces of Light) a heftier pick would have been more effective.
3. Whether anyone can take issue with (1) or (2) without being a racist troll or some such.
4. Whether there is any middle ground between identifying anyone as heftiest pick on the short list, and identifying them as an outright dummy. [ Otherwise, the outrage displays – and selection of targets – makes very little sense whatever … do they?]

I suspect there is fertile unexplored territory overlooked in the indignation-fest, along the lines of what we mean by “intellectual heft” on the bench. I further suspect is has something to do with the role and emphasis on theory within a discipline (as has been explored at length at CT among cooler heads where other disciplines are involved).

Hemingway at NRO:

This article from Jeffrey Rosen at TNR about potential Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit is pretty astonishing … [Quotes Rosen at length] … Oof. So she’s dumb and obnoxious. Got it.

Hemingway’s “dumb and obnoxious” was his tongue-in-cheek characterization (and mischaracterization at that) of Rosen’s article.

OK, no more troll-feeding for me.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench…” —Jeffrey Rosen, OuterFringe Magazine

Hemingway’s “dumb and obnoxious” was his tongue-in-cheek characterization (and mischaracterization at that) of Rosen’s article.

Nobody I have seen—from Rosen forward—ever suggested she lacks the “intellectual heft” for the job. The (now retrograde) argument is whether there were heftier candidates available, and whether Obama ought to have led with a bright bulb (like Sotomayor), or a frickin’ lighthouse.

In that regard, I note Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog, from a speculative post in July 2007:

… There is no reason to defer a Hispanic appointment with two highly qualified Hispanic women available. So the first seat will go to Sotomayor (to whom I now lean) or Wardlaw.

The second seat will go to a recognized intellectual heavyweight. That means Garland, Kagan, Sullivan, or Wood. …

Matt, thanks for the Posner update cite, which is a good substantial contribution to the discussion.

Note in passing, you falsify the record re Rosen’s piece. He said he hadn’t read “enough” opinions to reach a firm conclusion, not that he hadn’t read “any”. I’ll grant you one “not that smart” (though context matters), but you have inverted “not the brainiest” was uttered by one of Rosen’s sources only for the purpose of disagreeing with that very premise.

There are standards of fairness in argumentation, and they are being givien rough treatment here. Carry on …

Have you been living under a rock? This whole thing got started with a journalist citing anonymous clerks who questioned her intelligence and her temperament.

What’s next? Maybe someone is waiting to insist that when you call someone “dumb and obnoxious” and say they lack the “intellectual heft” for the job they’re up for, this should not in any way be construed as evaluating their intelligence.

You haven’t been following this very closely have you, Ron? I don’t blame you, but the “questioning of her intelligence” started early, with a piece from Jeffery Rosen in The New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
Rosen “reports” unnamed sources saying she’s “not that smart”, saying that “word on the street” is that “she’s not the brainiest”, and so on. Rosen reported this without having read any of her decisions or getting anyone to talk on the record. His path was then picked up by many, many others. The claim that no one has questioned her intelligence isn’t at all plausible.

Avoiding the shorthand of “IQ”—where has anyone ever questioned her intelligence? And what has this to do with “intellectual heft”, as understood in this hefty company?

[‘Righteous Bubba’ cites one instance, and one author’s self-cite of that same instance, which explicitly disclaim both evaluating her intelligence, and making her intelligence relevant to the discussion. And shame on Bubba for sending me over to read Ponnuru. Ick!]