Turley "No one would suggest that Sotomayor is not incredibly bright"

[grantcart]

Just now on MSNBC a right wing quoted Turley as saying that "Sotomayor is not very bright".

In fact Turley carelessly worded statement does not say that, although it is clear why people would hear that:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/26/white-house-to-announce-court-pick-at-10-am/#more-11301


"My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. Objecting to the intellectual content of opinions is not the same as objecting to the intellect of an individual. Smart people can have little vision in the law or other fields. No one would suggest that Sotomayor is not incredibly bright. It is her legal vision and the depth of her legal philosophy that is at issue in confirmation debates."

Turley goes on to say:

"Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be much more controversial and divisive for confirmation in my view. This was the highest risk nomination that Obama could pick."

It seems clear that Turley was wrong on this statement, that the right wing is struggling to find controversy and that on the left the controversy is Turley and some 'anonymous clerks'. Turley must have thought that all the pundits would follow him blindly. This whole episode has revealed a lot more about Turley and his "shoot from the hip" condescending self absorbed manner than his ability to do real analysis.

In any case Turley's carelessly worded rant is being turned and used to state something that is 180 degrees from what he wanted to say, which is apparently, "Sotomayor is a brilliant student of law but has yet to write any opinions that demonstrate great legal vision". I wonder exactly who on the Supreme Court does Turley think demonstrate great "legal vision"?

And finally if you are on a career path that is likely to get you a nomination to the Supreme Court then the smartest thing to do, unfortunately, given the circus that confirmation hearings have become, is to not show too much of your hand too early.

[Perky]

1. WTF?

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[geek tragedy]

2. there are two alternatives:

1). He's just a racist condescending prick; or

2). He's flinging all the crap at her he can so he can get face time on tv. Because it simply doesn't make sense to bemoan her lack of overt legal philosophy and then claim (falsely) that she is the most divisive pick possible because she's too liberal or whatever.

Either way, Turkey has outer himself(once again) as a concern troll and media whore.

F@ck him in the ear.

[redqueen]

3. Did he really write this?

" It is her legal vision and the depth of her legal philosophy that is at issue in confirmation debates."

"Are", Turley. Those "are" at issue, IYO.

Jesus.

[grantcart]

16. cut and pasted from his blog

[redqueen]

20. *rofflemayo*

[WeDidIt]

4. That arrogant prick is backpedaling faster than a Reichwingnut

who talked about Obama's birth certificate.

[mkultra]

5. Please take your right wing bullshit elsewhere

The issue of Sotomayors intellectual depth was released accidentally as the recent GOP talking point. Its clear that Turley has jumped on this wagon. Here is Turley referring to her intellectual depth without reservation.


The first segment is him sideswiping her, at 2:30 is the splice of another interview where he affirms her as dumb and takes a shot at Marshall.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnkRhNyaENs

and here is his blog where he sites concerns over her intellectual depth again but hedges by trying to confine it to her legal opinions.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/26/white-house-to-announce-court-pick-at-10-am/

[Karenina]

6. You may want to edit your subject line as it seems

you have misconstrued the OP's communication intent. :shrug:

[mkultra]

9. perhaps, when i read the op, i thought he was trying to back up turley

by showing that he didn't really call her dumb. But he actually did. Did i mis-read?

[babylonsister]

12. No, that's a quote from Turley in the OP. nt

[mkultra]

13. yes, his quote says that she is bright

But his later interviews have him saying otherwise.

[babylonsister]

15. OK.

Maybe because I saw Turley putting her down yesterday morning, and then saw him on KO, I knew he was not complimenting her with that remark.

[grantcart]

17. I think that my comments after Turley's quotes show that I detest Turley

The OP is intended to show that 1) He is clearly wrong in calling her the most controversial choice possible and 2) His opinion is so poorly stated that it makes it appear that he is trying to doubt her intellect, which he actually does not.

I also wonder, by the metric that Turley is using on Sotomayor what justice of the SC he thinks has 'legal vision'.


From everything I have seen I believe that the President has made a brilliant choice in that it not only brings forth a progressive voice on the court that will help build majorities (which is more important than flaming dissensions) but also have strong secondary political impact in Texas, Arizona and Florida.

[mkultra]

19. oh, i must have misread it

I thought you showed a quote by him in which he said she WAS bright.

Then went on to post a story that backed it up.

[Phred42]

7. Remember - Turley is a Libertarian...if that helps ya.

[Spazito]

8. I swear Turley believes the more words used, the greater the gravitas....

even though most of the words are extraneous to the matter at hand. To him, a two-paragraph opinion is 'lazy' even if it succinctly sums up the decision whereas an 80 page opinion denotes, to him, 'intellectual depth'.

Just reading his VERY wordy blog entry is a struggle, succinctness is not his forte, unfortunately.

In this blog AND in his talking head appearances, he is merely regurgitating the previously formulated right-wing talking points, he can't even be original on this issue with the exception, possibly, of throwing in the mix the disparagement of Supreme Court Justice Marshall, an addition I suspect he now regrets due to the backlash. Disgusting, imo.

[jefferson_dem]

10. An insufferably smug asshat.

nt

[Occam Bandage]

11. "Oh, she's smart, it's just that her opinions are stupid."

:eyes:

Turley, shut the fuck up. You're a tool.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Poor, poor Turley.

[Cha]

18. Rec'd~ Very unimpressive..

And, who cares if it's supposedly such a "high risk"? What does that have to do with her qualifications?