tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post7892108005064401031..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Sotomayor: no racist, no writerAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-16552244015947149692009-06-16T17:41:43.884-04:002009-06-16T17:41:43.884-04:00You're right, you know about lawyers because y...You're right, you know about lawyers because you are one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-42233263481368519382009-06-16T17:10:53.642-04:002009-06-16T17:10:53.642-04:00Now that is just ridiculous. Clarity is clarity, a...Now that is just ridiculous. Clarity is clarity, and this speech ain't got it. I don't care whether the audience is a kindergarten class, a lconference of legal scholars or the law school grads it was addressed to, it just doesn't say much or say it very well. Does that mean that Sotomayor mightn't be an excellent Supreme Court justice? No. It does indicate that, as she's admitted freely, writing does not come naturally to her, and that outside the strict formats of legal documents she doesn't do it very well.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-5810863698282076082009-06-16T17:01:10.718-04:002009-06-16T17:01:10.718-04:00Of course your argument incorrectly assumes that a...Of course your argument incorrectly assumes that a commencement speech is a comprehensive thesis on legal reasoning. Graduation from law school, I assure you, is neither the time nor the place for such a thing. Neither would it be necessary here, as law students from a policy school such as Berkley have a thorough understanding of what she was talking about without deep analysis. <br /><br />I understand that as a layman you would probably like a dumbed down thorough analysis...but you were not the audience being addressed, so you get nothing, but a tsk for thinking a quasi-formal speech to law students equates to poor writing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-19393344154143369562009-06-16T15:56:08.455-04:002009-06-16T15:56:08.455-04:00poor syntax is not easier to follow verbally than ...poor syntax is not easier to follow verbally than in writing.<br /><br />Whoever the audience, Sotomayor simply did not cut that deeply into the ways in which personal experience should/should not or do/do not inform judicial decision-making.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-7073065008758964092009-06-16T15:24:59.231-04:002009-06-16T15:24:59.231-04:00I do not think you understand the crowd she is add...I do not think you understand the crowd she is addressing, or the legal reasoning policies she is discussing. She is talking to soon to be lawyer, not common place bloggers. <br /><br />And again, since you chose to ignore the last time I said it, this is a speech, written to be heard, not to be read. It is a minute distinction a trial lawyer understands (ie Sotomayor), but a regular person would not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-42304721128651030862009-06-15T21:02:20.284-04:002009-06-15T21:02:20.284-04:00The speech is revealing, for reasons already cited...The speech is revealing, for reasons already cited. The post was not about a "small section" of the speech -- it treated the whole, obviously focusing on passages that demonstrate the flaws in her writing. Yes, an intelligent assessment of some focused cross-section of Sotomayor's body of legal writing would be a more valuable exercise, but that doesn't negate the value of looking at what the speech tells us about the depth and clarity of her thinking on on a key meta-legal issue -- the degree to which our background shapes our judgment.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-59092122836663216412009-06-15T18:38:38.817-04:002009-06-15T18:38:38.817-04:00Well with such a no nonsense approach, perhaps you...Well with such a no nonsense approach, perhaps you can go ahead and read one of her opinions. <br /><br />I am also unconvinced that her speech was "clumsy," as you've charged. You do not write a speech, you speak it. Drawing comparisons between a small section of a full speech and her abilities as a writer are, well, foolish for that very reason. <br /><br />I do not doubt that she is no Scalia, but do you know how many Justices have written as well (and as obnoxiously) as him? Just one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-29310444596907509052009-06-15T17:40:03.521-04:002009-06-15T17:40:03.521-04:00I'm not aware of Limbaugh's comments, thou...I'm not aware of Limbaugh's comments, though well after this post went up I read via Sullivan of nasty right-wing critiques of Sotomayor's writing. Just calling 'em the way I 'em. Sotomayor may be supremely qualified for the Supreme Court, but the clumsiness of her writing is relevant. As I indicated at the end of the post, I'd feel better about a nominee whose clarity of thought shone through her non-legal work. I'm prejudiced toward good writers.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-44457700936835122982009-06-15T17:33:03.672-04:002009-06-15T17:33:03.672-04:00So you cited specifically to Rush's belittlin...So you cited specifically to Rush's belittling of Sotomayor's abilities as a legal writer, but not for that point? Why bother?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-56294027384491130842009-06-15T12:03:17.927-04:002009-06-15T12:03:17.927-04:00Anon, I did not say that Sotomayor is "a poor...Anon, I did not say that Sotomayor is "a poor legal writer within the confines of being a judge." What's more, I'd agree that the quality of her opinions is more important than more free-form expressions of her thoughts. But the prose in opinions is supported by elaborate conventions, including substantial citations of prior opinions, and are largely drafted by clerks. <br /> One can probably be a great judge without being a particularly good writer.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-13307553438746632602009-06-15T11:43:13.860-04:002009-06-15T11:43:13.860-04:00I am unsure that your analysis of Sotomayor's ...I am unsure that your analysis of Sotomayor's speech writing supports the contention that she is a poor legal writer within the confines of being a judge. Citing to an actual opinion she wrote would suffice.<br /><br />As an aside, the irony of your citing to Rush and then having the screen name of expostfactoid has turned my nipple purple (she was overturned 60% of the time by the SCOTUS, not 80% as Rush has so glibly distorted).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com