Turley: Past Opinions of Sotomayor Lack Intellectual Depth

[npk]

Run time: 02:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0hu9Om_yhI   Posted on YouTube: May 26, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 27, 2009 By DU Member: npk Views on DU: 3310

 
Jonathon Turley comments on Sotomayor's "lack of Intellectual Depth" on previous decisions.

From: MSNBC

[bluestateguy]

1. Good. I'm glad he said this

Maybe now people here will stop worshiping the ground this self-righteous asshole walks on now.

[aquart]

10. Turley failed to worship at the Obama altar so he's out!

Well, heaven forfend we have independent opinions in this administration.

What a knee-jerk, Republican-like reaction to a dissenting voice. Let's shun him, shall we?

[bluestateguy]

12. He was a cheerleader for the Clinton impeachment 10 years ago

I have not forgotten that.

This asshole is just a camera hungry publicity hound who likes nothing more than the sound of his own voice.

So yes, I will shun him. I have already done so, in fact.

[travelingtypist]

14. Got links?

I've seen this posted around here a lot, that Turley was a cheerleader for the Clinton impeachment, but I'm not finding that. His testimony was about whether the House could send the matter to the Senate, not how the Senate should vote. I don't know if that's a distinction without a difference, but just I'd love to see a Gingrich-like quote from the man.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1998/11/16/News/Turley.Calls.Clintons.Impeachment.Unlikely-15315.shtml

[Spazito]

57. Turley's argument before the House was NOT whether the House could...

send the matter to the Senate, his argument was that Clinton had committed impeachable offenses which were covered under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution.

Here is a snippet from his submission to the House:

"Much of the recent debate over the standards for impeachment has focused on whether certain types of criminal acts or misdeeds are by definition outside the scope of Article II, Section 4. The White House has argued that a threshold definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” excludes the conduct alleged as the basis for articles of impeachment in this inquiry. Some of the academics present today have endorsed variations of this theory. Accordingly, it is argued, the inquiry should be concluded without further action (beyond a possible censure) since, even if proven, the alleged misconduct could not fall under the clear meaning of impeachable acts. Additionally, it is argued that any impeachment based on the allegations of the Independent Counsel would actually undermine our constitutional system.

It is important to restate the specific context for this threshold argument. President Clinton stands accused of a series of knowing criminal acts in office, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of office. While I greatly respect the academics on the other side of this debate, I do not believe that there is a basis to exclude such conduct from potential articles of impeachment on any definitional, historical or policy basis. Far from it, I believe that the argument advanced by the White House would create extremely dangerous precedent for our country and would undermine fundamental guarantees of the Madisonian Democracy. It is my view that the allegations in this inquiry, if proven, would constitute clear and compelling grounds for impeachment and the submission of this matter to the United States Senate for a determination of the merits."

Here is the link to his full submission from his own site:

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

[jkshaw]

2. Sheesh ...

[FrenchieCat]

3. What an arrogant Prick!

I saw this when it was first aired....and I had to say about Turley.... :wtf:

[vaberella]

7. "lack of intellectual depth"? I think he just called her stupid and vapid. n/t

[Fovea]

34. I didn't hear that.

I heard 'prosaic' and 'workmanlike'.

And he seems pretty careful in explaining what a lot of progressives want,
a counter poise to Scalia.

Obama *wants* to be criticized by the left as well as the right.
That was the whole point behind his cabinet picks.

[vaberella]

53. Lack of intellectual depth is something very different.

So I definitely heard that. I heard his statements and his position is silly at best and ludicrous at worst.

Obama makes the decisions he finds best. You on the other hand seem to be listening to a lot of MSM, including Turley who is pushing that meme.

From what I read of Sotomayor she was extremely qualified. I don't know how this is a problem. She had the most experience in his top 6 people and she's had a very profound resume. If you find that he wants to be criticized on his cabinet pick because he picked the best one, that's as stupid as Turley, IMO. If she had the best resume and O was impressed by her, why shouldn't she be allowed to have the position. And no one could argue her resume, end of story. There is no ulterior motive. She was just supremely qualified.

[Fovea]

59. I, on the other hand...

Am trying to get as many points of view as possible, and Professor Turley has a distinct and usually well thought out POV.
Even Presidents I like can make mistakes. President Obama's rigor is not in doubt, but his strategy might be.
And though you think me stupid, I shall treasure my state of dullardry in company I respect at least.

She has a long resume. She seems quite moderate. But I have not posted a definitive opinion at all on the nominee.
I simply said I thought his comments did not strike me as described.

A SCOTUS nomination is not a day's journey. We will know much more as the days pass.
I have an open mind.

[VPStoltz]

4. This is rather strange...

I heard a guest on Ron Reagan's show, a conservative, who said the same thing.
He said he was surprised "O" hadn't picked a "liberal, intellectual heavyweigh" who could over time change the course of the court - like Scalia!
He was very cynical about it.
Turley seems to be aping the same talking points.

[vaberella]

6. Yup, yup. He is an epic fail. n/t

[bjobotts]

20. Obama picks to avoid conflict with Publicans.Never said she was stupid goober

[bjobotts]

21. Just said there were better more liberal intellectual picks.This one won't be challenged

[bjobotts]

23. Mainly because she's a Hispanic woman with a solid history.

[bjobotts]

25. They were ready to filibuster ANY pick, but now...I'd rather see one they hated

[bjobotts]

29. Angry because he didn't like Obama's pick?He has no agenda.Honest opinions from qualified man

[vaberella]

5. My sister to Turley: For depth and proud-ness---read poetry. n/t

[firedupdem]

8. Pompous ass...his face damn near twisted when Schuster

mentioned his credentials. Screw him.

[bjobotts]

27. Face it, Turley has very insightful and honest opinions,U don't have to agree but the anger is mispl

[firedupdem]

44. You face it...this ass included Thurgood Marshall in his description

of who is a dim bulb and who isn't. That statement let me know that his statements are not insightful at all. You can respect him all you want, his opinions mean nothing to me.

[Trocadero]

9. is it a secret that clerks usually write the opinions?

[aquart]

11. I'm sorry. Are you excusing her opinions on the grounds that she did not write them?

Seriously?

[JDPriestly]

17. Precisely. The intellectual depth depends on the clerks to a

pretty important extent -- not entirely, but with good law clerks, she will do well. What's missing on the Court at this time is a soul that is in the right place.

[travelingtypist]

13. In his appearance on Olbermann, Turley was more circumspect.

The video doesn't seem to be on YouTube yet, or I can't find it.

She's qualified, she has a hell of a personal story, that's all good as far as I'm concerned. But I don't have a problem with Turley wanting a superstar dazzler and being disappointed at getting a middle-of-the-road moderate liberal.

[vaberella]

22. What defines a superstar dazzler? Turley is nothing special, how does he know what is?

Who gave him the right to determine that. I'm sorry, but I get a tone of apologist for his statements that are unfounded. You noticed that he found Thurgood Marshall to also be lacking in intelligence. So then his statements were justified? Thurgood Marshall is seen as a historical figure on his rulings besides being a Black man. So I find Turley to be an obnoxious ass who has no gravitas. His opinion is worthless and yet given a lot of unnecessary air time.

[travelingtypist]

31. Hey, he's entitled to his opinion, just like we all are.

He's got some credentials, enough to speak with authority and be listened to. I kinda trust Keith and Rachel not to be fooled by an "obnoxious ass with no gravitas." I'd certainly trust their judgment over some anonymous discussion board poster.

I'm not in the mood to defend him anymore. You don't like him. Whatever.

I think she's a wonderful pick and was pleased as hell when I heard the news. She's the Supreme Court Justice version of Obama and I think that's amazing. But she's a middle-of-the-road moderate liberal. Maybe my "superstar dazzler" was the wrong term. Maybe I should've used "liberal equivalent of Fat Tony," an advocate, someone to do battle with that bastard.

It's very interesting the attacks on Turley because he dared not step to the party line.

:shrug:

[pam4water]

32. They seem lukewarm on her also.

[uberllama42]

50. He's read more than two dozen of her opinions

That's more than I can say for any other commentator I've heard, including everyone in this thread.

Also, I think you're confusing Marshall's work as a constitutional attorney with his work on the Court. Marshall engineered a series of historic civil rights victories in the 1940s and '50s, but while he sat on the Court he was not a powerhouse the way that Scalia is. Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution is abhorrent, but unfortunately does not diminish his influence. I'd like to see someone who reads the Constitution the way I do but who also has the ability to move the rest of the Court the way that Scalia does. Sotomayor, IMO, is not going to be that justice.

[SoxFan]

15. Obama had raspberry vinegarete dressing; Turley says ranch more appropriate

:eyes:

[Number23]

16. This @sshole is on my list

My SHIT List that is!

Disrespecting Judge Marshall in an effort to diss Sonia Sotomayor?? That MF has crossed a line that can never be uncrossed. Like I said, I'm sure he'll be sporting his "My best friends are black and black people love me" button any day now. :grr:

[vaberella]

24. Agreed. Nothing he says is worth much. n/t

[Triana]

18. yet another "woman = dumb" meme

They never run out of ways to say it, do they?

[EFerrari]

19. He actually praised one of the other women on the short list -- Wood?

Is that her name? I don't know much about any of them.

[vaberella]

26. He never praised Wood.

He stated that "the opinion" on Wood's work was an intellectual powerhouse. Who's opinion I don't know, someone's but not his. However that was not his opinion. However, in his opinion he found not only Sotomayor lacking in intellectual depth or just intellectual brilliance but also Thurgood Marshall. Is it fair to say he's sexist. Probably not, however he's a RW shill and the man had a lot of nerve to claim her stupid and vapid.

[bjobotts]

28. Nonsense.He did praise Wood.Certainly not a RW and qualifies his opinions

[democracy1st]

35. ur right he praised Wood

[vaberella]

51. Correction: I was informed he praised her on his site. But I'm speaking about the video.

Which I noted.

[EFerrari]

30. Yes, he did. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

33. Not Deep "Like SCALIA"???? He Must Be Kidding!

She won't shape the court intellectually like Fat Tony? He think Fat Tony is a profound jurist?

He just dropped significantly down on my list of knowledgeable public figures.
GAC

[stlsaxman]

36. Bingo! Scalia is so profound a jurist he took "Slappy" Thomas under his wing

just to prop himself up.

Scalia is as intellectual as The Catholic Church.

[ejbr]

37. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

how is anyone gonna take him seriously on war crimes if he thinks someone of Sotomayor's stature is unfit for the Supreme Court??!

[bc3000]

45. because he didn't say that

He did not say she was unfit. He said he would have liked to have seen someone better.

This guy lives for constitutional law the way that some of us live for music or film or sports. He knows the names, he knows their writings. He was disappointed in the pick. I'd rather have a guy like Turley telling me his honest opinion than parroting the party line.

[ejbr]

55. Whatever, I now value his opinion less...so be it. n/t

[izquierdista]

38. "Lack of depth"

In other words, her writing is clear and easy to read. She couldn't possibly be as shallow as Clarence "whatever-Scalia-said" Thomas.

[mrs_p]

39. i can't help but think he may be

a little jealous...

[ChiciB1]

40. Hasn't Been Said That She Votes More "Conservatively" Than "Liberally?"

Obama has confused me more as each day go by!! I think I had better just stop scratching my head and watching, while WHAT I VOTED for, erodes away!!

I NEVER thought it would be this way, but the Repukes (stick like tar babies) simply run all over EVERYONE in DC!!! I don't care WHAT the MEDIA says about how little support they have, they SURE have been getting THEIR WAY more than I EVER thought possible!

Yes, I know... I don't know how she'll rule... but I don't DARE to HOPE again! I stopped using the word HOPE about the 4th year into BFEE Administration, now I'm afraid I feel no desire to use it again!

THE AUDACITY! Flame away, I have errands to run! I'm sticking with TURLEY!!

[ChiciB1]

41. That Was Supposed To Be Hasn't IT Been Said She Votes More Conservatively! n/t

[ErinBerin84]

58. do you mean, votes conservatively more of the time?

The issue is a bit misleading, there's clarification in the rachel maddow thread in general discussion: presidential on the reasoning behind the 95% of the time thing, it will likely talk you down. Like Turley, I probably would have preferred someone like Dianna Wood, but Turley did say that he agrees with Sotomayor's rulings for the most part, just that he wishes her opinions showed more dept.

[cooolandrew]

42. Now I'm beginning to wonder about Turley.>

I feel the problems we've seen in supreme court seem to be about over interpretation of the constitution. It's a very solid document her decision seem pretty clear cut and moderate. Fair enough she isn't to the left but at least she isn't a destroy everything to prove a point justice and that will do adequately really.

[florida08]

43. at Jonathan's website

He states he would have preferred Diane Wood but he doesn't say that Sotomayor is a bad choice. He agrees with her rulings but would like to see her opinions reflect a deeper and broader expansion of the way the law is viewed which he says could come as she faces tougher issues as SCJ. The only ruling I can see he has a problem with is involving student's rights which he is concerned about:

In Doninger v. Niehoff,the Second Circuit upheld the right of school officials to punish students for out-of–school speech in a major blow to both the first amendment and student rights.

There has been a steady reduction of student rights from mandatory drug testing to school searches to punishment for writings in newspapers and out-of-school activities. Circuit judges Sotomayor, Livingston, and district judge Preska (sitting by designation) followed this troubling trend. They rely on the equally wrong-decided case of Morse v. Frederick (2007), the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed officials to punish a student for a statement that he made when he was neither in school nor on school grounds. The Supreme Court brushed over those facts and found that the conduct was within the school jurisdiction

Judge Sotomayor supported the opinion of the Second Circuit even though she didn't write it.

One of the complaints in my Supreme Court class is how often opinions lack a depth of history or theory — creating a unifying body of work in areas of the free speech or privacy. Instead, we often have a series of unconnected and unsatisfying insular decisions. I do not agree with Scalia on many things, but he has been able to maintain a coherent philosophy. http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/26/white-house-to-announce-court-pick-at-10-am/

Depth of summaries in an opinion can have major influence on how they're interpreted in the future..whether they are positive or negative. When cases come up these opinions are used to argue the ruling in new cases. Like the negative one he cited in Morse v. Frederick. It takes profound insight to change how laws are viewed when it comes to judging them...just mho. He opposed Alito's nomination because he believed they showed a certain bias to government but sees no such bias with Sotomayor. You can read about his opinion of Scalia here: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/12/heres-a-quarter-call-your-moma-and-tell-her-you-arent-going-to-be-a-clerk-justice-scalia-tells-american-student-that-she-has-little-chance-for-clerkship-because-she-is-at-wrong-school/

Judge Sotomayor may be the most controversial choice but then so was Obama. I think he did choose her for her background which is a good thing already being convinced of her ability to ajudicate evenhandedly.

[vaberella]

52. I don't think that's the problem.

I think the problem is the language he used. Further more, he has no clout to denote what is profound and what it isn't. If you listen to his statement in the video even my sister was like what does lack of intellectual depth, brilliance, and profoundness have to do with anything---she even goes as far as to say that Turley's comments are senseless and turn out like a "really bad McFlurry."

He's nonsensical in his argument in the video and makes no sense. Even his statements on his website are a bit groundless because he's giving his own opinion as though it is the only opinion and is the final word on Sotomayor's work and writing. Just the mere fact that she made her decisions by the rule of the law which he doesn't argue...would suggest that his position is groundless. Because nothing she's done is wrong. She just doesn't have the "intellectual depth" he's looking for. But who is he...

I think this is ultimately the problem. What Turley supporters or defenders are supporting has no basis. It has not real meaning because he doesn't have any final say and it only represents one idea. Now what would be interesting is if the Turley supporters did their own research because they would find something else.

However...What needs to be noted and was easily ignored is the fact that he also insulted Thurgood Marshall and said he also was lacking intellectual depth. The man is reckless and I question his input.

[Karenina]

54. BINGO! It really IS about his language.

"We're not choosing a house pet here!" :wtf:

[florida08]

56. yes he's going to take some heat for this one

Many misunderstand his reasoning. He stated that liberals openly called for a "liberal version of Scalia". You know Scalia right? The "get over" justice who said what he did in 2000 was right. He's blatant to say the least. All Turley is saying is that Sotomayor from her rulings has not shown that she has a challenging persona about herself.

All intellectual depth means is growing from an experience. Arising to challenges whatever they might be. Attention to detail and thoroughness. Am not defending or supporting his analysis..but trying to explain his thinking. It's not a diss it's an observation. Others have made similar assessments. She's going to need moxie to counter Alito and Scalia and she's going to get the opportunity. She really hasn't had cases that were intellectually in depth either but then after 16 years shouldn't there be some evidence of it?
Perhaps this is the avenue in which she will shine..wouldn't you say Obama has intellectual depth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27judge.html?_r=1

But they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language. Judge Sotomayor’s decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes.

[ProfessorPlum]

46. Jeez - enough with all of the Turley bashing here

all he's saying is that Sotomayor may not have the profound impact on the court that some might have hoped for - and that that is only his opinion or guess based on what he has read from her so far. It's a fairly mild criticism. Turley knows more about it than all you haters here.

[Karenina]

47. Some hear the dogwhistles, others don't.

[dothemath]

48. Turley on Hemingway ...............

"Well, Hemingway would have had a greater and more profound influence on the literary world if he had used a few less one-syllable words, blah, blah, blah".

And here is Mr. Turley on Henry Ford: "How sad that Mr. Ford did not go to college and, yes, my friends, get a law degree, like me. Mr. Ford would have been able to accomplish so much".

Until the 1960s, a law degree was not required in order to become a lawyer. One could become a lawyer by 'reading' the law under the sponsorship of a lawyer. Just as Abraham Lincoln did. This method of producing lawyers served many well as 'the' stepping stone to 'lawmaker'. Impress hoi polloi, looks good on a resume', sounds good on the stump - and you never had to do any actual 'lawyering'.

I would like to see Mr. Turley step back a little from making profound pronouncements and visit a few court rooms not populated by up to nine pompous asses at a given moment. Kind of 'life on the street' where a magistrate's court or a circuit court, etc. is located.

[Divine Discontent]

49. I'm thinking this guy has sound reasoning behind his views. nothing wrong with that.

doubt few, if any, of the people offended have opened up a law book, let alone graduated - having said that, the other guy who picked her (that O guy), has some good edgiecation himself, so apples and oranges on the reasoning as to why he picked her, not necessarily the same reasoning Jon might have wanted. But she'll bring a sense of fairness perhaps is what O's saying by picking her.