I have a question about Turley and his screed.

[Are_grits_groceries]

He blithered about Sotomayor not having a significant ruling that would be cited by all. How may of the other justices had some brilliant piece of work cited extensively before they were apponted? I'll bet Clarence Thomas didn't.

This must be a pet peeve of his and his fellow academics. Hugo Black certainly had a checkered past before he was appointed. However, he became a great member of the court. Black also had a "great life story" and all of it wasn't good.

I think that there is a great deal of prejudice against people who haven't spent oodles of time in academia. The apparently have to breath the rarefied air there before they are worthy. He has probably spent lots of time with Koh and Woods. That would give him added cachet. He doesn't know Sotomayor so she must not be brilliant enough to have a chat with him.

Regarding Turley's backtracking, I think somebody jerked him up hard. He damned Sotomayor with faint praise, but he had changed. I think he caught hell about his remarks on Thurgood Marshall as well he should have. He probably will sulk until the end of time about this.

Turley has shown himself to be a petty and vainglorious person. I won't bother with his opinions. He may have some valid points at times, but which ones are they.

I don't think anybody really knows who Sotomayor will turn out to be. Souter was a surprise. Earl Warren certainly put a twist in Eisenhower's knickers. Justices are like a box of chocolates.

Edit: The question is in the first paragraph. I got caught up in my screed.

[Burma Jones]

1. When you put being a TV "star" ahead of your profession, you're gonna suffer

[ThomWV]

2. Get a fucking grip ...

Blithering is a word, blithered isn't. This morning you are blithering.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. First of all,

according to the research I did out of curiosity, blithered is a word. Blither is a variation of blather.

Secondly, I have a grip. Do you? I don't know why you felt it necessary to issue such a nasty reply. You seem to be angry about my grip and my grammar. I think there were better ways to answer, but you seem to have chosen the most offensive.

[mmonk]

3. I haven't examined Sotomayor yet, so I am without opinion.

I figure there will be plenty of time when the effort to keep her off the court begins until it is successful or not.

[Political Tiger]

5. Turley spends more time in front of a TV camera than a classroom

And I'm betting the rest of his time is spent in front of a mirror.

[Buzz Clik]

13. This is a problem in any profession.

His opinion is valued because of his deep expertise. Now that he spends more time dishing out opinions than doing his job, he's become a bit of a media slut.

[Sukie]

6. Turley seems to see things in only black and white

rather than the many shades of gray that life actually is. No matter his qualification on law, he still can have some very dumb opinions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I would add

what significant ruling has Thomas made since he has been appointed. I don't think he really has.

And you can bet your bottom dollar if Obama had chosen a justice who had made standout decisions, the right would be all over him or her because of the judge's views.

BTW, I like your use of "blithered". Shows a fresh approach, using a little-used variation of a well known word. So your grammar is fine with me. :)

[Oilwellian]

8. Turley is fine and....

it is your post that is petty.

[KittyWampus]

14. Really? You think Thurgood Marshall was a hack? At this point Turley is useful. He helps

point out the reactionary screamers on the Left who simply hate Democrats.

[ErinBerin84]

9. I value Turley's opinions

But yesterday (during the day, not when he was on with Keith), it seemed like he was agreeing with the RW point against "empathy", as if that would impede excellence. And while I agree that excellence should be the number one factor, his "I realize that liberals overjoy at having women and minorities on the Supreme Court" thing was a bit patronizing. And the comparison to thurgood marshall as a putdown was kind of strange too. I wonder if Turley was offended by Obama's remark about needing a nominee that was not just in an ivory tower (I agree with Obama). Anyways, it did seem toned down on Keith. I like Turley, but sometimes I wish that they would rotate guests a little on Keith and Rachel. This counts for their other regulars too.

[KittyWampus]

15. You agree Thurgood Marshall was a hack?

[islandmkl]

10. you doubt that Turley is addicted to the camera??....just re-watch him with Matthews...

right after the press conference/announcement...and watch him in KO later...

apparently, he (or the producers) had time to view the first 'evaluation' as coming off too petty, especially with the Marshall takes...plus, Turley had made claims based on what he admitted was not her full body of decisions...coupled with her 'lack of _________ rightwing talking point...etc...

maybe the good professor realized he looked like the kid that didn't get chosen, the kid that isn't even in the game who THINKS he can play better than anyone else but has not actually demonstrated those abilities ON THE FIELD...

by the time he was on KO, he appeared to want to appear more 'fairly and calmly' evaluative...

[BlooInBloo]

11. I'm a little bummed it took soooo long for me to realize his shittiness.

[Buzz Clik]

12. I've been tuning Turley out recently, too.

He's been engaging in some bizarre form of legal hyperbole that lacks objectivity.

[Karenina]

16. About your question...

"How may of the other justices had some brilliant piece of work cited extensively before they were apponted? "

It's a good one and strikes at the heart of a dynamic some of us are well-acquainted with. I also have a few:

WHO IS JONATHAN TURLEY TO ASSUME TO SET THE BAR?
WHO IS HE TO "EVALUATE" SOTOMAYOR'S CREDS AND FIND HER WANTING?
WHY DISS THURGOOD MARSHALL?

I found his remarks so condescending, patronising and their subtext so repugnant, I have NO INTEREST in anything else he has to say.

[havocmom]

17. Turley seems to be in the throes of a mid-life crisis. That it is televised is sad

and he does himself great disservice by such antics.

Yes, Jonathan, you may be as far up your personal career ladder as you are gonna get. And that is OK. Learn to deal with reality. Reality is that not everybody gets to the top. And that's OK too.

[UTUSN]

18. He's great when talking impeachment about Shrub & ilk, not when he does it to "ours"

The thing is, he's white hot ALL the time, and WHAT comes of it when the moment is over?!1 (rhetorical question)