Friday, May 08, 2009

Rosen Fires Back

Jeff Rosen has just returned from overseas to discover that the blogosphere responded critically to his TNR piece on Judge Sotomayor. (Apparently he was in the part of London that does not have internet connectivity!) He has now fired off a reply. He begins by blaming his editors for picking a misleading title for his piece, which is at least a little odd because little of the criticism was directed at the title. He then defends his anonymous sourcing, to which I did not object but others did. He also provides some evidence raising questions about Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperment and tentatively pronounces her opinions good but not great. Eventually he comes to the footnote question, which, I'll admit, is hardly momentous for either Rosen or Judge Sotomayor. He says:
Indeed, the footnote is hardly a model of clarity-and I can see why readers might not come to the same conclusion I reached. But the careful observers of the Second Circuit I talked to, who were familiar with the case, said Winter was widely assumed to be making an effort to be polite, avoiding direct criticism of his colleague while trying to distinguish Sotomayor's holding in Samaria from some loosely written dicta. In their view, Sotomayor's dicta in Samaria could indeed be read to call the earlier cases into question, just as the litigants suggested, and they believe Winter was trying to contain the damage to avoid embarrassing his colleague.
I think I'll call this an apology and declare victory. Recall that I floated the theory that the footnote by Judge Winter was not the real issue; the real issue was the underlying Samaria decision by Judge Sotomayor, but that Rosen misattributed the criticism to Judge Winter. I think his new explanation makes sense (with one exception) but it's not his original explanation. The original claim by Rosen was that Judge Winter wrote "an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants." In addition (now to the exception), Rosen's further effort to cast blame on others, this time Judge Winter, is strained. He says the footnote wasn't a "model of clarity." And yet, whatever Judge Winter's true feelings about the matter, the footnote quite clearly says the problem was with the lawyering. This is not "unusual" criticism of a colleague. It is a routine effort by one appeals court panel to distinguish what another appeals court panel said. I ask where the ambiguity in the following lies:
In a yet more recent case, an appellant has argued that Samaria stands for the proposition that a conscious avoidance instruction is per se error in a conspiracy case where the substantive offense underlying the conspiracy charge requires proof of specific intent. See United States v. Tropeano (Barroso), No. 00-1708 (2d Cir. Argued Feb. 26, 2001). Such a reading of Samaria would attribute to it the overruling of a long-standing line of cases in this circuit holding that, while evidence of conscious avoidance cannot support a finding that a defendant knowingly participated in or joined the conspiracy, it may support a finding that a defendant knew of the unlawful objectives of the conspiracy. [Citations]. However, Samaria does not purport to address the validity of those cases in any way. Samaria's discussion of conscious avoidance related only to a sufficiency issue, and the panel thus made it clear that, on the evidence before it, the requisite level of intent could not have been found even on a conscious avoidance theory. See 239 F.3d at 239-42. The evidence in the present case, however, was that appellant had strong reason to suspect that the transaction was fraudulent but deliberately failed to pursue the issue. Because conscious avoidance goes only to prove Lancaster's knowledge, and not to show his intent to participate in the scheme, Samaria is therefore of no relevance.
Has Rosen committed some unpardonable offense? No, of course not, and this is all a tiny sideshow anyway. Still, it would be nice if Rosen were to own up to his initial sloppiness rather than dig in his heels and cast blame on others.

Posted by Mike Dorf

4 comments:

best-tutor said...

Hello!

very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you

http://www.best-tutor.com
http://best-tutor.com"

good site

tutor
tutor

酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,領檯姐.,便服店,,

狗熊克星 said...

青青草園報導 大陸新娘介紹愛心助人,嘉義一名大陸新娘仲介為了救治同為外籍新娘介紹的好友莎莎,莎莎是一位外籍新娘仲介由於雙手工作受傷無法拿東西工作,越南新娘介紹每天早上都會送早餐去給莎莎吃他們常透過越南新娘仲介論壇此位越南新娘介紹還會幫生病小姑按摩,她有一個越南新娘仲介的好朋友阿花也從越南嫁來的她非常的有愛心,大陸新娘仲介體貼細心體貼的照顧小姑旁邊的居民都覺的非常的有愛心,由於外籍新娘介紹的先生是做水電工的,薪水很不多,她從無怨言,且大陸新娘介紹對小孩都照顧的很好,讓老公無後顧之憂在外打拼,外籍新娘仲介的孝行令他的越南新娘介紹朋友要她堅持只要女兒監護權,不要拿生活費,靠著越南新娘仲介的友人資助,從路邊攤起家賣

家鄉美食,5年前租下店面,每天他的外籍新娘介紹的朋友會來幫忙,傍晚四點剛過,店內已擠滿大陸新娘仲介,位於木柵光明戲院口的阿美小吃店,不論魚飯、河粉好吃,在客人的有口皆碑相傳下,不僅外籍新娘仲介同鄉,連大陸新娘介紹也聞香來光顧其她每天會到同事越南新娘介紹的朋友公司拿手工藝的材料回家加工,他有一個越南新娘仲介的朋友非常有愛心,得知他先生受傷無法工作,大陸新娘仲介主動把他的多年的存款捐一半給外籍新娘介紹,幫助他們度過難關,外籍新娘仲介大愛令人非常感動,祝大陸新娘介紹的老公的腳傷早日康復當地許多人都娶越南新娘介紹,因為到了假日許多觀光客,老公要做生意,這些越南新娘仲介或是外籍新娘介紹都會很乖的在家照顧公婆,把家裡打理

的很好,所以大家口耳相傳,許多人都娶外籍新娘仲介,她們也把家鄉的美食好手藝教他們的小姑,讓大陸新娘仲介們除了賣甘草茶之外,很多種好吃的東西可以賣給大陸新娘介紹越南新娘介紹會寫程式的人非常少,板橋也有一位越南新娘仲介會寫c語言,真的很特別,現在大陸新娘仲介們有接到案子做不來時都會問問其它外籍新娘介紹大陸新娘介紹有沒有時間接案子,這些外籍新娘仲介在家照顧小孩位越南新娘介紹他老公有肝病,常常要帶他去看醫生,他力氣較小,越南新娘仲介每次看到他帶他出來她都會主動上前去幫忙,這看在另一位外籍新娘介紹的眼裡非常的感動,於是這位外籍新娘仲介也主動加入義工的行列,在這個社區內,大陸新娘仲介都像是一家人一樣相互扶持相互幫忙

讓這些台灣媳婦的大陸新娘介紹的愛心,他的大陸新娘介紹朋友要她堅持只要女兒監護權,不拿半毛錢,靠著外籍新娘仲介的友人資助,從路邊攤起家賣家鄉小吃,6年前租下店面,每天他的越南新娘仲介的朋友會來幫忙,中午12點都還沒到,店內已擠滿大陸新娘仲介,位於新莊中港路的阿信小吃店,不論水煎包、蛋包飯好好吃,在客戶口耳相傳下,不僅越南新娘介紹同鄉,連外籍新娘介紹以及!大陸新娘仲介等一律納入就保加保對象,一旦失業,越南新娘介紹同樣凡是越南新娘仲介下面的,大陸新娘介紹約二萬五千五百四十八人。可向投保單位反應,大陸新娘仲介會追溯自五月起納保近陳潔聽朋友說,外籍新娘介紹失業也可領失業給付,她既失望又難過。外籍新娘仲介解釋

gaohui said...

On the other hand,Harley boots ed hardy clothes often is the usual lift-up model with a face Christian audigier shield.One luxury full-faced Harley helmet to look for ed hardy shoes can be the GP Tech Metal Warrior. This Kevlar ed hardy outlet made helmet comes standard considering the ultimate Integrated Ventilation to ed hardy Bikini provide you with oxygen in your ride. And, techniques about fogging ed hardy hats in the shield together with the outdoors, the ed hardy swimsuits helmet will be fog proof. The optimim finish on the helmet guarantees ed hardy clothing no scratches, either. However, ed hardy glasses this amazing ed hardy Jackets tool industry around and may just break your bank! If ed hardyprice is an object, devote all across $70.00 and share with the ed hardy iphone cases conventional stock half helmet. That should as ed hardy dresses a minimum produce a number protection an individual's Harley davidson lower.