Charlie Rose

writersblock25  11/12/2011 03:18 PM Report

Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/29/2009 01:22 AM Report

Charlie,

You're a self-serving schmuck who'd allow Lally Weymouth to waterboard Palestinian children on your show while Michael Milken made his latest bought-and-paid-for pitch to steal a pardon AND the Stunningly Superficial Mika buffed her nails as her boss, Florida Joe, prattled on about his presidential ambitions.

But with the depth and quality of this interview, Charlie, ya' done good.

I'll expect a full hour next week with Marty Indyk, allowing the WINEP hack to spin his latest book about his life-long love affair with Dennis Ross and WINEP's partnership with its brother by another mother, AIPAC.

But with this trio and the depth of their answers and their discussions, you made yourself worthwhile.

Almost.

Shaft  05/28/2009 04:04 PM Report

Mr. Rose, what a fabulous conversation that was, and thank you for making it available. I now know much more about Judge Sotomayor than I could have ever dreamt of, not in a personal way but in her professional life. Many people base their criticism on her past comments, one thing they forget is a human is not an empty vessel to be filled and practice what has been filled with, all humans are made up of their experiences, and she must not be looked any differently. People's judicial philosophy is guided based on personal interpretation of what the subject matter is. For example, if we bring an African-American judge and ask him/her to make judgement on the same case as other mainstream American judge adjudicated on, I am most certain that the path they would take be a different course even if they arrived in similar conclusion. Neither judges are wrong in their judgements, because they use their life experiences mixed with the legal codes they learned to interpret their final adjudication. After all, a person from a minority background and of mainstream have completely different experience in life no matter how we slice it or disect it.

For that reason my admiration toward President Obama has only increased dramatically for having to choose a woman, better yet of Hispanic background to fill the empty seat in the Supreme Court. Change is indeed creeping in all aspects of our lives.

MadameDefarge  05/28/2009 02:29 AM Report

Hunter S. Thompson wrote that, the only thing he ever saw that came close to Objective Journalism was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado. Mr. Spock aside, there is no such thing as a completely objective being, whether it comes to Supreme Court cases or journalism. Even my cat is opinionated.

REMant  05/28/2009 01:16 AM Report

I hate to say that I don't know her from Eve, but I listened to her spiel yesterday while washing up the breakfast dishes asking myself why she was saying all this, and came to the conclusion that she is one of those oh, so, humble ppl, who in reality have the largest egos imaginable. Doing a little research later I came across the recent New Republic article on her, where one of several colleagues is quoted "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue," confirming my opinion. If I can come to this conclusion in a couple of mins, what in God's name was the man who nominated her thinking? There is only one place such an attitude can originate and that is in low self-esteem, and so it is not surprising that her career, far from being broadly-based, as is alleged, has been rather narrowly focused on minority and women's issues and crimes of violence. And while Sotomayor may be a woman, she is also presumably a Catholic, which will make 6 of 9 justices of that confession, which it should be reiterated is not pro-choice, and it appears she is no exception in this. But since she has not made a successful wife or mother, any other "family values" would have to be suspect. In all she appears to me to be a rank "liberal" ideologue, deserving, I'd think, to be Borked, or Thomas'd by the GOP, as they attempted when she was nominated to the Appeals court. I really don't think many Latinos would object. She has been criticized widely, too, for lacking analytical ability, certainly important in a judge. I have also to join the ranks of those who argue that the court should not be viewed as a representative body, like a legislature, because it is not one. And what is being controverted in the issue of legislating from the bench is not just whether courts or legislatures are going to make law, but whether law is at base a matter of truth to be discovered or simply of will or usage, the notion embodied in so-called legal realism, a position advanced here by several ppl. Holmes was not wrong in finding that the common law was always a matter of mores, or even of liking it that way, but he was quite wrong in thinking that the common law is or should be the governing institution in this country, a belief I don't think I am wrong in supposing is held by the majority of the legal profession. Quite frankly it is an usurpation, as much as, and not very different from, that of the lobbys, and IMHO Congress should have put the lawyers in their place long ago. Besides, how can anyone say he believes in a nation of laws, not men, when law is treated merely as a matter of arbitration or as if it came out of Leviticus? Anyone who does not realize that there are real limits to willfuless or that there are profound and meaningful differences in human temperament is not in a position to understand or defend, the Constitution, or be appointing judges. There is no way this country is going to be brought together, much less advanced, by interest-group politics, anymore than by dancing the Macarena.