Of course, that didn't stop Rosen from using anonymous quotes from the few people he did talk to in order to portray Sotomayor as too temperamental, too vain, and too stupid to serve on the Supreme Court.
Well, to be fair, Rosen's article wasn't based entirely on anonymous comments. He quoted 2nd Circuit judge Jose Cabranes by name. Unfortunately, he cropped Cabranes' comment to make it appear he was criticizing Sotomayor's intelligence. That's pretty bad. What's worse is that Cabranes was actually praising Sotomayor's intelligence.

Leading to:

The New Yorker's Amy Davidson caught Rosen's quote-cropping and posted the full quote on May 5, but The New Republic hasn't corrected the falsehood, and Rosen hasn't commented on it -- though he has responded to other criticism.

That didn't stop these co-artists from doing what they do best, especially one of Drudge's bizarre off springs:

Mark Halperin, Time's conventional-wisdom maven, announced "Jeff Rosen Raises Warning Flags on Sotomayor" and described "Jeff" Rosen as "the New Republic's legal eagle." (What of Rosen's thin sourcing and dishonest quoting? Who cares! It's Jeff! He's a legal eagle!) The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder touted Rosen's piece as a reflection of "the respectable intellectual center." (Ambinder's colleague, Ta-Nehisi Coates responded: "You don't get to be the 'respectable intellectual center' and then practice your craft in the gossip-laden, ignorant muck. Not for long anyway."

The Washington Monthly brings up (via Anonymous Liberal)how Sotomayor's quote back in 2001 in which she says policy is made in the appeal courts.

The Monthly's Steve Benen noticed this after the clip surfaced:

Conservative activists and Republican senators have seized on those four words as evidence of "judicial activism."

Not surprising one of those links came from Politico aka Hackio/Gossipo.

Glenn Greenwald already sees how the quintessential arrogant nut Charles Krauthammer spews more bitter as usual, this time on today's top news:

Charles Krauthammer is already snarling on Fox News, warning viewers of the possible danger that -- as he put it -- Sotomayor's "concern for certain ethnicities override justice." He said that although her confirmation is certain, conservatives should oppose her nomination on principle and highlight that the type of justice Sotomayor allegedly represents -- justice that is unfair to white people in favor of "certain ethnicities" -- is deeply pernicious. That is a such a baseless and ugly attack on her, but almost certainly what will be a focus of the right-wing strategy.
Sotomayor's ascent from Bronx housing project to Princeton and Yale Law School to Supreme Court nominee -- driven by merit, intellect, talent and diligence -- is nothing short of inspiring. Ugly, baseless attacks of the kind Krauthammer recommends will resonate with nobody outside of the small rump that is now the Republican Party.

Think Progress's newest writer Ian Millhiser highlights how right-wing groups unsurprisingly are driven by financial means (getting on their inner Cheney) to obstruct.

The attack gets more ridiculous, as even calling her the wrong name (and I can't see it as just a honesty slip) happened. And it's not her last name the dumb Hick screwed up.

I know the civil Josh Marshall wanted to give a Keith Olbermann-esque "WTF" when he linked to how the National Review's high pitched nutcase Ramesh Ponnuru called Sotomayor "Obama's Harriet Miers."

Then you have the corporate media adding their slant, as you are probably already hearing the start of this quote that will filter throughout the "Centrist Television Universe."

"She's not as intellectually as creative or compelling as others."

The only person not condescending in his criticism is the always terrific Jonathan Turley, but they only have him on air to conflates their narrative of Sotomayor being "unqualified."

But this final analysis fits it all under one umbrella (no Rihanna, of course).

DougJ of the great Balloon Juice probably creates the realest question of the day when he says this: