Like we said, it's open season on Sotomayor at The New York Times

Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

Whatever standards the Times used to employ to report on SCOTUS nominees has been tossed out the window for Sotomayor, whom the Times continues to falsely paint as a hothead on the bench, among other perceived transgressions.

Today's Daily Howler highlights another way in which the Times has capitulated its Sotomayor coverage to dumbed-down GOP talking points. On its website, the Times highlights and recommends a recent left/right edition of Bloggingheads, which featured a discussion of the judge's nomination. The headline?

Lightweight Sotomayor?

That's a headline that quite literally could have been faxed over from the RNC and a headline that has no connection to reality or Sotomayor's nearly two-decade career on the bench.

Notes the Howler, which found the comments by Bloggingheads conservative participant, James Poulos, to be inane:

It would be hard to overstate how silly Poulos' "analysis" actually was. One might wonder why Bloggingheads would choose such an unprepared lad for such a discussion in the first place. But once the discussion had been recorded, why on earth would our most important newspaper recommend such nonsense to its readers? Worse: How foolish must that newspaper be to run this abject nonsense beneath that insulting headline?

Rarely has The Cult of the Offhand Comment offered such a moronic analysis. But so what? The New York Times thought you should ponder it well -- that you should ask yourself if that single word marks Sotomayor as a "lightweight."

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.