Noted lefty constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley thinks Sotomayor tends toward the lightweight edge of the scale of the available talent:
“She is not the intellectual powerhouse that many academics had hoped for.”
“Advocates have struggled to cite a single opinion that could be viewed as a brilliant or extraordinary treatment of the law.”
“Looking objectively at the body of opinions by Judge Sotomayor, one is not overwhelmed by their depth. There is nothing in this body of work that would scream out for the elevation of the author to the Court.”
Read the whole article here:
I probably wouldn't agree with Turley on anything. Especially individual rights, making law from the bench and US subjugation to International Law. But he seems to be quoted an awful lot by MSNBC, which is the Faux "News" opposite number in the war for the lemming mind -- and by NPR. So....
On the other hand, what the 0-Man has got going for him is the Harriet Miers nomination. That and Clarence Thomas.
But apart from Thomas, the rest of the SCOTUS, when nominated, seems to have been much more qualified than Sotomayor.
Consensus of those who worked with Sotomayor is that she’s intelligent, but an intellectual lightweight and not patient enough to take the time to understand complex issues.
One wonders whether there will be a shock to the court's system, giving up a quiet, very polite Justice who is known for listening, for one who often comes across as rude, pushy and domineering of discussion from the bench, and who's opinions often are viewed as overly simplified, short and dismissive.
In an added note, three out of the five Sotomayor ruled cases that have been accepted on appeal to the SCOTUS have been reversed, and they are working on what may be another right now.
That does not speak well of her ability to get it right -- or at least right enough for the SCOTUS. It also brings up the question of how many of her rulings were probably wrong, but SCOTUS chose not to hear them... and it amounts to a lotta "bad justice" out there.