Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Jeffrey Rosen has written a few times about Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and her “compelling” life story. Compelling? Whatever….so is Justice Thomas’ story. That didn’t help him a whole lot during confirmation tho.

What’s even more interesting is the view of her from those who have worked with her:

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “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.”

~~~

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details.

The ones he did find who had a favorable opinion of her almost all brought up the fact that she doesn’t wilt like a flower under heavy pressure.

Yeah….much better to have a Supreme Court justice who is domineering rather than intelligent.

As you can imagine the lefties went a little nuts over his article and demanded to know who these sources were so a few days later he put out another post:

Readers have asked for more information about my sources. A few weeks ago, I received phone calls from eminent liberal scholars I know and trust. These scholars closely follow Sotomayor’s work and expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grind or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation–mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her–and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece.

~~~

I was satisfied that my sources’s concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That’s what makes the discussion of Sotomayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is:

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”

Another quote from that almanac is telling:

Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. “Her opinions are O.K, by and large.” “She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions.” “Her writing is good.” “Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued.” “She writes well.” “She is a very good writer.” “Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent.”

“Competent”. Not steller, but just ok.

Awesome

Also:

No Media Bias? Compare Editorial Treatment of Sotomayor to that of Clarence Thomas

Apparently being dirt poor is only a virtue if you are a Democrat!

Shortly after President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayer to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice Souter the “news” media chirped in cheerful chorus the line about Sotomayor’s “compelling life story.” With all the gushing going on in the liberal media over Sotomayor’s modest upbringing it’s no wonder they didn’t find the time to explore her background and inform readers and viewers about Sotomayor’s controversial views and decisions.

Conservatives may recall how the “news” media ignored the dirt poor story of Clarence Thomas or the immigrant to greatness rise of Miguel Estrada, whom President Bush nominated to the Federal Bench and Democrats filibustered.

Slublog writing at Hot Air contrasts the treatment Sotomayor received from the NY Times editorial board to that given Clarence Thomas:

NYT: Political considerations, life experience only good if we like the results
by Slublog
Hot Air
May 27, 2009

The New York Times editorial board has nothing but praise for Judge Sonia Sotomayor today, plus a frank acknowledgment of the politics at play:

If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land. It will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two. And as Democratic Party strategists have no doubt calculated, the selection could give Mr. Obama and his party a boost with a key voting group.

The fault, in the end, is not that of the nominee but of the man who nominated him, the patron of little-known, untested or inflammatory appointments for offices reaching up to the Vice Presidency. By nominating this black conservative, President Bush serves a narrow partisan interest when the public has a right to expect him to nominate a lawyer or judge of proven distinction.

As the nation waits to learn more about Clarence Thomas, the questions will concern not so much his talent but his character. Even his rise from poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how that experience has affected his regard for other Americans and whether he understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and official action.

The Times editorial board does display a double standard, but at the same time an appalling consistency to the belief that one cannot be a member of a historically aggrieved class and hold conservative viewpoints. To do so, in the minds of too many on the left, means you are fair game for invasions of your privacy, hate mail and in the case of Thomas, death wishes.All that launched at Clarence Thomas and you didn’t hear Democrats worry that by opposing such a hard luck story they might suffer policitally.

E Pluribus Unum, writing at Red State answers the question as to why the separate treatement of the two:

Why was Clarence Thomas dragged through hell in his confirmation process? Why was he called an Uncle Tom? Why was Miguel Estrada left to rot for over 2 years in a confirmation process, and held up ultimately by filibuster?

Oh, simple, really.

Thomas and Estrada do not believe they have some amazing wisdom that exceeds that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Martin Luther King, Jr. They see justice as equal justice under the law and colorblind. They see the role of a judge as impartial, bound by the Constitution and duly enacted laws. They see their role as a humble one. They look at people who are white, black, Latino, or Oriental, and they see people.

The left sees themselves as brilliant, the Constitution as an annoyance, the law a tool to secure power and control people. They look at people, and they see classes, races, and divisions.

Therefore they love Sotomayor, and hate Thomas and Estrada.