RSS Feed MenuIn the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen gives voice to a concern that’s been gathering over one of President Obama’s shortlisted judicial names:
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.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) …
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 examples, 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: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
ireign // May 4, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Bullcraplover-Once again, you are unable to grasp context. Repeating something stupid (i.e. since HW Bush appointed her she must be acceptable to Republicans) ad nauseum does not make it correct. Most people can grasp that argument is fallacious. Why you choose to go on a Republican blog to repeat such idiocy makes little sense. Do you honestly expect people to buy into your logic?I love how people like you can have the nerve to call someone with a graduate degree from an elite school uneducated. Why don’t you and everyone else who wants to call others uneducated let us know your alma mater?
ShawninPHX // May 5, 2009 at 12:10 am
David – I really enjoy the site. I was disappointed, however, that you did not include what he says at the end of the story:”I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It’s possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities.”To me, this seems like HS gossip and, coming from TNR, I’m pretty disappointed. Rather than giving us any real reporting (or even having taken a look at any of her opinions or talked to former prosecutors) he passes along gossip from other judges clerks.I’m taking this story as seriously as I take Michelle Bachman.
ShawninPHX // May 6, 2009 at 3:12 pm
One more comment: Why is this now at the bottom of your page? Suddenly this article dropped from the top of the page to the bottom (even though your pages were in date order). I re-read your analysis after and that day it was at the bottom of the page (even though past articles were ahead of it). May I ask you to explain your policy for stories?Thanks,S-