The Times has taken up the burning question of Sonia Sotomayor's temperament
“So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security,” Judge Sotomayor asked the lawyer, Jonathan F. Cohn, “it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone?”
Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: “No, your hon—— .”
Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position. The lawyer managed to say she was wrong, but could not clarify the point until the chief judge, Dennis G. Jacobs, stepped in, asking, “Why don’t we just get the position?”
To supporters, Judge Sotomayor’s vigorous questioning of the Bush administration’s position in the case of the Canadian, Maher Arar, showcases some of her strengths. She is known as a formidably intelligent judge with a prodigious memory who meticulously prepares for oral arguments and is not shy about grilling the lawyers who appear before her to ensure that she fully understands their arguments.
and right down as far below the fold as they could get and still be in the same article, they give you Mr. Cohn's reaction (which, unlike most of the negative responses in the article, was not anonymous)
Twenty-two years ago, Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination foundered in part over similar questions.
From what I can see, Judge Sotomayor (although I'm an unabashed fan of her life story) is not a clear win for the DFHs of the left. Considering that she got her current job from a Republican president, there's a case to be made that she's not a clear loss for the right.
In either case, it would be far easier to weigh the merits of the claims on both sides if people stopped talking nonsense.
I vote reporters first.