"Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament "
So, my take-away from this article is that (gasp!) Sonia Sotomayor acts like just about any other appeals court judge.
Allow me to summarize:
1. Judge Sotomayor asks questions during arguments.
2. Some people don't like Judge Sotomayor.
3. Some people do like Judge Sotomayor.
4. The people who think she's too aggressive are probably a bit sexist.
Unlike the Jeffrey Rosen/TNR hatchet job, at least this Times piece has sources speak on the record. However, I don't see any anonymous sources expressing their support for Sotomayor. We do however get this:
...To detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner - some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” - raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen.
and this (you can guess where it's headed):
In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges...
From her supporters:
Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who taught Ms. Sotomayor there and now sits with her on the Second Circuit, said complaints that she had been unduly caustic had no basis. For a time, Judge Calabresi said, he kept track of the questions posed by Judge Sotomayor and other members of the 12-member court. “Her behavior was identical,” he said.
“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”
...
Judge Richard C. Wesley, another colleague, agreed. He said his interactions with Judge Sotomayor had been “totally antithetical to this perception that has gotten some traction that she is somehow confrontational.”
...
Mr. Cohn, the government lawyer in the Arar case, said he had not been taken aback by Judge Sotomayor’s volley of inquiries. “I thought her questions and demeanor were reasonable and fine,” he said.
What actually bothers me about this (and assessments of Sotomayor in general) is that there's a total lack of context.
-Would lawyers who didn't do well when they argued in front of Sotomayor be more likely to criticize her? (Seems plausible)
-What sorts of comments are made about her (white, male) peers on the appellate court?
-Are they similar to comments that have been made about other Supreme Court nominees?
Even though the Times article (mostly) names its sources, and offers strong opposition to the proposition that Sotomayor's "temperament" isn't suited to the Supreme Court, at the end of the day, it's still just a "I don't like her!/She's a good judge!" article that doesn't really do much to advance the discussion.
Allow me to summarize:
1. Judge Sotomayor asks questions during arguments.
2. Some people don't like Judge Sotomayor.
3. Some people do like Judge Sotomayor.
4. The people who think she's too aggressive are probably a bit sexist.
Unlike the Jeffrey Rosen/TNR hatchet job, at least this Times piece has sources speak on the record. However, I don't see any anonymous sources expressing their support for Sotomayor. We do however get this:
...To detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner - some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” - raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen.
and this (you can guess where it's headed):
In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges...
From her supporters:
Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who taught Ms. Sotomayor there and now sits with her on the Second Circuit, said complaints that she had been unduly caustic had no basis. For a time, Judge Calabresi said, he kept track of the questions posed by Judge Sotomayor and other members of the 12-member court. “Her behavior was identical,” he said.
“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”
...
Judge Richard C. Wesley, another colleague, agreed. He said his interactions with Judge Sotomayor had been “totally antithetical to this perception that has gotten some traction that she is somehow confrontational.”
...
Mr. Cohn, the government lawyer in the Arar case, said he had not been taken aback by Judge Sotomayor’s volley of inquiries. “I thought her questions and demeanor were reasonable and fine,” he said.
What actually bothers me about this (and assessments of Sotomayor in general) is that there's a total lack of context.
-Would lawyers who didn't do well when they argued in front of Sotomayor be more likely to criticize her? (Seems plausible)
-What sorts of comments are made about her (white, male) peers on the appellate court?
-Are they similar to comments that have been made about other Supreme Court nominees?
Even though the Times article (mostly) names its sources, and offers strong opposition to the proposition that Sotomayor's "temperament" isn't suited to the Supreme Court, at the end of the day, it's still just a "I don't like her!/She's a good judge!" article that doesn't really do much to advance the discussion.