Some (mostly anonymous) are upset by Sonia Sotomayor's "temperament." She's tough and "feisty," a fair match for Antonin Scalia. She's tough enough that her judicial temperament is being called into question. You don't have to read far to realize that a genuine, not imagined, undercurrent of sexism motivates her critics, some of whom let's note again -- complain anonymously.
McClatchy samples a weak undercurrent of criticisms coming from the backwaters of the legal world.
Jeffrey Rosen, a George Washington University law professor, first broadcast the complaints about Sotomayor in a widely circulated New Republic article, based largely on anonymous comments from law clerks and lawyers. Rosen's criticisms tracked lawyers' comments compiled in the nonpartisan Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which is a kind of Fodor's guide to judges.
Sotomayor earned considerable praise among the lawyers quoted in the almanac. However, she also elicited critiques that range from "she can be a terror on the bench" and "she is temperamental and excitable" to "she can be a bit of a bully" and "she can get harsh at oral argument."
All told, her temperament drew a dozen highly critical comments. Another appellate judge who was considered for the Supreme Court opening, Diane Wood of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has uniformly positive almanac reviews concerning judicial temperament.
Sotomayor's colleague and former Yale Law School professor, Judge Guido Calabresi, became aware of the anonymous sniping after she joined him on the 2nd Circuit in 1998. He eventually concluded that the complaints reflected sexism among male attorneys.
"They didn't like the idea of a woman being as strong as her male colleagues," Calabresi said in an interview.
Scott Horton sees her as someone who challenges lawyers and prosecutors and, by extension, executive power. Horton thinks that could appeal to many libertarians and (I'd add) to those of us who share their fears.
