Video: Sotomayor in action
posted at 3:26 pm on May 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Eric Zimmerman has this clip from C-SPAN’s pre-nomination analysis of Sonia Sotomayor for The Hill, in response to some extent of Jeffrey Rosen’s article containing critical comments about her interpersonal skills. Rosen quoted legal sources about her unprofessional temperament:
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.”
One exchange doesn’t tell the whole story, and probably especially so in this case. Take a look at the questioning one lawyer gets in the appeal of Arar v. Ashcroft, dealing with rendition:
In my estimation, this doesn’t look remarkable at all. She cuts off the attorney in mid-response, but from the little I have seen in televised clips from appellate court hearings, that’s not terribly unusual. Justices like to ask tough questions, challenge attorneys with reductio ad absurdums to test their responses and the limits of their arguments, and sometimes scold the lawyers for making bad arguments and for a lack of preparation. It may not be pleasant, but that’s the manner in which these hearings get conducted.
Again, this is one example, and we’ll probably see more, but this doesn’t make the argument either way on Sotomayor’s temperament.
Update: Jeffrey Rosen, not James Rosen. My apologies.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
No sh*t! She’s a liberal.
WashJeff on May 27, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Tough, or cranky?
How about delusional, irrational, racist, and warped?
capejasmine on May 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Sounds like a lot of federal judges I know. They don’t suffer fools.
Ted Torgerson on May 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Cutting off attorneys is standard for any appellate hearing. Sometimes you’re lucky to get any complete thoughts expressed.
brak on May 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM
She reminds me of Sheila Brovlovski, the Jewish mother from South Park. I have to agree with David Frum, she is going to drive Kennedy to the right, just through the fact that she seems so abrasive.
jimmy the notable on May 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM
So this clip doesn’t show us anything conclusive about her temperament…hrmmmm. Well, it doesn’t matter if she pulled out a gun and shot the attorney…he’s going to get confirmed.
AUINSC on May 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Actually, its no worse than Hilary questioning Gen. Petraeus.
ctmom on May 27, 2009 at 3:35 PM
John Roberts can be just as cutting, but he does it with a smile on his face, which is sometimes even worse if you are the attorney.
Judicial temperament is really a non-issue with Supreme Court justices. Arguments before the Court are short and highly structured. Most of the work is done in the briefs from opposing counsel and by the clerks.
rockmom on May 27, 2009 at 3:36 PM
This clip seems pretty standard. Or at the very least, not at all shocking.
myrenovations on May 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM
“Tough, or cranky?”
How about RETARDED!
JihadKiller1s1k on May 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Helen Thomas comes to mind… Thanks a lot.
2Tru2Tru on May 27, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Remember, you’ve got to look at this in the context of how Justice Scalia is routinely characterised in the mainstream press.
He’s been described as “combative,” “prickly,” “strict,” “harsh” and assorted other adjectives intended by the leftwing writers to say “he’s a big old meany” when he does the same thing to a lawyer arguing before the court, and he’s even characterized that way when he writes an opinion or merely expressed a view in public about anything.
But Soto? She’s a “wise Latina” whose “compelling life story” (unlike Clarence Thomas’s) enables her to reach a better verdict as a Latina woman than a white male ever could. And she has “empathy” to boot, Constitution and law be damned.
Good Lt on May 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Attorneys should expect to be cut off by appellate judges. That’s what an appellate argument is: clarifying issues and being able to show that your position can withstand whatever questioning the court throws at you. It’s not a forum for lawyers to blather on at will.
patriette on May 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Gee, a cranky lib. Knock me over with a scowl.
JammieWearingFool on May 27, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Well, it might be an issue when your workmates are eight other justices who are senior to you.
BigD on May 27, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Don’t know if my last comment got ate…
This is normal for judges. However, Scalia was often characterized as “prickly” or “abrasive” or “confrontational” or “famously combative” when he did the same thing to many lawyers throughout the years.
So the new meme from Planet Obama: Soto’s “compelling life story (unlike Clarence Thomas’s),” which endowed her with a mystical, magical sense of universal magical “empathy,” allows her as a Latina woman to reach better verdicts than white male justices, law and Constitution be damned.
BECAUSE OF TEH EMPATHY WINGNUTZ!!@!
Good Lt on May 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Damn comment filter.
Good Lt on May 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Benign. Judge Judy makes this judge look like Mary Ann from Gilligan’s Island.
GoodSamaritan on May 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Gee, I hope she doesn’t spoil it for all those other wise Latinas we’re supposed to admire.
apostic on May 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM
When did Genine Garofalo become a judge……..?
Seven Percent Solution on May 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Sotomayor is bad. Really bad. But Obama could probably get Bill Ayers confirmed to the Supreme Court right now, so Borking Sotomeyer is not really an option (unless she completely melts down, which I doubt). Who is in the wings for Sotomayor? Diane Woods? Janet Napolitano? Becareful what you wish for.
The better strategy is for the GOP to be polite but firm in the confirmation process and get Sotomayor pinned down, on the record, on what she represents. This is not about her being Hispanic, or Puerto Rican, or Catholic, or a single unmarried woman, it is about her being a person who thinks the courts are there to advance public policy and make law. That is wrong on so many levels. Whether you agree with her positions or not, the ends do not justify the means.
Mr. Joe on May 27, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Sotomayor looks like a rough trick.
jaime on May 27, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Sotomayor also has the habit of red lining and correcting other judge’s draft opinions. With the mega-egos on the most judicial benches, you can imagine how that goes over. Roberts collition building skills is not a trait she has.
Mr. Joe on May 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Except each other.
18-1 on May 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Filler; there are good reasons to be anxious about Soto sitting on the Big Bench but this isn’t it.
Bishop on May 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM
That clip hardly makes a case against her. I’d hope judges would be that particular about getting answers.
If that’s the worst example people can find I’d say this is a dead line of attack.
Scrappy on May 27, 2009 at 3:55 PM
She quoted Norman Thomas in her Princeton yearbook, and Obooba’s aids are handing out the quote to the press.
[[Thanks to Weasel Zippers, scouring the bowels of the Internet so we don't have to.]]
Akzed on May 27, 2009 at 3:56 PM
She quoted Norman Thomas in her Princeton yearbook.
Akzed on May 27, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I heard this discussed this morning on Bill Bennett’s show and last night on FOX. She appears to be really hard on her peers also. As I noted in another thread that she may not be the consensus builder among her equally intellectual members of SCOTUS. One rumor is that she “corrects” opinions like a teacher grades a students papers. Oh to be a fly on the wall when that happens.
Cindy Munford on May 27, 2009 at 4:01 PM
This is only interesting to the degree which it points out the hypocritical double standards we see too often in politics.
Just as it was the same people who blocked Miguel Estrada from the Circuit Court of Appeals because he was Latino who are now lauding the Sotomayor for being Hispanic, it is the same people who will be defending Sotomayor’s temperament who rejected John Bolton’s appointment to the UN because he was a ‘bully lacking interpersonal skills with a tendency to abuse others who disagree with him’.
DarkKnight3565 on May 27, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Well, each promotion brings out different stuff. This type of behavoir clearly isn’t acceptable at the SCOTUS level.
She’ll have to up her game. Don’t we all, when promoted?
AnninCA on May 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I was only only 8 years old when she made those racist remarks.
faraway on May 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Reductiones ad absurdum.
Tzetzes on May 27, 2009 at 4:11 PM
The style of questioning is totally normal for appellate arguments. It’s the particular questions she’s asking that might be subject to debate.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Did she put her hand on her hip in a disapproving manner, such as that as alleged against John Bolton?!?!!?
The terror!
joeindc44 on May 27, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I’ve been reading some liberal blogs today, and some of them are under the impression that Sotomayor is a centrist. They cite the fact that she doesn’t have enough (or not any) legal opinions on abortion and gay marriage. They are fearful that because she’s Hispanic, she’ll side with the pro-life argument.
They cite an article from the Wall Street Journal that shows in 3 cases, Sotomayor sided with the pro-life side, although the cases didn’t directly involve abortion.
And in that same article, she was a board member of some group called Childbirth Connect that promotes The 20 Rights of Childbearing Women, and abortion is not one of them.
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/26/is-sotomayor-an-abortion-centrist/
It’s an interesting read and we can not predict how a judge will rule once on the highest court in the land. Perhaps Sotomayor is our very own Souter-in-reverse.
yogi41 on May 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Are you taking odds on this proposition?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 27, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Thumbs up!
Mallard T. Drake on May 27, 2009 at 4:38 PM
So if this an example of nothing worth noting, why post it Ed?
echosyst on May 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 27, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Stranger things have happened and we’re due for our own miracle, darnit! :)
yogi41 on May 27, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Nothing to see here, move along. This was tame by the standards of interruption that we see at the SCOTUS. She may still be a bitch, but this was hardly evidence.
PersonalLiberty on May 27, 2009 at 4:56 PM
She sounds like a textbook case of someone who is mentally ill and on many levels. Rather like the power hungry Mad Queen in “Alice in Wonderland”. Be nice if someone had recordings of her outbursts.
MB4 on May 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Comment pages: