Legal Commentary

Scandal!  Scandal!  I smell a true scandal in the air!

After wondering about discrepancies between the lawyerly evaluations that Jeff Rosen cited in his hit-piece on Judge Sotomayor and some earlier ones that I had accessible, I had someone retrieve the full set of evaluations from her time on the Circuit Court.  It turns out that in every year that Judge Sotomayor has been reviewed, lawyers have literally raved (and I am using their word, not mine) about her legal skills (and have been very respectful, if also a bit fearful, of her judicial temperament)...

Until suddenly, in 2007, and shortly before Obama was elected, everything changed on a dime, and she suddently became a "DUMB BULLY."  (The most recent Almanac is 2008, so she only became dumb just during the last election season, when--a number of people are starting to think--some people who haven't wanted her on the Supreme Court may have been doing something scandalous...)

Until I can figure out how to upload scans to this blog, let me just type out the 2006 reviews, which are typical of the other years:

2006 Lawyer's Evaluations (Full Set). 

Lawyers raved about Judge Sotomayor's skills. 

"For a still young woman, she is truly incredible.  She is just a very, very smart, capable jurist."

"She's brilliant."

"She is a Supreme-Court caliber jurist."

"She is truly brilliant."

"I don't think we have anyone better."

"She really believes in the judicial system and tries her absolute best to make sure that it works for litigants.

She is hard working, tireless, brilliant, and just the absolute best."

"She deserves straight As across the board."

"She's very impressive."

"She is very, very smart.  She really picks up on issues."

"She has an excellent legal mind, but she also has a lot of street smarts."

"She has a fast mind and she is capable of making very intellectual arguments.  At the same time, she recognizes the need for the practical side of the law."

"She is outstanding."

"She is very good."

"I like her. I have been very impressed."

        Lawyer's Described Sotomayor as being businesslike in judicial temperament.

"She does not put up with any guff."

"She works hard, and she expects lawyers to be as prepared and hard working as she is.  She can lose patience if they aren't performing up to her standards."

"She is very exacting."

"She's not a good old boy, but she is decent enough to lawyers."

"She has my respect."

"Her demeanor is fine."

"She is judicious."

"She lets you know who the judge is.  She does expect lawyers to defer to her."

"She is very courteous, judicial and businesslike."

"She is impatient with lawyers who are not prepared."

         Lawyers said that Sotomayor is fairly active at oral argument.

"She is very active and well-prepared."

"You have to be on your toes with her, because she will ask very pointed questions."

"She is another one of those judges who will start questioning you about things that were never raised in the case before."

"You can practically see the wheels in her mind turning."

"She asks very well thought out questions."

"She's pretty engaging."

"She is very deferential to Judge Walker."

"She is very quick."

        Lawyers said that Sotomayor is impartial in civil matters.

"Truly, I don't see her tilting one way or the other."

"She doesn't seem to favor either side inappropriately."

"I've found her to be very fair."

"She has always treated both sides fairly."

"I really have no idea what her politics are."

"She is not predisposed toward either side."

"I think she is fairly neutral"

        Lawyer's praised Sotomayor's written opinions.

"I got a good opinion from her, so I think her writing skills are fine."

"Her legal ability is excellent."

"She is very bright.  She is very competent.  She gets to the meat of the case quickly."

"Her opinions are excellent.  They are well-written and reasoned.  They are easy to read and understand."

**** But then suddenly, when it became clear that Obama might win the election, all of her lawyerly evaluations suddenly changed, and she became a dumb bully.

***UPDATE: Several people have mentioned that Megan Rosen, one of the recent senior editors of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, who would have overseen these dramatic changes, may be Jeff Rosen's sister-in-law.  Can anyone verify this?  (Jeff: If you are reading this, please e-mail me and confirm that you are not related in any way to anyone who has been editing the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, so I can remove this update.)