Doesn't mean she's NOT domineering or perhaps not intellectually appropriate for the position.

Plenty of high level people are hard to deal with, and plenty of people get through great educations and jobs by sheer hard work, not brilliance- and I mean people of any color and gender.

If you want the world to be fair, be fair; you can't assume that these crticisms are false or unfair just because they're waged against a minority woman.

(Though, I do agree that talking about family-style outings clearly casts her as more maternal than hard-hitting, some people are like that and it may be a fair asessment that cuts both ways)

Obama can pick whoever he wants, they will be:

-Either a woman or a minority, or both

-Leaning to the far left

-Young so they last a long time

The only thing he needs to investigate is the probability of them having a religious experience and changing their views.

In a week in which we have been "treated" to multiple profiles of David Souter and how his personality (or lack thereof) has impacted his work on the bench, it is hardly inappropriate to find a similar one on any candidate for his seat.

In terms of the content of the article, if the line between sexism and fairness is drawn such that any criticism of a woman's personality gets rephrased by broadsheet as offensive and misogynist, this blog is lowering the level of discourse rather than raising it. It is broadhseet using loaded terms here, not the author of the article.

would Rosen be doing us a favor by shutting up and not writing about it? I wouldn't want him to offend our delicate sensibilities, after all.

I wonder how the author would have described Judge Sotomayor if the Judge's first name was Jose.

This post is more about Rebecca Traister's insecurities than it is a legitimate critique of the referenced article.

If you want to see examples of sexism, read salon's articles about Governor Sarah Palin.

In those articles you will see Gov. Palin's name associated with; "bordello", "dominatrix", and "porno".

salon gave up any sense of leadership on this topic long ago.

As a pasty pale mainly non-Hispanic white male heterosexual, I must nevertheless note that the "weaknesses" presented by the NR article appear to be a bunch of anonymous, unpleasant, creepy backstabbing.

If you want to show that a potential SCOTUS nominee's arguments are not intellectually sound, the correct way to do that is to show specific arguments that they have issued which have been questioned, explain which academics or experts questioned them, and why, and give some space to other experts who defend them - if there are any.

Likewise, if someone is "bullying", a witnessed example of bullying courtroom behavior is the way to go.

The use of anonymous sources that spout vague, qualitative insults suggests a biased and poorly thought out article.

In fact, I'd say that even if, by coincidence, she actually is bullying or dumb, Rosen wrote a very biased, poorly informative article anyway.

Whether her gender, ethnicity, or both are sources of his bias can only be speculated.

... is a highly technical business, requiring special skills.

Since nearly all of us are not qualified to judge who might be a good judge, it is much easier to go by other factors, such as whether he/she shaves her armpits, uses a deodorant, or has children.

But these factors are just as irrelevant as they would be if we were appointing an auto mechanic.

But since we have started out examining her "qualifications", does anyone have the low down on her divorce, ob-gyn history, and any prior lovers? Has she used contraception or abstinence to avoid pregnancy? Has she ever had an abortion? What is her favorite kind of torture?

Is there any kind of negative remark concerning Sotomayor which RT would not construe as sexist?

Just wondering.

that she actually *is* "moody and lacks intellectual gravitas"? Or are we going to assume it's misogynist slander just because?

Ya'll have no rigah.

Even Sandra Day O'Connor, staunch conservative though she was, provided a perspective sorely lacking on the present Court. And, the decisions of the Court since her departure have decidedly taken a turn for the worse. David Souter should be replace by a female Justice. That much is certain.

Sonia Sotmayor, whom I am told by friends in the legal profession, is a solid, though generally moderate judge, should certainly bring that needed perspective in several ways, not just a woman's point of view, but the life experience of growing up poor and minority in America. As such, she would be a fine selection.

Nevertheless, Rosen brings up some important points to consider, if one's goal is to not just to have another woman on the Court, but to see just and progressive decisions come out of it. The Supreme Court is made up of nine Justices. The effectiveness of any Justice comes not only from her making the right vote for on any give case, but also from her ability to influence the votes of her colleagues and to make a majority. This ability rests upon two critical elements of her character. Those would be her intellectual ability to make well reasoned legal arguments and her collegial and political abilities to work with and persuade other Justices possessed of equal or perhaps even higher intellectual gifts (even those, as in the case of Justice Scalia for example, that exist primarily in the imagination).

Rosen's analysis of Sotomayor's professional and personal qualities in this context is not sexist.

You're spot on to question the temperament and the bully thing. I mean hell, Supreme Court Justices are suppose to have opinions and if William Renquist can bully voters coming to the poll or if Scalia is just Scalia, what's the point?

I don't think Sotomayer will be a liberal foil to the blow hard Catholic boys but I still hope Sotomayor gets the nod. A Latina on the SC would be progress and I'd never bet against her ability. Fact is, she's probably piss off Scalia and for that reason alone, let her in.