::::::::
Jeffrey Rosen argues, in The New Republic, against the prospect of Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice nominee. He bases much of his analysis on interviews with former colleagues and their former clerks. Most of the comments coalesce around her intellect, the incisiveness (or lack therof) of her questioning, and her ability to see the forest for the trees. In one case, she was criticized for talking too much!
It's difficut to judge the objectivity of those interviewed; Rosen himself admits to not being thorougly familiar with her record. While some of the complaints about Sotomayor were sufficiently detailed to be believable, I couldn't help but wonder - as did some of the commenters on the online article - whether gender bias might have entered the picture.
Gender bias in perceptions of women seeking leadership positions is a well documented phenomenon, and a recent Rutgers study shows that it is still alive and well. Women may be judged negatively for the same traits that men are judged positively for.
I'm particularly suspicious of the complaint that Sotomayor talked too much. How many male judges get that criticism?
Time will tell whether Sotomayor survives the media vetting she is already receiving, in order to get to the Senate. I do not yet have an opinion on her as a pick for the Supreme Court. But, if the comments to Rosen's article are any indication - many citing personal experience with Sotomayor - there are apparently many sides to this story.
