On Sotomayor and Temperament
EmailThe New Republic's Jeff Rosen was perhaps the first to raise the issue, however real, of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's temperament, in a story containing many blind quotes that was harshly criticized throughout the blogosphere (which we covered in Blowback In the SCOTUS Wars, Parts One and Two.)
The New York Times' Jo Becker and Adam Liptak recently raised some of the same issues about Sotomayor's temperament, writing, that to supporters her vigorous questioning "showcases some of her strengths. She is known as a formidably intelligent judge with a prodigious memory who meticulously prepares for oral arguments and is not shy about grilling the lawyers who appear before her to ensure that she fully understands their arguments. But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as 'difficult' and 'nasty' — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her."
Former Yale Law School dean Judge Guido Calabresi says "some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman. It was sexist, plain and simple.”
At a background briefing last Tuesday with senior administration officials, I asked about criticisms of Sotomayor's temperament.
Clearly prepared for the question, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pointedly — and jokingly — asked, "Jake, would you say the tough questions generally went to a criticism of one's temperament?"
As the other reporters in the room laughed, another senior administration official added, "for the record, Jake was not on the list."
More seriously, another senior administration official said, "in the course of reviewing candidates for the Supreme Court, we talked to virtually all her colleagues on the Court of Appeals, a number of her colleagues on the District Court, lawyers who had practiced before her; we read transcripts of counsel oral arguments. And the overwhelming consensus of that was that she is an active questioner from the bench. She has what people call 'hot' court — as you come in there you're going to get a lot of questions. And she is tough on lawyers who come to her courtroom unprepared.
"And when we talked to Judge Sotomayor about that she was unapologetic for that, as she should be. I think there is, however, nothing to suggest that her temperament should be questioned or that her conduct as judge is anything other than that which it should be — which is someone who comes to her courtroom every day prepared for the arguments, ready to ask counsel questions, testing legal theories by asking questions, and understanding the cases extremely well."
Added another: "And just needless to say — you've got students of the Supreme Court here — it is not a place for shrinking violets; it is not a place that is languid in its pace. So the fact that she has these qualities certainly wasn't a disqualifying factor."
Asked about Sotomayor's collegiality, this official said "the reviews from her colleagues on the court were extremely strong. And the fact of the matter is in cases where she sat with a Republican appointee, they agreed in 95 percent of the cases. And when we talked to her about that, we talked to her Republican-appointed colleagues about that, what we found was just a very strong sense that this is someone who works very effectively with her colleagues, who often can bring votes over to her cause. And I think she will be very effective on the Court."
- jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
I don’t have a problem with tough questions from the bench – unless they are pointed and argumentative to those she disagrees with. Justices don’t judge the person that is brought before them, but rather they assess the legality of their actions/grievance based on the law. Sometimes the outcome may not be what the judge wants, but they are bound by the law.
Posted by: andylancaster | May 31, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
I don’t think this talk of temperament is at all a big deal. But frankly, Jake, what did you say when Bush’s appointments were attacked for the same thing? That’s not an accusation, I’ve only been reading your site for a short while. But frankly, the Democrats are basically saying that all the attacks they made against Republican appointees are now no big deal. Hopefully they will remember that in 4 to 8 years (maybe) when they are on the other side.
Posted by: Jack | May 31, 2009, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
Not sure why conservatives would worry about this – if she does have a ‘temperament’ issue, it will make her a far less efficient force on the Court. This is why Obama actually worried about it – he wants someone who can sway one of the other eight people on the Supreme Court. No one really cares if she hands out lollipops to nervous lawyers.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 31, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
It’s Sonia – Ms. Sotomayor if you’re nasty.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 31, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
And Justice Scalia is never abrupt or testy? This type of criticism of Justice Sotomayor smacks of misogyny.
It´s true, many men, especially those who have doubts about their masculinity, don´t like being questioned by a woman. Guess this applies to a lot of male lawyers, but then, that is a sexist comment on my part. Why don´t we all just grow up!
Posted by: BachisBest | May 31, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
I think judges are all stereotyped as being a bit mean and hot-tempered.. they have to be to put up with the constant flow of egomaniacal attorneys, deceptive protagonistic witnesses and unruly jurors…
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 31, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
POTUS:
Schmoopiekins.. we are taking the little plane to Gotham.. rather than the jumbo jet…
Schmoopekin:
OK.. I’ll change my shoes so I can navigate the little plane’s precarious jetway steps…
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 31, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Might as well look for some silver-lining. Maybe she’ll be key in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Concerned in OH
nah. leave that to the good christians who murder doctors
Posted by: PO | May 31, 2009, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
Judge Sotomayor: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” If a white man had made a similar statement ” I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.” EVERYONE would be calling him a racist and no one would be making excuses for the statement or claiming they were taken out of context. As Thomas Sowell said “Racism doesn’t have a very good track record. You would think you would want to put an end to it rather than put it under new management.”
Posted by: Robinson | May 31, 2009, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
nah. leave that to the good christians who murder doctors
Posted by: PO |
—————-
I’m pretty sure that only the bad Christians do that. It’s a sorta litmus test.
But don’t let that get in the way of your hate.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 31, 2009, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
I think the questions raised about Sotomayor’s temperament are unquestionably sexist. No one raises the issue when a man behaves the same way.
That said, I hope Sotomayor is defeated because of her love of racial and ethnic identity politics and because she is not sufficiently pro-choice.
Posted by: Melanie | May 31, 2009, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
The criticism of Sotomayor’s temperament is unquestionably sexist. No one raises the temperament issue when a man behaves as Sotomayor is said to have behaved.
However, I hope she is not confirmed. I am disturbed by her love of racial and sexual identity politics and because she is not truly pro-choice.
Posted by: Melanie | May 31, 2009, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
But don’t let that get in the way of your hate.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn
I didn’t shoot anyone
Posted by: PO | May 31, 2009, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
I didn’t shoot anyone
Posted by: PO |
——————-
That’s great news.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 31, 2009, 11:58 pm 11:58 pm
I don’t care about her temperament. Anyone know where judge Sotomayor stands on gay marriage and abortion? I ask this because she is a Latino Roman Catholic. She ruled in favor of the Bush administration on not giving funding for abortion to third world countries. What if prop 8 goes before her and she upholds it? How will Obama explain that one? Wouldn’t it be something if she backfires on the democrats. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: 3rd party | June 1, 2009, 12:01 am 12:01 am
Her temperament is irrelevent.
Is she widely regarded as an eminent legal scholar, an expert on constitutional law? Does she believe in legislating from the bench, in other words, judicial activism? Can she be fair, objective, impartial?
She must be judged on her record, not on her life-history, empathy, ethnic background, or temperament.
In my opinion, the most important question is on judicial activism ….
Posted by: Terry | June 1, 2009, 3:06 am 3:06 am
Rarely discussed but equally important is if in making her rulings, she considers actual consequences in the real world. Legal rulings have outcomes, consequences. The law is not some abstract work of theology, it is about real life. A court that disregards the practical outcomes of it’s rulings, that, in effect, has no common sense, but only cares for political correctness, for ideological purity, undermines it’s own moral authority.
Posted by: Terry | June 1, 2009, 3:20 am 3:20 am
I do not trust her as a judge to protect the constitution.
Posted by: Michael51 | June 1, 2009, 7:37 am 7:37 am
She clearly plans to create policy from the bench. This is the real problem.
Posted by: drjohn | June 1, 2009, 8:07 am 8:07 am
I don’t think the temper thing is gender biased, if anything, it would be more racially motivated… or, maybe she just has a bad temper..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 1, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Only the Archives protects the Constitution (from harsh lighting).. to believe one justice is going to radically come out and enforce the original wording may be unrealistic.
She’ll be wearing robes and maybe a powdered wig by mid-August.. no reason to get temperamental…
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 1, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
As a Puerto Rican Woman, I am well aware of stereotypes against latin women; one being we are all hot tempered. This suggestion is in itself completely racist and sexist in my view. I know other Latinas/Latinos must feel the same.
Posted by: irma | June 1, 2009, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
one phrase sums it up:
latin stereoype: hot-tempered
I won’t work this time.
Posted by: clarity | June 2, 2009, 3:24 am 3:24 am