This rounds up and does some preliminary debunking of right-wing attacks on Sotomayer. Lithwick is in top form here, with straightforward, transparent criticism of the predictable claims against Sotomayer of "judicial activism" and an inability to separate the law from her agenda.

Insightful opinion about conservative claims that Judge Sotomayor may be unable to separate the law from her own feelings and agenda. This article cites multiple sources and factual evidence to make its point, which is that the very conservatives who are criticizing Sotomayor's nomination may themselves be a bit too emotional. ;o)

Lithwick cuts through much of the non-sense surrounding the appointment, in the process of giving some insight.

The article wasn't what I expected from the title, in fact I think the title is the weakest part of the article. Had this article been in the politics section instead of the Law section it may have added the conclusions that this article indicated but never quite totaled. Those conclusions being that irrespective of the particulars of the 'hysterics' (another offensive and confusing choice of words in my opinion) they seem to be in concert as part of a plan of disruption - conspiracy theories notwithstanding. Illumination, however of this series of illogically forged and twisted versions of Sotomayor's background would boggle the mind of an artisan blacksmith. The opening paragraph included an observation and admonition of ... More »

This is a well-supported opinion/argument showing at first an apparent balanced with both sides depicted. For instance, how democrats did the same during the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito; however, it ends there. The author exposes, aside from the political bias (if that’s possible) Judge Sotomayor’s accomplishments, and her human side, following the law by the book, which is why there are no concrete accusations against her, but the illusion/accusation of having her own agenda. This opinion exposes counter-arguments that we will hear and read about during the next few weeks, for instance, the 2002 University of California at Berkeley speech. Throughout the opinion the level of ... More »

Since I cannot check out the facts behind the polemics, I cannot decide wether this is quality journalism or not.

The author explains what the republicans shouldn't do, although they will anyway. They just won't be able to help themselfs. pity.

The author quotes the judge as saying: "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." And then goes on to say that she is only claiming that the decision would be different. Different, perhaps but the judge said better. The author is misdirected and is using poor reasoning.

No. One assumes that, as a “senior editor,” Dahlia Lithwick either writes or can change a headline. So, does she agree that certain people are “Rational hysterics”? Hysteria may be most simply defined as uncontrollable emotion or excitement. Nothing rational about that. Nothing rational about the headline, either. After citing something that Wendy Long wrote, Ms. Lithwick asks, “Don’t these people own a thesaurus?” After reading a few articles on the Sotomayor appointment, this writer asks, “Why do liberals shun reason and fairness? Why do they argue, as both President Obama does, often, and as Ms. Lithwick does here, by creating straw men they can knock down and think themselves good and brave in so doing? ... More »