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 Democrats for accusing Alito and Roberts of misogyny during their confirmation hearings which, apparently, the writer felt compelled to do in order to provide the illusion of balance before she began listing, verbatim, the most bizarre accusations and conclusions of the conservative touts. A reportage of facts that doesn't even pretend to be anything other than graffiti on behalf of neo-conservative activists.