Here’s a law professor’s comments – a guy who most certainly is not a “right winger” by any stretch of the imagination:

“Speaking only for myself (I guess that’s obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate—that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise—to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results—is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional careers?
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.”

Prof. Louis Michael Seidman
Georgetown University Law Center

Here’s another:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDFlZDJiOWIxNDAzZDliOGEyMTY5ZWFjYmM0Yzk1Yzk=#more

Yeah! They should JUST ask if she is “qualified.” Like they did for Miquel Estrada, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and…..oh wait. Never mind.

Here’s a law professor’s comments – a guy who most certainly is not a “right winger” by any stretch of the

The Senators keep asking politically motivated questions, when they should be asking questions tailored to what the hearings are about: Legal Competence.

These questions suggest a political witch-hunt reminiscent of McCarthyism. The question shouldn’t be “Is she an evil liberal?” the question is simply “Is she qualified?”

So much attention has been paid in these hearings to a single comment made years ago, out of court (at a conference about gender and race), to try and paint her as a racist. If that’s the worst thing they can find, She’s a keeper.