Judge Sotomayor was an assumed frontrunner before Jeffrey Rosen's piece, so this isn't a big surprise except that Diane Wood appeared to be in the lead (a case of misdirection?) recently.
She sounds like a good choice. Some of us would love someone more like Pamela Karlan [btw, a ruling today suggests that Elena Kagan might not be as liberal as even those in the current liberal bloc], but we need to know who we are dealing with here. Still, if Obama has to replace Stevens some time down the road, I will still be looking for such a pick. And, a look at her opinions [by all means, look at them, as Scotusblog and others have] suggests a Souter-like centrist with liberal tendencies. He too can be sharp at orals.
She has a great background,* her comments on what judges really do sounds realistic and honest (both as to "policy" and how background influences judging), and some people whose opinion I find worth listening to suggest she has a good legal mind. [Follow the links.] She also appears to have a sense of humor and an ability to hold her own, a sense of confidence that some deem arrogance. Maybe, others can be found who are better at the legal craft, but "qualified" has loads of components, and she fits them rather well overall.
Some allege she simply does not have the skill of a Judge Diane Wood, thus the nomination will be "hopelessly divisive." How can we take such a frame seriously? Slate cited a Wood opinion supporting the rights of a convicted child molester to go to public parks even though he was caught near one with bad things on his mind. No link necessary -- it underlines any Obama pick will have some controversy. Jonathan Turley provides doubts here, but count me unconvinced [comment by joanneleon hits home too], especially when he decides he has to target Thurgood Marshall and points to opinions she "joined."
Some might be concerned with her pre-judicial experience focused in the Manhattan DA's office and commercial litigation (though the litigation experience provides a useful perspective to this Court all the same), but she also received praise for her pro bono work:
For 12 years she was a top policy maker on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. She was also on the board of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, where she helped provide mortgage insurance coverage to low-income housing and AIDS hospices. In her leisure time she became a founding member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, which distributes public money for city campaigns.
It helps that Bush nominated her to the district court and Clinton to the appellate court, furthering a uniting message. She is a good age and has a long experience in professional life behind her, both public and private. I'm sure she will disappoint me in various ways, they all do, but such is life. If the other choice was Judge Wood, overall, I truly doubt she would have been as a whole -- taking everything into consideration -- such a better choice. Might be wrong, but doubt it.
Anyway, she works for me.
---
* It does not hurt -- for me at least -- that she is from the Bronx. By chance, a columinist in a local paper referenced confusion over her neighborhood today, before her nomination was announced.
She also is a Catholic, which would make it a 6-3 Catholic Court, but the votes of Brennan and Kennedy suggests as much as the views of millions of Catholics who voted for Obama, that we should not look at this too stereotypically. Anyway, as President Obama's recent speech at Notre Dame suggests, he has some clear sympathies to at least a strand of Catholicism.