I earlier cited the ACLU report on Judge Sotomayor, noting some might question the source. Another report on her rulings has been written, this time from a more neutral source, the Congressional Research Service, which writes reports on a myriad of topics:
CRS is committed to supporting an informed national legislature — by developing creative approaches to policy analysis, anticipating legislative needs and responding to specific requests from legislators in a timely manner. With a rigorous adherence to our key values, CRS provides analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan.
The report suggests a by now expected line:
“Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents,” the report states in its opening summary. “Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.”
There is some suggestions of leanings:
She has authored several opinions in the criminal law area, and joined others, in which the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the police or government. On the other hand, she has authored opinions on behalf of the court that reach the opposite outcome. In addition, in cases in which Judge Sotomayor has split with her panel colleagues to write a dissenting opinion, her arguments have generally favored defendants. More than any other unifying characteristic, her appellate opinions in the criminal justice area, as in many other areas, demonstrate her strong adherence to precedent.
More evidence that she is an overall safe choice (fwiw), some comments on both sides that exaggerate notwithstanding. For instance, I find Jonathan Turley's comments at times downright unfair, as I noted in comments here. See also, his linked piece on her, where he sets up this "she is not thought provoking enough" test that other justices now on the bench (including Souter, probably) would have failed too.