Even if some non-conservatives are making
that charge, I don't think questioning Sonia Sotomayor's
intelligence is a productive way for conservatives to oppose her
nomination, becuase it's a rather subjective and arbitrary
standard that can easily be refuted by her defenders. Sotomayor
came from a poor background in the South Bronx and not only
attended Princeton but managed to graduate with the highest
honors there and go on to Yale Law School. Even with affirmative
action, she could not have achieved what she has in her life if
she weren't a smart person. Put another way, I don't think her
biography would have been possible if she didn't have brainpower.
Conservatives barked when Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan, George
W. Bush, etc. were portrayed as dumb out of ideological spite,
and I don't think the right should go down that path with
Sotomayor.
Some may grant that Sotomayor is smart by most normal standards,
but not super brilliant in the way we have come to expect of
Supreme Court justices. Liberal law professor
Jonathan Turley, for instance, said her decisions
demonstrated a "lack of intellectual depth" and warned liberals
that her record does not suggest she would be the intellectual
equal of Scalia. But if this turns out to be true, isn't that a
good thing from a conservative perspective? Would conservatives
have preferred that Obama appoint a really brilliant and
pursuasive liberal who could go toe-to-toe with Scalia, flip
Kennedy on key votes, and write decisions that would profoundly
shape the Court?
As for Jennifer Rubin's suspicion
that, "it won't be an easy confirmation," I really don't see what
would give her that impression based on what we know now. Senate
Republicans, who only control 40 seats to begin with, have been
publicly deferential since the pick was announced and there's no
reason to believe Democrats are wavering.
