My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. I have now read dozens of her opinions and focused on the most significant rulings. They do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick — like Thurgood Marshall.
A twofer! Slamming Sotomayor AND Marshall. Good work Turley. On a serious note, Turley's analysis is laughable. He writes:
While people have demanded that I show evidence that she has not been particularly impressive in her decision, it is rather difficult to point to the absence of something. Her opinions tend to lack of broader historical or theoretical view. It is easier to point to opinions that show a broader vision of the law. For example, while I disagreed with the decision, her colleague Guido Calabresi showed such gravitas in his ruling in Boy Scouts v. Wyman.
Sotomayor’s decisions and dissents tend to be abbreviated and limited in scope. Once again, that could reflect a certain deference to her appellate status or a lack of broader vision.
I guess Turley is not a fan of judicial minimalism. I do have a question - where were those opinions with "intellectual heft" from Roberts and Alito? Hell, from Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg for that matter. I know Scalia had nothing impressive. And still doesn't imo. But not in Turley's view:
One of the complaints in my Supreme Court class is how often opinions lack a depth of history or theory — creating a unifying body of work in areas of the free speech or privacy. Instead, we often have a series of unconnected and unsatisfying insular decisions. I do not agree with Scalia on many things, but he has been able to maintain a coherent philosophy.
Not on the appellate court he didn't. Turley is inventing a new standard never before seen. Just a coincidence because it is a Latina nominee? You make the call.
Speaking for me only
