Will the Real Sonia Sotomayor Please Stand Up?

Conn Carroll /

The reviews of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s testimony are coming in… and they are not good. The Washington Post’s Eva Rodrigues, who initially supported Sotomayor, wrote:  “I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.”

Commenting on Sotomayor’s testimony yesterday, liberal Georgetown law professor and Critical Legal Studies cofounder Mike Seidman said: “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.”

And Pajamas Media DC editor Jennifer Rubin reports on Sen. Jim Demint’s (R-SC) comments from Heritage’s tele-townhall last night:

In a Heritage Foundation-sponsored teleconference held after the Tuesday’s hearings, I asked Senator Jim DeMint and Former Attorney General Ed Meese about this issue. DeMint expressed concern that she had been less than candid not only in the hearing but in her private meeting with him. According to DeMint, he asked her in his office whether unborn children have “any rights.” She told him that she “had never thought about it,” a remarkable statement for any lawyer but especially for a judge who in fact has ruled on abortion cases.

As for her performance in the hearing, DeMint said that at the Republican lunch Tuesday there was a “growing concern” that she is not being forthcoming. He called her reversals a series of “hearing conversions” and confided that “increasingly more of our reasonable members” are raising the credibility issue. He dubbed her statement that she never read and was unaware of the [Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund] legal arguments a “jaw-dropper.”