I am not a legal scholar, but I want to base my remarks and arguments on facts rather than conjecture. To do this, I must depend on the reliability of others' reporting. I am including a link to the CNN review of her record which I am using as my primary source of information for this purpose. Note that this article somewhat confusingly lists her cases which have been reviewed by SCOTUS twice each.
My initial reaction to Judge Sotomayor's nomination is probably best described as a resigned disappointment. After this limited amount of investigation, I am mildly surprised at her selection on judicial terms. I remain convinced that she has been chosen because she is a capable judge who is a woman and is of Latino descent - and the President wanted to nominate a Justice who met both of those criteria - and because her inspiring life story will assist her popularity through the confirmation process.
Per my 'judicial terms selection surprise', as I review the list of cases she's had reviewed by the SCOTUS (and I have done no investigation to speak of beyond this article and others like it which cite largely the same facts), I am struck by the percentage of her cases which are overturned. I do understand that she's replacing Justice Souter - and that he has frequently sided with her - and that Conservatives won't agree with her on some issues.
But of the seven cases cited here, (only six of which have finished their review) four times she was overturned, once she was unanimously overturned, and even in one of the times she was upheld they unanimously rejected her reasoning. I wonder how common it is for a judge to twice have been corrected unanimously... and then be promoted to the SCOTUS.
One reason I chose the CNN article was the paragraph quoting more fully Sotomayor's discourse at Duke. It also discusses the comments at Cal-Berkeley which are probably the basis for Gov. Huckabee's remark about "taking the blindfold off" of Lady Justice. The Berkeley remarks are another can of worms alotgether.
When I read the quote of her Duke remarks I have mild concerns about her beliefs. But I saw the video of those remarks and I am alarmed that her excitement about being part of the Appellate Court system comes from her assent to the "policy-making" role she sees the Court system having. I know she qualified the remarks after she remembered that she was being taped, but I can't stop being troubled by what I heard.
As stated before in the FB dialogue, when justices and judges step away from interpretation and into making policy, that's where I believe the system goes astray. That's why I'm alarmed.