Of course "legislating" from the bench should not happen. But it does, in the sense that ambiguous legislation runs rampant, and courts have often provided their interpretation of verbal soup. Usually, those interpretations tick someone off, hopefully enough for the legislature to get off its duff and clean up the statutes so courts don't find themselves in having to make judicial silk purses from legislative sow's ears.

I don't know what her reversal rate is, and that will come up with the ABA evaluation. No matter what it is, the "why" is more important than the number.

I'm not sure what a Supreme Court justice's "termperament" should or should not be. As "one of nine," it would seem logical that any justice should be as independent as possible. If she's blunt and no-nonsense, so what?

And as far as the ABA is concerned, any organization which is comprised of persons from all political persuasions, and can't afford to offend any of them, probably is the best at evaluating judicial qualification. Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Sotomayor (as winners and losers) will be involved in the evaluation.

I doubt there is ANY nominee for a SCOTUS position who will please everyone, especially if there is more concern for an "us versus them" on political lines than there is for whether the nominee can indeed perform the duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS associate justice.

The fact that a liberal President has nominated Judge Sotomayor does not make her a bad person or jurist. She is unique in that her federal judicial career was initiated by a Republican administration and expanded by a Democratic one, and was confirmed both times by a Republican-majority Congress.