It’s been a whopping two hours since news broke that Sonia Sotomayor had been chosen by President Obama to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, yet evidence has already arisen that Sotomayor is a liberal activist judge who has a tendency to bring up race in relation to rulings.

First, there was the video tape (which was actually dug up weeks ago but has a new-found prominence) of Judge Sotomayer declaring that policy is created in the court of appeals. Which would be news to anyone with a high school level grasp of civics. A rough transcript:

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law — I know. Um, okay, I know, I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, ya know…(laughter)

Then came the reminder of an article written by Jeffrey Rosen, the legal analyst for The New Republic. Among other aspects of her career, Rosen notes that even some of Sotomayer’s allies find her to be an intellectual lightweight who bullies people before her.

Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Finally, there’s this. We already knew that Sotomayer thinks that judges should draw from their “experiences as women and people of color” in making decisions, but the latest quote from the New York Times is a whole new level of disturbing.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

So Hispanic women reach better judgments than white men simply because of their skin color and alleged life experiences? And this is the woman President Obama is giving a life-long appointment to the highest court in the land? A scary prospect to say the least.

By the way: The first Hispanic on the bench? I don’t recall much from Supreme Court history, but there was a man named Benjamin Cardozo who was appointed by President Herbert Hoover to the Supreme Court in 1932. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in the same year. Professor Wikipedia says one Democratic Senator hailed it as the “finest act of (Hoover’s) career as President”. Cardozo was a Portugese Jew. Not Hispanic-y enough to be first?