The New York Times didn't think it heard anything yesterday:

The hearings have as a consequence, so far at least, failed to illuminate very much how Judge Sotomayor would approach the work of a Supreme Court justice. She was certainly prepared, apropos almost any question, to say that she would faithfully apply the law to the facts. Asked to describe whether she subscribed to one or another school of constitutional interpretation, she said, "I don't use labels."

I couldn't disagree more that Sonia Sotomayor's testimony yesterday "failed to illuminate very much how Judge Sotomayor would approach the work of a Supreme Court justice." While it may be true that President Obama's nominee did not explicitly say how she would rule on particular cases -- which has been the case in virtually every confirmation hearing in two decades -- Judge Sotomayor displayed a grasp for the intricacies of the law that make her supremely qualified to serve on the highest court in the land. Sotomayor's ability to bat away with both ease and great depth the difficult questions thrown at her by her hostile inquisitors only strengthened my sense that she will be a real force on the court. And if that "fail[s] to illuminate very much how Judge Sotomayor would approach the work of a Supreme Court justice," I am not sure what would.