The meme has been erected and propped up by people from a variety of ideological perspectives. It is an ugly, despicable attack. The attackers come with hidden agendas, bias, and in some cases, hints of sexism and racism.
Specifically, I'm going to address the abominable diary on the rec list, where the diarist claims, in bold no less, "I unfortunately report that her questioning style on the court does not suggest that she is an intellectual powerhouse".
The first thing you have to ask yourself about someone who is (loudly) questioning another individual's intelligence is "What qualifies this individual to judge another, more accomplished individual's intelligence?". Certainly, to have some credibility, the 'intelligence critic' should be able to brandish some sort of credentials, and those credentials should be comparable to (if not clearly exceed) the credentials of the person who they are criticizing. Did the diarist attend an Ivy League School or comparable? Did the diarist graduate in the top 5% of their undergraduate class? Was the diarist editor of the Yale Law Review or comparable?
In the absence of such credentials, this individual should be able to point to a body of work (a diary history perhaps - or case work if, as in this case, the critic is an attorney) that properly demonstrates their authority to criticize another individual's intelligence. Going off the diary history alone, it is hard to argue that the diarist has such authority. Therefore, a critical reader must conclude that the diary lacks credibility.
The next item to address is bias. In this case, the diarist claims "First of all, there is no doubt that, during oral arguments, Sonia Sotomayor has a very gruff manner" and that her temperament "seems 'unjudicious'". Clearly, the diarist has had some run ins with Judge Sotomayor. Further revealing possible bias, when offering an explanation (the only explanation given btw) as to why he/she had a poor opinion of Judge Sotomayor's intelligence, the diarist stated, "I have had the sense during my arguments that she does not always focus on the most important aspect of a case." The diarist was not pleased with how Judge Sotomayor handled his/her cases. The diarist had vested interest in these cases, and apparently took it personally. The following clip may reveal why Judge Sotomayor may have focused on aspects of the case that were not in line with what the diarist felt were the most important aspects of the case:
Here, we see Judge Sotomayor advocate that an Appellate Judge's primary responsibility is not to simply consider the facts of the case presented before her, but to consider the ramifications of her decisions as they might apply to future cases as well. Thus, Sotomayor may have been focused on what appeared to be relatively trivial aspects of a case because she had concerns about how her decisions on those aspects would be applied going forward. Rather than being a sign that she is lacking in intelligence, this appears to be evidence of a critical thinker who looks several steps ahead.
Note that I am not endorsing this selection for JOTSC. I have not read enough about Sonia Sotomayor and her decisions to reach any conclusions about how she would represent the interests of the progressive movement. But I am adamantly opposed to the horseshit argument that Judge Sotomayor is not intelligent enough to serve on the SCOTUS.
UPDATE: The diary in question is no longer on the rec list. I refuse to link to it, but I do apologize to those who are confused by the lack of context.