And the quick-reaction winner in the Sonia Sotomayor nomination sweepstakes is...the Judicial Confirmation Network.

The conservative interest group appears to have been the first out of the gates with a reaction Tuesday morning, upon the news that President Barack Obama would name Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Like every think tank, interest group and university faculty press shop worth its name, the Judicial Confirmation Network recognizes a high-visibility confirmation fight as a fabulous marketing opportunity. Speed and ease-of-use both matter: the point is to get into someone else's story.

Note to p.r. practitioners: The best approach is to include a quick canned quote from the expert(s), as well as a direct phone line to the expert. This allows the reporter to either cut and paste....err, take advantage of...the prepared comment or follow up with live questions.

The Judicial Confirmation Network release, including canned quote from counsel Wendy Long, arrived via e-mail at 8:59 a.m. Hellerman Baretz Communications sent a useful release at 9:28, pitching a Mayor Brown attorney who has argued before Sotomayor. At 9:34, the Constitutional Accountability Center submitted their observations. The Cato Institute weighed in at 9:52 a.m., followed by NOW at 9:55 and  Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter, who opined at 10:28.

The libs got into the act with the People for the American Way, whose release arrived at 10:33, after which one lawmaker after another began piling on -- mostly, and boringly, with variations either on the "grand slam winner" or the "thorough hearing required" themes.

Universities, too, can really use events like this to their advantage. Johns Hopkins presented several experts at 10:35 and the University of Connecticut at 10:50 offered up a useful author on Supreme Court nominations, followed by Northwestern University Law School etc etc etc

Anonymous sources are at the heart of a much-discussed piece by The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen, with the now-infamous headline The Case Against Sotomayor. In his response to critics, Rosen further cites the anonymous sources gathered in the invaluable Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

So let's cut out the middleman and see what the Almanac says of Sotomayor and two other potential Supreme Court candidates, Diane Wood and Ann Williams of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sotomayor:

The Good: Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability. "She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough." "She is an exceptional judge overall." "She has a very good commonsense approach to the law." "She is engaged in oral argument. She is well prepared." "She is extremely hard working and always prepared."

The Bad: "She is overly aggressive -- not very judicial." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers...she will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like." "She can be a bit of a bully. She is an active questioner." "She is temperamental and excitable." "Her writing is not distinguished but is perfectly competent." "She asks questions to see you squirm."

Williams:

The Good: "Judge Williams is perceived as the upcoming star of the circuit. She is extremely smart and savvy as to the law and its application." "Her legal ability is excellent. She has a great mind and is a great judge." "She is an incredibly smart judge with a comprehensive level of legal knowledge." "Her courtroom demeanor could not be better. She respects everyone and is excellent with lawyers." "Her questions are insightful and fact-based." "She is an excellent writer, mostly scholarly in style."

The Bad: Tellingly, there is no bad. The closest thing to criticism comes from a lawyer who says Williams is "sometimes moody." Other than that, rave reviews all around.

Wood:

The Good: "She has an outstanding legal mind." "She is extremely smart and brings a breath of fresh air to the circuit." "Her legal mind is very sharp. She has a true feel for the job." "She has the perfect courtroom demeanor." "She has a nice way of conducting her business. Her demeanor is perfect." "She is forceful and factual during questioning." "She is very well prepared. Her questions go wherever she needs them to go." "Her writing is excellent and very scholarly."

The Bad: Again, as with Judge Williams, there is hardly a negative word to be found, unless you think it unfortunate that she "still has that slight government tilt." Other than that, total raves!

From this quick read, it appears Rosen may have been on to something with his piece, discomforting as it may have been...