"... This video, unearthed from C-SPAN archives, shows Sotomayor grilling a government attorney in November 2008 during arguments in Arar v. Ashcroft, in which a Canadian citizen challenged the U.S. government for rendering him into Syrian custody, where he was tortured. ..."

"... It's unclear whether Sotomayor is truly frustrated with the government attorney here or is just engaging in the Socratic method. Either way, it provides a glimpse into what some of her detractors might be referring to. ..."

Clearly Sotomayor is using a fallacy that everything is either "Black or White", and you do not get into a high power position without a understanding of discernment; however if she wants to set policy she needs to put together an argument that (in this case torture) is either illegal or it is legal. Discerning the differences and the exceptions of the law does not suit her need to set policy.

"Black or White" thinking is court is dangerous; Do police ever have the ability to reach for their gun? If they do then would you say they have a license to kill without oversight. No that would be a fallacy - They need to discern if life is in danger, and then reach for their gun. They need to use "Judgment" something a judge should understand.