If a member of the lunatic left certifies that you are moderate, does that help your cause? Very doubtful.

David Ingram at BLT and Kristina Moore at SCOTUSblog have posts regarding a letter signed by a bevy of law professors saying, among other things, that SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor's "opinions reflect careful attention to the facts of each case and a reading of the law that demonstrates fidelity to the text of statutes and the Constitution. She pays close attention to precedent and has proper respect for the role of courts and the other branches of government in our society."

So who signed the letter? Of the names I recognize, most are dyed-in-the-wool lefties. Jeffrey Fagan and Erwin Chemerinsky are on the list. There is Goodwin Liu, author of a misleading hatchet job against Justice Alito three years ago, refuted here. There is Charles Ogletree and Duncan Kennedy. These are the folks who consider genuine moderates to be right-wing. Enthusiastic support from them is cause for concern, not reassurance. Given how skewed their view of the Constitution is, their opinion that someone is faithful to the Constitution is worth zero at best and a substantial negative value at worst.

Oh yeah, there is also ambassador-nominee Douglas Kmiec.

There is nobody on the list from George Mason U., which seems to be the primary abode for law professors of sense these days. I don't see any Volokh Conspirators on it. I didn't recognize anyone active in the Federalist Society (except maybe Kmiec, not sure if he's persona non grata there now).

So should we assign this letter a zero value or a negative? I'm inclined to score it zero. Although the opinion of some of the folks on the list is a contrarian indicator, it is only a weak indicator. Reading the opinions oneself is a far better way to make a judgment, Harry Reid notwithstanding.

Update: Jonathan Adler weighs in at VC here.