By her peers. The National Law Journal is probably the most widely read journal of practicing lawyers, and they select the nominees for the list.
"To me, it says that she was very well connected, not a hell of a lot more."
To me, that demonstrates that you are a little too willing to form opinions about subjects (and possibly people?) you really don't know that much about.
"And it certainly tells us nothing about her judicial philosophy."
Nor should it. That is what the hearings before the Senate will reveal. But why have you chosen to condemn her before you even know where she stands?
Perhaps the posts gave you that impression, but I am not that quick to form judgements. I am just very skeptical of "top 100" type lists. They don't carry the weight of actual job experience, or a history of scholarship or involvement in conservative causes or philosophy.
Most of us are a bit stuck on the crony issue - I think in this day and age, in a country that became the greatest in the world because anybody can become anything here, having a president appoint his secretary, lawyer, friend, and confidante to the Supreme Court - is just anti-American. My MA is in Latin American Studies - and this resembles what politicians down there do all the time. It strikes me as shameful to have it happen here.