As I recall he had his priests in an uproar right after the scandal broke. He ordered that no young men under the age of eighteen were allowed to work in rectories or parish offices after 5:00 PM. His priests considered this a sign of no confidence and there was wailing,anguishing and a gnashing of teeth that was beyond belief. He had to withdraw his order. San Francisco is rife with recalcitrant,homosexual diocesan priests who are aided and abetted by the Jesuits who have quite a presence there.
An acquaintance of mine,an ex-Jesuit from SF said that Archbishop Levada was not a diplomat nor particularly pastoral but he was a brilliant theologian. Maybe that is his charism and maybe that is what the Congregation most needs.
I am not saying he is going to be great or that he would have been my choice but the comment you posted about the hatred of his priests doesn't hold water,given the givens.
I will agree with your critique of the previous poster. Levada is hated by his priest for imposing the lightest and must perfunctory of discipline. Such is the state of the modern world. But as to the opinion that he is a brilliant theologian, where is the evidence for this? The man seems to have forgotten the most obvious of Christian obligations. If he can manipulate the perennial teachings of the Church to accord with Cardinal Kasper's conception of ecumenism, then he may be brilliant, but he is not a "Catholic" theologion in any meaningful sense.