I don't find it relevant because, even if that is true, the only thing it would show is possible bias against Sotomayor on her part. After all, right now, Keyes is trying to have Obama removed on the basis of Constitutional eligibility; so any supporter of his would probably not support any Supreme Court nominee he would offer. IOW, by providing that bit of biographic information, it seems to imply that you are questioning the claims made against Sotomayor in this article.
So, do you deny the claims made against Sotomayor in this article? Do you support the nomination of Sotomayor? Do you believe that the claims made in this article are biased against Sotomayor?
If you answer "No, no, and no" then, my original claim stands: It is irrelevant to mention that the author worked for Alan Keyes in any capacity.
I’m against the nominee, I believe that the claims made against the nominee in the article are correct...I like Connie...ever since I first met her at the March for Justice..she did magnificent work in the impeachment effort...OK..those are my bona fides...I was just making the observation that the ommission was curious, especially since it was fairly important in her career..and I’d go further and state that probably most of the readers of HE have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Keyes...so again, why not mention it?