Below you will find several comments from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Obviously, they follow party lines – the Democrats normally say good things while the Republicans say bad things. Two things caught my attention when reading an article about the hearing:

1. How many times the word “prejudice” was used.
2. How many times the committee took the opportunity to say something about BHO.

They, the Republicans on the committee, are going out of their way to be careful not to talk negatively about Sotomayor as it relates to her race – they are avoiding bringing up the Hispanic element if possible. But the fact that they are avoiding it says something about what is really on their minds. It matters.

In addition to the race element, I find it funny, in a convenient way, that they would use this opportunity to take pot shots (in a political way) at BHO. Instead of talking about gender and race, they are talking about the president – they basically know Sotomayor will be confirmed so they are using this opportunity for other purposes.

Looking at some of the comments below and using a little common sense, it is easy to see a big deal is being made out of some things that shouldn’t be. Does it really make sense, common sense, to think that Sotomayor has progressed to this point without making sound judgements? Would she really use race/gender/upbringing/whatever to make decisions and still be in a position to become the next Supreme Court justice? Would the first President Bush have helped her career if she was as bad as some people make her out to be?

It just doesn’t pass the litmus test to me. I think she will be OK.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
“I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence. … Let no one demean this extraordinary woman.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.”
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
“The Supreme Court is meant to be a legal institution, not a political one. But some individuals and groups don’t see it that way. They see the Supreme Court as ground zero for their political and social battles. They want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process.”
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
“We cannot simply brush aside her extra-judicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority — the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from — to paraphrase President Obama — deciding cases based on her heartfelt views.”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
“First, as we will hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and evenhanded record, I am not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
“There must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option?”

Sonia Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton in 1976  and went on to graduate from Yale Law School.  But since her nomination to the Supreme Court, her gender, race and mouth are undoubtedly rubbing some people the wrong way.  Detractors will bring up those negative attributes directly, and indirectly, to cast her in a bad light, but surely those prestigious educational institutions, the New York District Attorney’s office, the first President Bush and the Obama administration all couldn’t be wrong about her could they?

What we very well may have on our hands is something like TV Judge Greg Mathis on steroids – a judge who doen’t fit the mold, but sometimes tells it like it is.  Sotomayor apparently doesn’t come across to many people as the smartest judge ever and could lean on her background too much – she wasn’t born with a silver spoon in her mouth.  The more I read between the lines the more I’m seeing that she simply may not be stuffy enough for some of the old gaurd.  And we know that could be a problem.

The jury (pun intended) is still out on Sotomayor, but here are some quick hits that could paint a picture of who we may have on the Supreme Court:

• During her junior year at Princeton, she spoke up for gays who were being harassed on campus.  One of her public policy professors, Jameson Doig, recalls that she also spoke out against police abuse.
• Eight years ago, while sitting on the federal appeals court in New York on which she still serves, Sotomayor said it was “shocking” that there were not more minority women on the federal bench.  But little of that activist sentiment is revealed in the hundreds of cases Sotomayor has decided in her 11 years on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, raising the question of which jurist will present herself if she is given the lifetime tenure and complete independence of a Supreme Court seat.  Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court specialty, said last week that he had reviewed 50 appeals involving race in which Sotomayor participated.  In 45 of those cases, a three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim — and Sotomayor never once dissented, he said.
• Jeffrey Rosen interviewed several people, other than her former clerks, who worked with her and the most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it.  “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”  (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”
• Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.  It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views.  Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
• Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
• “I know the word on the street is that she’s not the brainiest of people, but I didn’t have that experience,” said one former clerk for another judge.  “She’s an incredibly impressive person, she’s not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that’s great.”  This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet.  “She commands attention, she’s clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she’s funny, she’s voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way,” she said.  “She’s a fine Second Circuit judge–maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?”
• In a panel discussion at Duke University four years ago, Sotomayor said the federal court of appeals is where “policy is made,” the kind of statement that can get you tagged as an activist judge who tries to make law instead of interpret it.  Sotomayor appeared to know that was the danger in the words she had just let slip, because she quickly added, “And I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that.  Because we don’t ‘make law’ … I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it.”
• In a 2001 speech at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, Sotomayor aired the view that a judge’s gender and ethnic background inevitably affect his or her decision-making, and probably should.  She said then, “Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.  I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

What I’m seeing is someone who doesn’t necessarily communicate indicating her true intelligence.  I do not see anything wrong with someone who doesn’t feel as though they must continually remind people how smart they are, but in a position such as this it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 Instead of asking is Sonia Sotomayor ready for the Supreme Court, a better question might be is the Supreme court ready for Sonia Sotomayor!