A Wise Latino Woman

Just shuffling through Judge Sotomayor's responses to the questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I must be one of the few that found it odd that her extensive list of awards and recognitions which she provided are almost exclusively recognizing her for either being a) a woman; b) of Puerto Rican decent; c) of Latino extraction; d) a lawyer of Latino decent; e) a female lawyer of Latino decent; f) an activist Latino female lawyer of Puerto Rican decent; g) all the above. Take a look for yourself. Apparently if she didn't have these identifying characteristics, she would simply be just another unrecognizable attorney. I couldn't see a single recognition that wasn't, at least in part, associated with her national heritage and/or gender. That seems terribly odd. Call me out of step, but shouldn't we expect a Supreme Court Judge to be recognized primarily for his or her knowledge of the body of law, not just how certain laws apply to certain persons with a certain gender or national heritage? I can't remember Justice Roberts having been recognized because he is a white male of European extraction. Maybe I missed that.

Senator Leahy decided not to ask Ms Sotomayor to describe her judicial philosophy in the questionnaire which was a sharp departure from his insistence on posing this question to the last two appointees. Does he think no one will ask her during the hearings? Or perhaps she has been to the Pelosi school of responding and is prepared to ignore the questions. The Senator's decision seems too clever by half. She will be asked, repeatedly, and her answers will be analyzed. Seems as if it would have been wiser to allow her the time to formulate a position in writing that would be thoughtful, reflective of her opinions and provide a framework or context to her many opinions that have been overturned. A decision to not provide such context can only mean one of two things. One, she doesn't have a coherent philosophy; or two, she does, but it is so far outside the mainstream that to see it writing would create substantial objections to her confirmation. No doubt the answer is number two and Mr Leahy and friends think they can patch a collage of leading questions together that will blur the strikingly odd outlines of the wise Latino lady's decisions and philosophies into a much less stark portrait of a compassionate female Horatio Alger American success story.

These judicial confirmation hearings have assumed a wag the dog component that would make William Jefferson Clinton envious.