On the other hand, I believe it's exceptionally racist and sexist to say that the experiences of a minority woman somehow diminish her ability to apply the law fairly whereas her white male counterparts are arbiters of fairness.

To think that anyone, regardless of background or ethnicity, etc., had an "easy" time achieving something like POTUS, SOS or SCOTUS is patently ridiculous.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed.

End of story.

My dad always said that just because you're crazy it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Last night and again this morning, I heard the same stupid comments and questions from these people who call themselves reporters and legal experts - I have decided that it will never, ever, in a million years, dawn on them that EVERYONE brings their background and experience to whatever profession they practice - EVERYONE.  Even Sam Freakin' Alito, in his confirmation hearing, spoke oh-so-eloquently about what he brought from his experience to his role as a judge, and there were no gasps of horror, no pearls clutched, no one falling on the fainting couch at the notion that this man, this white man, had actual feelings that he did not keep under lock and key and out of his professional life.

Are we alien beings?  So "other" that just by virtue of our gender, it follows that our professionalism, our intelligence, our ability must be questioned?  And, then you have what I will call the brown factor...race and ethnicity.

Good God, I am disgusted and angry that here we are, in 2009, still being made to feel that we are only good enough to be able to go so far - and then, no matter what our track record, no matter what our accomplishments, the door is closed unless we can prove something beyond what should already speak for itself.

What kills me is that almost nowhere in the media are we seeing or hearing any kind of pushback against this garbage, because even if there is a clip here or there of someone praising Sotomayor's experience and intelligence, it is sandwiched between narrative and other clips that make sure you don't take that praise too seriously.  Most mainstream media reports I have seen are prime examples of actual intellectual laziness and disingenuousness - that so many have chosen to report on the "reverse racist" comment without ever providing real context for it only reinforces how little intelligence goes into reporting.  

There are more brilliant more reliably liberal or progressive minds available, including several women, but Sotomayor was chosen over them.

Why?

Because she's Latina.  And I think the openly gay women were scratched off the list without second thought because that's way too much controversy for Mr. No Drama Obama.  

So okay, it's great to have a diversified Supreme Court, but if Obama's going to use "Hispanic" as a criteria then it's not all that unreasonable to discuss it and question it.  HE raised the issue by bypassing better qualified candidates who were profiled in the news.  (Did you read those profiles?! Their accomplishments are so incredible it makes me wonder why I bother taking up space!  We have some incredible liberal women in this country, and bravo for that!  And the gay ones - why aren't THEY on the cover of The Advocate or OUT instead of Mr. Closet Anderson Cooper ... but I digress.)

Frankly, with Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority in Congress and issues like same sex marriage making their way to the US Supreme Court, IMO one's heritage is a dumb criteria.  I mean, does anybody even know Judge Sotomayor's positon on same sex marriage?  Isn't it curious that we don't?  And her position on abortion is inconclusive, which I think is very strange in a nominee from a Dem President with a Dem majority Senate.

But, to be honest, one of the reasons (maybe the biggest, maybe the smallest) she was chosen is because she is a woman and she is a Latina. Just like Obama himself, or Sec. of State Clinton.

And I think it should be.

Let's not be afraid of talking about this stuff when Republicans raise it.  If it pisses us off it only shows we're defensive, and why be defensive if there's nothing wrong with it?

It is a great show, the highlight of which is one of the justices (Frankfurter?) asking the lawyers if the Mexican-Americans were known as "greasers."