I must admit that I have not been watching the hearings. I check the highlights. Several things have become clear. Lindsey Graham is a fucking douchbag of epic proportions. Jeff Sessions is a fucking bigot of epic proportions. John Kyl is fucking douchebag of epic proportions. And Sotomayor is going out of her way to appease their white, male sensitivities.
Republicans are trying to exploit the gap between Sotomayor and the hypothetical "most qualified candidate." There is no such candidate. There are no metrics to determine who that would be - and if there were, he or she would likely be extremely old, owing to their many, many years on the bench. So they are free to insinuate that Sotomayor is obviously not that candidate, in which case she could only have been chosen for one reason: She is a Latino. And if she was chosen solely for her ethnic qualifications, she must be an militant advocate for her people. And anything she's ever said about her heritage is evidence of that.
I almost - ALMOST - feel sorry for these ridiculous caricatures of entitlement and privilege. These men, along with many of their constituents, can't comprehend that our nation's past and present treatment of people who are not rich, white, male, Christians may be relevant to anything today - hence the attempted demonization of empathy. Empathic is a code word, as far as they are concerned, for "possibly able to consider how the experience of minorities in America fits into a broad, historical context and how that might be material to the modern interpretation of a document that was written by slaveholders (and impregnators)."
So what if her heritage played a role in her selection? High offices have always carried with them the weight of symbolism. Symbolism is important. It would be hard to argue that Barack Obama's race was not a factor in his ascent, symbolizing drastic change. George W. Bush was a symbol for the profoundly common man, proof that literally anyone could become President of the United States. No one accused Bush of choosing Harriet Miers because she was white. They accused him of choosing someone manifestly unqualified for the position. You seldom hear conservatives bitching about George H.W. Bush's selection of the self-loathing, hateful, and dim-witted Clarence Thomas for what could only have been symbolic purposes.
It simply does not follow that consideration of her race makes her any less qualified. It just means that on top of her judicial qualifications, she also happens to help broaden the demographic spectrum of the court. Is there anything so terribly wrong with striving for a court that is representative of our people?

