So what political calculation might underlie President Obama's decision to nominate her anyway, despite his various suggestions that he would like to make a consensus pick?

It's possible that Obama was simply wowed by her up-from-modest-circumstances life story, her supposed "empathy" for the poor and powerless, her summa cum laude performance at Princeton University, her judicial opinions on obscure subjects, or her performance when Obama interviewed her.

But the political payoff of naming the first Hispanic justice -- and a woman to boot -- seems to me the key. This is a shrewd nomination politically, if not necessarily a good one jurisprudentially, and not only because of the obvious payoff with Hispanic voters.

The choice of Sotomayor also puts Republicans and moderate Democrats who may be deeply unhappy with her jurisprudence in a lose-lose position, and Obama in a win-win position.

While I enjoy your writing, I think it is disingenuous for you to represent yourself as a "centrist," at least in terms of legal politics (I don't know what your positions on any number of public policy issues are).  As long as I've read your work, which is since the late nineties, your have consistently supported the Republican/"originalist" position on most important issues.  It seems as if you consistently try to position yourself as The New Republic  of legal commentators by saying "I'm not a conservative but the conservatives are right" on any issue that comes down the line.  

And Scott, you liken her nomination to that of Clearance Thomas??, the sexual harasser, PLEASE, your caveman is showing.

Bob A, please don't let the facts get in the way of your comments.

Have you seen Obama's approval rating lately??  He doesn't have to PLAY politics with those kind of numbers....or is it that you don't think that a Hispanic woman can do the job, why?

And Scott, you liken her nomination to that of Clearance Thomas??, the sexual harasser, PLEASE, your caveman is showing.

Rushing to the defense of slandered white males might not be a winning argument politically, but permitting such a slander is unprincipled.  As a moral necessity consistent with Constitutional principles, Judge Sotomayor's candidacy ought to be opposed based on HER ADMITTED UNWILLINGNESS TO UPHOLD HER JUDICIAL OATH to administer justice impartially.

It is a shame that liberal Democrats have so consistently abandoned principle in favor of politics.  Here's hoping that Republicans won't abandon principle as easily.

In one way this reminds me of the nomination of Thomas: a blatant dare. Obama is daring the Right to alienate even more Hispanics and more women than they already have. The difference now is that the nominee is immensely qualified.

So the Right will form another circle and commence firing. They really should charge us for this kind of entertainment.

I'm torn as I think she is the least dangerous of his choices for the Bench but most poisonous for the Country because of race.  Thomas is going to eviscerate her if she tries any of that I was opressed stuff.  The South Bronx in the 60's ain't pinpoint in the 50's.

When considering Sotomayor's position with regards to the firefighters, does she hold a similar view with regards to acceptance at a good university? I assume she took the SAT to get into Princeton and got a good score.

If one extends her position, and that of the town of New Haven, shouldn't all testing be thrown out if the pass-rate doesn't reflect the ethnic background of those taking it? And should testing institutions continually reconfigure tests until the pass-rate reflects those taking it?

This is nothing more than the continued sour grapes and whining from the right.

Scott, you're taking the wrong approach.  You're outdoing the Democrats in identity politics, which is exactly what turns libertarian-leaning moderates like me off. 

Sotomayor will be confirmed if this is pretty much the extent of the serious issues with her nomination.  Her comments from 2001can be dismissed as an inartful expression of her sentiments about how being a latina female has shaped her worldview.   Her "makes policy" remark from 2005 can be dismissed as a joke, which it may well have been.

I intuitively dislike the case outcome in New Haven firefigher lawsuit, however I believe the actual ruling had to do more with the lack of material damages suffered by the firefighters and New Haven's ability to make its own staffing decisions.  It's looking unlikely the Supreme Court will even come close to reversing that decision.

What makes you say it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision in Ricci v. DeStefano (New Haven firefighter lawsuit)?  I have followed the case closely.  Based on oral arguments, I would be surprised if it was not reversed.  Either way, it will likely be a 5-4 decision that turns on Justice Kennedy.  Sotomayor upheld the lower court decision based on giving New Haven deference in attempting to avoid a potential lawsuit by minorities who could sue that the disparate impact of the test was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Essentially, she decided that the city could discriminate against whites if doing so was an effort to avoid discriminating against minorities.  That not only seems like blatant racism, but, more importantly, it seems like Sotomayor ignoring the Constitution in favor of "empathy."

Please Hispanic is simple a American tag, a person from Puerto Rico has the same relation with  Mexico like USA can have with New Zeland.

Sonia Sotomayor, Puerto Rican or Spanish speakers descendant, the accurate description.

Check this out, how a person called Sotomayor could look like:

http://www.trabajadores.cu/news/sotomayor-desafiado-por-otro-liston-protagonistas/image_preview (black race, Cuba)

http://www.abogadoperu.com/sotomayor-gomez-jose-luis-fotografia-21478.jpg (Amerindian race, Mexico)

http://www.versaform.com/uploads/images/CaseStudies/DrSotomayor_430.jpg (White, Uruguay)

Sonia Sotomayor is a mixed woman, white and native indian taina (indians from Puerto Rico)

This is one of those instances when us on the right have to swallow our prejudices and simply admit that Obama has painted us in a corner.  If we go after her, politically it's suicide and that in and of itself will set our causes back further than anything Sotomayor could do. 

Obama's Shrewd, and he got us on this one.  We need to admit to it when that happens.

The Dems have found their voice and their strategy.  They are kicking us while we are down and there's nothing we can do about it.  Sad but true.

It's this kind of cowardly thinking that's destroying the Republican Party. 

--Rick

Rick, rather than speculate on what "the right" would do, why don't you address the issues at hand?  Do you endorse the nomination of a racist to the Supreme Court?  Judge Sonia Sotomayor's speech in 2001, in which she stated "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," is a clear expression of racism.  Rick, don't YOU find racism impermissible in a Supreme Court nominee?

The Republicans need to do the right thing and fiercely challenge this nomination and let the chips fall where they may.   If that means losing a few thousand hispanic voters for simply acting in the best interests of all Americans then so be it.

Gee, I thought someone previewed these posts. Guess not.

Alex - forex consultant