Ms. Flanders: with all due respect, I think you are buying too heavily into the President's rhetoric about Sotomayor's biography and ethnic background, suggesting that it's a measure of progress in the country that an Hispanic woman becomes a Supreme Court Justice, the same kind of historic progress as his elevation as the first black man to be President. Obama has signalled that the confirmation hearings should emphasize biography rather than ideology, exactly as his own "pragmatic" presidency has been designed. Along that path may lie some snakes: if people are so impressed with Sotomayor's biography, they may neglect to ask the juridically relevant questions about her ideology, and to give her the same "pass" that voters gave Obama to act in whatever way she might choose, without any accountability to the "ideological" preferences of the public (even as she has asserted the relevance of her own gender and ethnic identity, if not her ideology).

We used to call "pragmatic" Justices "loose constructionists," those who give legislatures and administrators the right to do what expresses the "will of the people," no matter that such will may reflect the obsessions of a particular time that run against the "timeless" mandates of our constitutional Bill of Rights. I think she should be "vetted" very carefully on judicially relevant ideologies: if, for example, the people of a city or state, caught up in local concerns about "illegal immigration," should be allowed to enforce the draconian laws that many are attempting to enact in what may be constitutional violations of due process rights as they are arrested and placed without council in "deportation centers." Where, in her "ideology" of Supreme Court powers, would she come down on such an issue? With more and more people "suing" cities, states, counties and the nation over policies of all kinds when they find their legislative bodies unresponsive to their demands, where would Sotomayor stand on such issues? In the confirmation hearings to come, there should be a huge amount of such "ideological" questioning and enough already of the self-congratulation to our country for being willing to elevate an Hispanic woman to the court.

If Barack Obama doesn't want to be remembered as the President of paradox, it's time he stood up and provided leadership.

It's already too late. Read Ted Rall's article today. It's a must, almost as good as the day George Wanker Bush left office.

Thank You Ms. Grit, for providing me an opportunity to vent about a disappointment that led me to live shedding constant tears in the days that followed the 2004 elections.

When 11 states unanimously elected to discriminate, I knew it was the biggest test of how well us contemporaries represent the principles that founded this nation in 50 years, and we decisively failed.
The issue of gay marriage is a simple matter for me, though it is not part of my lifestyle, I have no right to limit or redefine another persons right to legally enter into life long commitment.

Since we've already learned that seperate but equal doesn't work, Civil Unions, to me, is the equivalent of the back of Rosa Parks' bus.

Marriage is the right of two consenting adults, regardless of gender, I don't hold out much hope that our country will find its way back to being the explorers of freedom our founders envisioned until we learn that.

Diversity should be the pride of our nation, not used as a tool to divide us.

At least we don't have a president putting another Scalia on the bench. Too bad the far leftists can't get that through their purist heads !

Why stop at justice for gays? Yes, Obama got a lot of gay votes despite his anti-gay marriage stance, and he ought to extend the protection of the laws to gay couples. But how about suspected terrorist detainees, most of who historically have been found innocent and released, whom he now proposes to indefinitely incarcerate without trial? Why deny Geneva Conventions protections and habeas corpus to them? Why continue butchering innocent civilians in two counterproductive wars?

Other than abortion-related issues, where is Obama's alleged progressive, or even centrist orientation?

Unbelievable!

Sotomayer is to the Democrat Party what Souter was/is to the Republican Party.

She is Catholic, and originally appointed to the Federal Court by Bush Sr. Two strikes against the woman.

The third strike is Bill Clinton another right-of-center pathological liar, sex addict, sell out, piece of trash who cow towed to the right for eight years, and who appointed Sotomayer to her first judgeship prior to landing on the Federal Bench courtesy of Bush Sr.

Now comes Laura a perpetual right of center apologist for Obama and his/her talking points lacking depth, insight, research, and validity, talking about "a woman of color" well how nice since we are all people of one color or another. The color of Ms. Sotomayer is irrelevant to her ideology which includes tangentally ruling on oblique side issues of abortion, and those rulings were against woman every time out.

Color is irrelevant. I am a half breed: my mother Native and Father white. I guess I don't have a category given I am not accepted into either world. Furthermore, what does Sotomayer's humble beginnings have to do with anything? Most of us living in the US fit that description except the entrenched elites lecturing the rest of us on what we ought to think.

Doesn't Flander's ever tire of disguising herself as a progressive? She wants to play on this big playground, but the only thing she is able to muster here is more tripe and a world class apologetic on behalf of the status quo.