Page 11: "While we do not fully explore the voluminous literature about implicit bias, this area of study provides one of many reasons why a deliberate and intentional focus on diversity is necessary for real improvement"

And... why not? Acknowledging the author's general point and that the paper did do some analysis of law school populations, such statements as the above indicate the paper is not exactly the pinnacle of intellectual rigor. Rather, it would appear a thesis was proposed and minimally deep investigation endeavored in order to prove merit. Such statements that the population of the state ought be reflected exactly on their courts may be ideal, but do little to ascertain the wherefores of such population asymmetry vis-a-vis the court. I might suggest that this is partially illustrative of why mathematical and scientific rigor ought be instilled and taught in all disciplines at an advanced level (but this is neither here nor there, really).

But this is not to take away from the main point: certainly one would like to see a reflective bench in an ideal world.

Obama does not make too many mistakes in formalized speaking, and the right wing is nutty, to be certain. However, the origins of this particular strain of rhetoric emanating from the right come directly from Obama Himself. It was a horrible mistake for him to announce his desire for a Justice of Empathy, a line of determination he should have known would have provided a rhetorical opening for the enemy. Any judge of non-rightist credo put forth would have faced this backlash after the weeks of intense polemics along these lines from the Right. That Sotomayor is female and Latina only enables some of this to tickle certain implicit racial coding in the Body Politic in general.

He should have said he sought a Justice of Judicial Rigor as it is too easy for the Right to play these cards. Hell, even if you plan on putting a sensitive, weepy soap opera fan on the Court, at least prep people by SAYING any presumptive Justice is guided by procedure, dammit.

"This is the logic of appeasement."

I fail to see this. The aim is to get a justice through at minimal expenditure in terms of political capital or even energy. I don't see this as winning a game.

Of course the Right would latch on to this quote as exemplary of 'judicial activism' when it is a Democrat in lieu of a Republican. But, why not avoid the silliest of debates? This case has done nothing but enable the Right to goad the mindless press into debates about Sotomayor's (non-Classical) liberality. No matter what one thinks, this pointless energy-sapping rhetoric does work its magic on some marginal people.

I just don't see the virtue of playing political football about this, and hence I think Obama ought to have stressed merely the more rigorous credentials of any potential nominee and not their 'empathy.'

Not that this will matter. Evidence so far indicates that she ought be confirmed. This will however, enable the Republicans to make a show of this in an attempt to galvanize the public... a public, mind you, that may be pro-Obama now, but has been seen to be galvanize-able. The Republicans are just playing polemics hoping to slowly makes inroads.

Why even lose a single supporter over such nonsense if it is avoidable? So, maybe i DO see it as a game. Why lose ANY points at all?

I think evidence has been show to suggest few of the women who do engage late abortions are not really doing so for medical reasons. From the seminal (ahem) Alan Guttmacher Institute study of 1987 [ http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm ] (to be fair it is 20 years old):

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8% Woman waited for her relationship to change

8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion

6% Something changed after woman became pregnant

6% Woman didn't know timing is important

5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion

2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

11% Other

It is one thing to be pro-choice, but to some degree it is held to be true, indeed, by doctors in the field that the preponderance to so voluntarily for non-medical reasons. I can't abide that we will so obviously make things up just to support our point of view. No doubt many women do pursue the procedure for medical reasons, and also there are pro-lifers who still think such woman should be forced too continue gestation to it's 'ultimate conclusion.'

I would like to see a re-sampling of the population if only to ascertain the facts of the matter today.

Actually, there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, although the Bill of Rights is often read broadly to construe some sense of this. But moreover, I am not sure it is especially applicable. I also was not applying a conclusion about the relative responsibility level of these women or anyone else for that matter. The point is that many blatantly state that this is a medical procedure used (almost) solely as a a life or health saving mechanism -- this is a fallacy that I think ought not be stated should it not be the case. The cases for (or against) late termination ought be argued on it's factual merit, and there are legitimate arguments to discuss regarding the procedure. I do not think it help any cause to bandy about fallacies just because reality does not match one's desires. I will leave that up to the right wing.