It seems to me that, whatever her qualifications, her speech in which she made the remark implying that "wise Latinas" have superior judgment is clearly racist.

Baloney. She didn't say that she wanted to see an entire Supreme Court composed of Latinos who would reverse all of the most ridiculous decisions previously made by the all-white Supremes.

Anyone's decisions on the Supreme Court will be influenced by their life experience, which includes ethnicity and obviously includes the people they know in their daily life, their family members, and so on.

Basically the way the US is set up and the ways the laws are made and interpreted and enforced represents a white male mentality, (for example corporations are treated the same as individuals) and with changing demographics this is something that needs to change as other cultures and points of view become more predominant.

Frankly it will be good to have more people on the Supreme Court who have been on the receiving end of some of our most wacko laws. Whether Sotomayor is really the best candidate remains to be seen, but clearly she seems to be as well-qualified as anybody can be, and arguable more qualified than some sitting members of the court.

Really you can't just favour putting someone on the Supreme Court with stipulations that they must rule in favor of minorities 75% of the time in civil rights cases.

You have to trust their integrity to make what they think is the best decision based on what they know of the facts. Either they have this integrity or they don't. Even then on many occasions Supreme Court justices disagree with each other. Perhaps they ought to be like juries. Either they reach a unanimous decision, or else the plaintiff's case is dismissed.

The fact that this notion is so absurd shows that making Supreme Court decisions is an art, not a science.

Those of us who are not Republicans have had to put up with many years of creepy Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican president, but now the boot is on the other foot and we intend to score some goals.

If the Republicans don't like Obama's Supreme Court choices, then they have three options.

1. Show that the nominee is corrupt, taking bribes for decisions, or manifestly incompetent.

2. Win the White House

3. Shut the f*** up.

With black people occupying twice the number of incarcerated compared with their per capita population in America...

I will concede the statistic (quite possibly the number is even higher), but does this necessarily mean that half of black prisoners are innocent of the crimes that they were charged with, or that certain crimes should be taken off the books because they criminalize black cultural practices, or that half of black defendants are imprisoned because they can't afford to buy good legal counsel.

Probably not. It probably means that blacks form a very large group at the lowest socio-economic level and find themselves needing or wanting money to support a middle class lifestyle without having the educational foundation to seek it by legitimate means. So they turn to crime.

Thus it is doubtful that having judges who are basically sympathetic to the black plight will make any difference to the number of black men who are incarcerated.

I would imagine, though, that the actions of the Federal Government in propping up General Motors and Chrysler, at least pro tem, might prevent a few people becoming criminals, and that a good number of these will be descendants of African slaves.

Where on earth did you get the idea that an opposition party should oppose whatever the ruling party does?

You seem to be saying that an opposition party should oppose actions that are actually aligned with their own agenda just because the other party is attempting them. That is just plain obstruction. Note also that it renders "bipartisanship" (which Republicans claim to want from Democrats) an exercise in futility.

An opposition party should offer an alternative vision.

Of course the Republicans SAY they want bipartisanship, but this is just for public consumption. The last thing they really want is bipartisanship, because it would render their own party redundant.

The Republicans don't really have an agenda per se other than taking as much power, wealth and resources for themselves as possible.

...the Republicans are actually doing what an opposition party is supposed to do, which is to play devil's advocate and oppose whatever the ruling party does.

If the Democrats had not been such pussies when Bush junior was in office, this is what they should have been doing over the ridiculous "War on Terror", the disastrous invasion of Iraq, and so on.

Of course Senora Sotomayor will make a wonderful Supreme Court justice, which is precisely why the GOP is trying to derail her nomination.

Yes, of course she will make rulings based on her experience, which is what all Supreme Court justices do, and always have done. Does anyone really think that the Dred Scott ruling was just based on an academic, but precise interpretation of the law?

If there was just one technically correct answer to every problem reviewed by the Supreme Court, then why is it that so many decisions are made on divided votes?

The Democrats should just ignore the wailings of the GOP and proceed with Sotomayor's nomination as early as possible, regardless of whether the GOP shows up.