Sotomayor would be the 6th catholic on a 9 member court.....when exactly does the pope move into the white house?

...nevermind. But if abortion is that important to you, you know where your head it. The morbid preocupation with things abortion has made liberal commentators unfit to comment on the judicial system. These issues are rare in most courts. The main problem with the judicial system is that the law is too complicated for the brain pool that operates it-- way too complicated. The system can't be fixed anymore than Joan Welshe can easily double her IQ to 100. It's simply not realistic. If anything, we should consider dismantling the system completely.

And screw diversity unless it is ideological diversity. We've had twenty-eight years of largely conservative court appointees since Reagan -- and Clinton's eight years didn't change a thing. Obama should ignore racial or sexual identity and appoint Justices who follow in the steps of William Douglas, Frank Murphy, and Wiley Rutledge -- hardcore liberals/progressives who will challenge the conservative monopoly on the American court system. I don't expect Obama to do it, but unless he does he'll just be remembered as Bush III.

You have an interesting point. And it is something the media stays away from. Notice the lack of stories about the Catholicness of Obama's admin. Director of CIA, Panetta, Robert Gates runs the military, and now six Catholics on Supreme Court. Obama is an in the closet Catholic. And the Pope is telling him what to do. But Salon will never talk about it -- even though the pretend to be against the mixture of church and state.

Joan Walsh is also a Catholic.

We're being run by a bunch of old white guys in gowns.

Those running government -- ivy league, millionaire, lawyer catholics, pretend that by appointing a hispanic, ivy league, millionaire, lawyer, catholic, we have achieved some sort of diversity. Bunk.

Before we charge ahead promoting women, etc, let's hear about your evidence. After all, you are a lawyer!

Like 86% of Argentina, or 88% or Uruguay, or 16% of Mexico, or the 51.9% of 45,000,000 U.S. Latinos who identified themselves as white in a 2007 American Community Survey?

Too cracker?

...A good judge is one whose genitals are the same shape as Ciara's.

You simply can't argue with logic like that.

It is obvious that Sotomayor edged out her competition not because she is the most brilliant, politically sympathetic, qualified or talented, but because she is a sufficiently brilliant, qualified, talented Latina. Her appointment serves as a Democratic campaign advertisement to Hispanics. Obama chose her for the Democratic Party, the midterms and 2012. That is well and good, but since lower court appointments are infinitely less visible to voters, I hope that Obama focuses only on (liberal) qualifications for lesser judicial appointments.

I don’t understand why she is referred to as a “Latino Judge”. Are judges with Irish ancestry called Irish Judges? Does that mean that the Chief Justice of the United States, John G Roberts, is actually a Slovak Chief Justice? Isn’t this an example of automatic discrimination?

While it's probably true that white males are overrepresented on the courts, you need to look at the addressable pool to be able to say that with any validity.

Take the average age of a district court judge, subtract 25 years. Then, take that result, and look back that many years at the demographics of those graduating from law schools. Hypothetically, if the average district court judge is 60, then look at the law school graduating class of 1974.

That's the relevant pool to see whether there's overrepresentation or underrepresentation.

Yes, it's pretty clear (at least to me) that, if she were Sonny Smith, a white guy from the Bronx, she wouldn't have been nominated. That being said, she's clearly qualified (summa from Princeton and head of Law Review at Yale, appellate, trial lawyer, etc. etc.).

At the end of the day, there are literally dozens of people who would be well-qualified for a Supreme Court slot. You gotta pick someone, and Obama clearly wanted a woman and a Hispanic, so she fit the role.

It's an Oprahfication nomination. Her personal story of bootstrapping up from humble beginnings is at least as important as any of her other qualifications. Obama said this plainly yesterday.

And yesterday, when I mentioned that it would be better if she were slightly handicapped? I did not know she's a diabetic. See how this works?

I think in the future we should pick our leaders from the contestants on a reality TV show. Or maybe just run a show like Extreme Makeover Home Edition and find the weepiest sob story we can and give the job to that person.

The U.S. Courts of Appeal are the court of last resort in most cases. Very few cases ever make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The judges there are very white and male. The women and minorities who do serve on them are primarily conservatives appointed by W. As for the Supreme Court, I would like to see more geographic and religious diversity. Like the previous writer, I too am concerned that the court is dominated by one particular religion, and one that has a particular political agenda, but I think one reason that has happened is that this court is mostly a coastal court (primarily an East Coast one). It has very little geographic diversity. There are a lot of things I like about Sonia Sotomayor, but despite her compelling personal story, she is basically an East Coast elitist like most of the others on the Court.

You can't choose your age, race, gender, or sexual orientation but you can choose what religion you are.

These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that systematically abused and raped thousands of children in Ireland.

These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that actively campaigns to take away other people's rights.

These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization whose leader said (AIDS) "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that consistently interferes with governments around the world, especially in the United States by telling it's followers "that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion.” (in effect telling their followers who to vote for).

These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that is headed by a former member of the Luftwaffe AA battery of the Hitler Youth Corps.

Granted one member of a church is not responsible for the actions of the other members but what they are responsible for is giving legitimacy and money to an organization that not only committed the above actions but then covered them up (in some cases for decades).

It is this lack of responsibility and the acceptance of the illegal actions of their own church that makes this such a troubling issue.

And it speaks volumes to what these justices view the role of the church to be and how much they are willing to over look criminal actions in the quest for their own personal jesus.