I figured I would add some other commentaries about the Sotomayor decision.

First is a run down of the Senate Judiciary Committe, featuring a right-wing troll from Alabama, and a partisan, sanctimonious jackass from Vermont.

While I normally am very fond of David Brooks, I find this article offensive. It is a nasty slam against people who are not cursed with the corrupting force of empathy. Sure,some folks who lack empathy may be sociopaths, but lack of empathy is not a lac of conscience. Many people with autism lack empathy and those who are highly functional would make extremely good judges. The demon of empathy is more dangerous than a bribe, because a tug on the heartstrings is worse to the rule of law than any bribe, as it allows bias to overshadow what the law should state. The law is not about morality of fairness. It is the law. If a law is unfair or evil, the legislator should change it, not a Court decision. The fact that we are human and our Supreme Court have corruptible hearts instead of Judge Dredd ideals is one of many problems with America.

David Brooks is normally a guy I like, but his comments here I completely disagree with.

Now, I find some other interesting stuff about Sotomayor in this article and this one makes for an interesting counter argument about impartiality vs empathy.Maybe Judge Sotomayor is more Judge Dredd than Emily Empathy, or at least I hope so.

Ed Rollins, a very intelligent Republican strategist offers some wise counsel to the Senate GOP, but they will ignore it no doubt.G. Gordon Liddy goes on to make a dumb, sexist comment and I expect better of a man who had the fortitude to endure prison for his principles, whether you are with them or not.

Now on to her history:

In 1992,she was appointed as a District Court Judge for Southern NY, a Bush appointee (albeit in a deal brokered by Moynihan and liberal Republican Al D'Amato), and in 1998, a Clinton appointee to the 2nd District Court of Appeals. When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, Senate Democrats suggested her to George W Bush, though one can debate how much meaning can be derived out of it.

I am not overly fond of Obama looking at Earl Warren as a role model for SC Justice (though I would back him on Brown vs Board of Education) or his empathy speech, but he's replacing Souter which gives him leeway. The same is true of Ginsberg and Stevens, though I hope he replaces Stevens with Alan Dershowtiz, a very brilliant but combative Harvard Law Professor, who would make the Supreme Court WASP free (currently there are five Catholics, two Jews, and two old WASPs with withered stingers) and soon one WASP will be replaced. Stevens is next as he will be ninety next year. Now, if anything happens to Scalia, President Obama would be wise to find the most hopeful Republican Presidential candidate and appoint him or her as a Machiavellian move, just as he appointed Utah's centrist Governor Ambassador to China.

On the other hand, President Obama could test his popularity by appointing Blagoyevich or Burris to something of significance. In the name of Science, Sec of State Hillary Clinton can be sent as a goodwill Ambassador on a deep space probe :)