Via C-SPAN, you can watch the speeches for/against Judge Sotomayor such as Sen. Whitehouse's excellent analysis, which ends on the importance of experience and empathy, using history as the ultimate judge. As he and some others (e.g., the two senators from New York) underline, the "basic principles" the Republicans' claim she violates strongly favor her confirmation. Sen. Schumer hits it out of the park -- they want an activist judge, but one (I'd add) who covers up her activism. One whose personal experiences affects their judgment, as is the case for all judges, but they oh so sanctimoniously deny the case. In effect, more b.s.
Republicans stick to a few canards, citing a handful of cases of thousands, ignoring her overall quite moderate record. The "mainstream" is a de facto requirement, a move toward equality over distinction that Tocqueville might recognize. The term leaves something to be desired, but she fits in it. Yes, she leans a bit left, but as Schumer noted, remains pretty close to the median all the same. Judge Alito was found to vote consistently conservative when the panel split. Not Sotomayor. But, since we only care about around five of her cases, this does not matter. Ditto her average reversal rate as an appellate judge.
Sotomayor is punished for being honest. For noting that experiences matter, that people are not fungible, even judges. That who a judge is determines exactly how they look at the facts in a case. And, yes, facts and empathy matter even in the Supreme Court, not just (as some stupidly say) in trials and sentencing. Heather K. Gerken, a worthwhile guest at Balkinization who specializes in election issues, notes this is a problem with the dubious rush job to consider a major change in campaign finance. The First Amendment is very concerned with context, which amounts to various facts and how we understand them.*
The Senate Democrats (and the few Republicans, a few less than some thought, that support the nomination) are focusing on neutral matters of experience, moderation, and so forth here. This is not too surprising, especially since this is why she was nominated -- a safe choice with a good story, but one who has just enough for liberals to accept her as a good choice. Some, like Dahlia Lithwick, might want some more promotion of Democratic values. But, not only is her confirmation helpful overall in that department (adds to trust in Obama etc.), but many senators have did just that. And, attacked the other side, which in effect does so by proxy too.
Watching various reasonable sounding sorts like the senior senator from Minnesota or the likes of Russ Feingold or Arlen Specter and even Lindsey Graham support Obama's choice means something. And, some of these people did so with special force, promoting liberal values in the process. Sen. Whitehouse shined obviously, but he was not really alone. Meanwhile, Republicans looked like one note boobs who might just be a tad bit racist to boot. Not a bad confirmation process message given that this was like the Roberts for Rehnquist switch, only a few more Dems supported Roberts, and those who did not (now I might be partial here, but still) look as stupid doing so.
Okay, let's see her in action.
---
* Prof. Gerken also references an earlier discussion in which she said in part:
Political elites (parties, campaign organizations, political professionals, and candidates - all of the actors that progressives tend to disdain) are all but essential for generating the type of participatory energy and engagement that Waldman seeks.
When issues rise to the top of the agenda or voters get engaged, it's almost always because of political leaders.
This has to be taken into consideration when addressing regulation in this area. The whole matter is quite complicated, and just talking about campaign finance limits alone is of limited value.