Is Obama pandering to his constituency, or is federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor the best choice for the Supreme Court seat left empty by retiring Justice David Souter? Did Obama pick her because she’s a minority woman, and would be sufficient enough? Or is it possible that Judge Sotomayor is a bi-partisan powerhouse who has more experience on the bench than any previous Justices appointed in the last 70 years?

Sotomayor is a true rags-to-riches story, growing up in the Bronx projects after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She was inspired to become a judge by watching Perry Mason, and made that dream a reality by attending Princeton and then Yale Law School. She became a federal judge in 1992 and appeals judge six years later. She was first appointed by George H.W. Bush and later by Bill Clinton, showing support from both sides of the aisle.

She has been described as “unfailingly courteous,” “patient,” and she “asks probing questions.” She is known to cut through the pettiness and to get to the heart of the matter. She prides herself of being forthright and honest, and of upholding the Constitution at all costs. “I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

She will face a lot of criticism, as to be expected, but the most notable (and not surprisingly most vapid and empty) thus far came from Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic. I read the piece, and it seems that Rosen walked around Capitol Hill and found as many people to give anonymous negative opinions as he could. He found quite a few law clerks and New York prosecutors willing to anonymously malign Sotomayor. Did I mention that Rosen could not get one critic to go on record? Seriously, is this how journalism works? Rosen does little to defame her character, and actually demonstrates how little negative can be said about her.

The criticisms being leveled at her basically amount to being “excitable” and “angry” and being “quite temperamental.” Sounds like little more than passion to me. And isn’t that what we want? Someone who will defend the Constitution with passion and vigor, and not be a ruling stump of a Justice (which seems to be the standard at the moment)? I wonder if the conservatives are going to fault her for basically being a mirror image of their very own Scalia?

The most notable case that the conservatives will use against Sotomayor is the affirmative action case of Ricci v. DeStefano:

The New Haven, Connecticut fire department administered civil service tests for applicants for positions as captain and lieutenant. The examination resulted in disproportionately higher scores for white applicants than for minority applicants. The department decided not to implement the exam results for fear that doing so would put them in violation of Title VII. Therefore, positions remained unfilled.

I am unfamiliar with the minor details of the case, but from my vantage point, I will side with those who are against this ruling. The case is moving up to the Supreme Court, who will probably overturn the ruling of the lower courts, and the ruling of Judge Sotomayor. It is uncertain how much of this decision was hers, and how much came from the other sitting judges. However, if this is the worst of her political misgivings, I think we’re doing pretty damn well.

I see Obama’s choice as the best candidate for the job. She has a sharp intellect, is empathetic (meaning she will look at both sides, not code for “liberal activist”), and will not attempt to rule from the bench. Bottom line: I don’t think Obama could have made a better choice for replacing Justice Souter. The fact that she is female and Puerto-Rican is only icing on the cake.