by James Zipadelli

Created on: June 05, 2009   Last Updated: June 08, 2009

A Supreme Court nominee is the most important decision a President makes. He or she affects profound legal issues in our lives long after that President has left office. Based on a compelling life story, a changing American electorate and sound legal jurisprudence, Sotomayor should absolutely be confirmed to the Supreme Court. In fact, Sotomayor should receive broad bipartisan support from the U.S. Senate.

Cynical analysts will see Sotomayor's appointment as an affirmative action appointment - that she has been nominated because she is a woman (there's only one, 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg) and because she would be the first Hispanic to sit on the Court. If confirmed, Sotomayor would be the third women to sit on the Supreme Court. It is true that Hispanics are the fastest growing minority in the U.S.

In the 2008 election, President Obama received 67 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to 31 percent for Sen. McCain - even though McCain called for immigration reform and a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. To say that Sotomayor was nominated only because she was a woman and Hispanic, would be to deny her long and varied legal career and her compelling life story. It also puts Republicans in an unenviable position: How do you raise legitimate questions about Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and record, without alienating millions of voters? Should they appeal to their base and become more conservative, or should they attempt to re-create the "big tent" former President Reagan had in the 1980s?

Critics also say that several of Sotomayor's speeches show that she will not apply the law, that instead, she will apply the law only to certain segments of the population, especially minorities. In the speech she gave at Berekely in 2002, Sotomayor quotes another judge, Judge Cedarbaum, as saying that, "judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law." Sotomayor continues, "Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society." All Sotomayor is doing here is stating the obvious - that we are colored by our experiences, but that doesn't mean she would not fairly apply the law.

Sotomayor grew up in a public housing project, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, and was editor of the Yale Law Review. For those that are interested, here is the questionairre she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's clear that there are parallels between Obama and Sotomayor. Here's the bottom line: We still have much to learn about Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, and this needs a full debate over the next several months. But she reflects America. She deserves this chance. And she will be seated when the Supreme Court resumes in October.

Learn more about this author, James Zipadelli.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.