Another historic moment for the US?
Updated on 27 May 2009
Felicity Spector reflects on another historic moment for an administration born in historical precedent, as Sonia Sotomayor, if confirmed, is set to become the first Hispanic woman to sit on the Supreme Court.
The message is clear. Like the president himself, Sotomayor is a living embodiment of the modern American dream.
From solidly working class roots in the Bronx, the daughter of a factory worker and a nurse, she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight and had to cope with the death of her father just a year later.
Despite all this, she managed to excel academically, winning a scholarship to Princeton, then law school at Yale.
It's a theme the White House has been keen to stress - see the "talking points" sent out to surrogates straight after the announcement, revealed by The Atlantic.
It's all written as the classic American story, from Sotomayor's love of Nancy Drew books which first sparked her interest in the law, to her work with young people in the community, and the way she still finds time to speak to her mother in Florida every day. And crucially she's down to earth: "someone who brings not only brilliance in the law but a common sense understanding of how the law practically works."
Hispanic leaders have cheered the choice in the strongest terms, while the Republicans reserve most of their firepower hoping they'll get the summer break to figure out their reaction.
But is there likely to be a major fight over Sotomayor's confirmation? Conservatives have been depicting her as a "liberal judicial activist", citing a case about a white New Haven fire fighter (Ricci v deStefano) who sued for reverse discrimination over his failure to be promoted.
It's now on its way to the Supreme Court. When the case came before her she followed a lower court decision not to rehear the case. That was simply applying precent, say supporters, which showed admirable restraint. For others, like Slate's legal analyst Emily Bazelon, it was a decision which "raises more questions than she answered", and a failure to grapple with some difficult constitutional issues.
Indeed a few liberals have questioned Sotomayor's credentials. The New Republic dug the dirt when she emerged as a frontrunner citing a former clerk who described her as "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench" and expressing concern about the consistency of her opinions and her command of legal details.
But President Obama is obviously no legal ingénue. Although he only met Sotomayor once before the announcement, and that was on the day of his back-to-back national security speech with Dick Cheney, he has studied her record, her judgements and her opinions at length.
Like any debate prep, he got aides to make the case against her, the better to defend any potential weak points. And, according to Slate, an aide says there "was no heartburn moment" to worry about.
For now though, the Republicans are still deciding whether they're up for a fight. And don't forget this is a party which can barely decide its own future direction. Will it risk alienating Latino and women voters, months before November's crucial elections? Or risk alienating its more conservative heartlands, many of whom and just itching to get stuck into a row over activism and identity politics.
Perhaps the White House is confident it has Sotomayor in the bag. When all is said and done, it is pretty hard to argue against someone who's been described as the epiphany of the American dream.
