Obligatory post about Judge Sotomayer, her gender, race, and SCOTUS nomination, and advice to Republicans on what they should do about it.

Brief side note: I had to edit that title down so it would fit in a tweet. All my post titles automatically get tweeted, because I’m too dang lazy to go over there and do it myself, so I told my computer to do it for me.

I’m tellin’ ya, the day Skynet becomes self-aware is the day I begin to starve because I can’t do a damn thing for myself.

End side note.

So President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS, to fill Justice David Souter’s soon-to-be-empty seat.

An Hispanic woman. Historic! Yay! Someday none of us will care about that, and we’ll all be happier for it.

How should Republicans and conservatives respond? The usual range of opinions, complete with internecine infighting, has begun to apply.

I think Republicans should absolutely go through her past with a fine-toothed comb; find things to question (beyond the one or two troubling statements we already know about); and tell the public that she is a liberal Living-Constitutionalist who will rule based on whether or not she got a good night’s sleep last night or Grey’s Anatomy was good last night or her tea was too damned strong…again, instead of ruling by the actual written law.

If, of course, she can reasonably be described that way.

And then I think Republicans should vote however they think best, and should refrain from beating themselves up over it. And conservatives should do the same.

Because three months from now, 95% of Americans won’t know who the hell she is, much less who voted to confirm and who didn’t, and why, and why they should or should not have voted that way.

Now, if we’re all done, I’m going to get back to my sandwich.

Via Memeorandum, here, and here, and here, and here. If nothing else, maybe I can get some traffic out of this.

UPDATE – Via Blogprof, Republicans better make sure they ask her about this:

…student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

That right there? That’s an issue.

Granted, she was just a student at the time. Her views may have changed. Let’s find out!