Since being announced as President Obama’s pick to replace Justice Souter on the US Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been called a lot of things. While she’s been labeled a shoe-in from day one by those on both sides of the aisle, Conservative pundits were quick to accuse the Latina nominee of being a “reverse racist,” a woman judge playing identity politics from the bench.

Appearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor attempted to explain her judicial record and the “wise latina” remarks that made her a target for the Right. Attempting to deflate anticipated attacks from the GOP, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-V.T.) asked Sotomayor to explain herself and put her words in proper context. The nominee claimed that her statement–that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion [than a white judge]“–was incorrectly characterized by the media, and that her remarks were simply echoing an assertion by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who said everyone has the “the equal capacity to be fair and partial.”

Contrary to the judicial vision of some of the Committee’s ranking Republicans, Sotomayor said that judges can never be entirely objective and it was important for all justices not to assume their own impartiality, but rather to keep an open mind. In response to a pointed question from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-A.L.), Sotomayor said that although personal background should play a part in shaping perception, it would not guide her rulings. Said Sotomayor:

Life experiences are important in perceiving facts, but the law commands a result.

Sessions–who had quite the embarrassing moment during the hearing–and fellow committee member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-U.T.) were concerned that Sotomayor’s minority background may cloud her judgment, making her biased against whites. They pointed to her vote in Ricci v. New Haven in which the appellate body that she was sitting on ruled that tests for firefighters that seemed to favor white candidates were unconstitutional. Sotomayor said that the case was not about affirmative action, but about the fairness of the tests being administered. Because the Supreme Court had overturned the appellate ruling, Sotomayor conceded that she would be bound by the precedent. Characterized by legal scholars as a largely technocratic and methodical judge, Sotomayor said she would also respect the “settled law” of some other key Supreme Court rulings, including Roe v. Wade.

With the Democrat’s 12-to-7 advantage on the Committee and 60-40 lead over Republicans in the Senate, it is unlikely that Sotomayor will not be confirmed to take her seat on the high court. This week’s political theater on Capitol Hill, however, is putting a major focus on the role of the US Supreme Court and the judicial vision both parties hope to convey to their constituencies. While the Democrats stand firmly behind President Obama’s empathy criterion, Republicans nominally favor objective rulings that respect precedent. Democrats tout Sotomayor’s impeccable legal credentials, while Republicans have targeted who she is and what she’s been through as an indicator of her judicial temperament.

Absent a “complete meltdown,” as Sessions said at yesterday’s hearings, Sotomayor will likely be confirmed in the coming weeks. Just as President Obama had hoped, Sotomayor’s addition will add much needed diversity (racial, not religious) to the court and bring a new face to the justice-ship. As with all others, what kind of a justice Sotomayor will truly be has yet to be seen.

photo credit: kimberlyfaye (busy)’s Flickr photostream (creative commons)