It's Sotomayor

I am so glad I stayed up late to finish that previous post on the Supreme Court nomination. It made for a nice waking-up experience this morning.

So it's Sonia Sotomayor, a name that was in the mix of President Obama's potential picks from the start.

If you missed the announcement this morning, you can read the story and catch the video -- including Sotomayor's statement -- here.

It's clear the boundary lines that Republicans and Democrats are staking out. In introducing her, President Obama pointed out that Sotomayor was originally appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, and elevated to the appeals court by President Clinton. The message is that Sotomayor is a moderate nominee that Republicans and Democrats can live with -- and have voted for.

On that note, NPR gives us the rundown (via Twitter) of how current Republican senators voted on Sotomayor's appeals court nomination in 1998. Check it out here.

All this information may lead you to believe that Republicans have little wiggle room when it comes to confirming Sotomayor, even though she has made some curious, if not simply disturbing, statements, like this one:

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," she added. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Not a different conclusion. A "better" conclusion. Count on that being explored more in her confirmation hearings.

But I just heard an interview with U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee since Arlen Specter fled the GOP coop. Sessions was complimentary of Sotomayor's background and personal story -- elements that the president is said to have especially appreciated about her as he was weighing his Court options -- and said he and fellow Republicans are committed to giving Sotomayor a full and fair hearing.

Sessions, who opposed Sotomayor's '98 appeals court nomination, said he didn't remember the vote specifically, but that his team is going back to look at her hearings. He also took this opportunity to get the GOP's talking points in -- that Obama had indicated he wanted to find someone who would adjudicate with "empathy," that Sotomayor herself said that "policy is made" on appeals courts and that Republicans want to make sure that she understands the role of the Supreme Court, which is to interpret law, not to make law, from the bench.

Herein lies the clue.

In bringing up these talking points about the GOP's concern over Sotomayor's nomination, Sessions said he believes that she is entitled to a full and fair hearing -- "a new hearing" -- on her qualifications and suitability for the Court.

"A new hearing."

In other words, we're wiping the slate clean for Sonia Sotomayor. You should consider the slate just as clean for Republican senators who may have previously supported her before.

I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen. But there are legitimate issues of judicial philosophy that even the left admits must be thoroughly explored in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.

I believe she will be confirmed in the end.

But it's also likely to be a bit messier than most folks think.