It’s impossible, it seems, to purge political posturing from the task of filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.

It appears to be no different for new nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The Republicans in the Senate promise to withhold judgment until her confirmation hearings. But the conservative blogosphere has already begun to attack Sotomayor’s intellectual abilities and political leanings.
On first blush, President Obama’s choice, announced yesterday, seems impeccable.
Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, edited the Yale Law Journal, and worked as a prosecutor and private attorney before becoming a federal judge in 1992. Since 1998 she has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In fact, she has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 100 years. It’s a far cry from the last woman nominee, Harriet Miers, who was rejected in part because she had no judicial experience.
Sotomayor also has compelling personal credentials. She would be the third woman and first Latina to serve on the high court. Her upbringing can only be described as inspiring: She grew up in a South Bronx housing project, lost her father at age 9, and suffered from juvenile diabetes; she nonetheless excelled at school, winning scholarships and living up to the expectations of her demanding but devoted mother, who has been her inspiration. By any measure, it’s been an admirable American life.
It’s also a strong emotional selling point, used by Obama used to promote Sotomayor’s appointment. In taking a measure of the judge, these life-defining experiences can’t be ignored.
But they should be weighed in the context of her record as a jurist: Are her written arguments tightly reasoned and of the highest quality? Do they show she respects and understands the rule of law? Can she separate that from her personal politics? Does she have the respect of her peers? Does she have that often-elusive quality called “judicial temperament?”
Unfortunately, political partisans — mostly anti-Obama conservatives, it seems — are already on the attack, saying her opinions are pedestrian and weighted toward the liberal left.
Cooler heads must prevail. Democrats have called for a quick confirmation process; Republicans want as much time as possible. Certainly, a decision this important deserves full and careful deliberation. But it must also be made in time for a new justice to join the court in October for its fall session.
It can be done. Four other justices nominated by mid-June cleared the Judiciary Committee before the end of August.
It’s reasonable to expect the same fair and efficient process this time around.