I’m lukewarm regarding Sonia Sotomayor. Even though her judicial experience is vast, dwarfing that of most other justices, I have difficulty getting excited about her. I’m not sure why I feel that way. I’m sure she’ll be a good Supreme Court justice, maybe above average. But not a home run.

In my time, I’ve viewed four appointees as home runs. These are persons who, when nominated, totally impressed me with their resumes.

• Antonin Scalia.
• Anthony Kennedy.
• John Roberts.

The fourth was actually the first–Robert Bork. He, of course, got “borked.” He didn’t become a justice, but has been forever immortalized with his own namesake word.

While I can’t get excited about Sotomayor, I think the Republican opposition has been pathetically shallow. Sure, her comments in that speech are valid fodder for criticism and require explanation (which she gave, satisfyingly). But Republicans have made a mountain out of that molehill, over and over. Their focus on those few words appears terribly petty, particularly when they jump to the ludicrous Newtish conclusion that she’s racist. That’s just desperation.

Sotomayor has issued hundreds of opinions, and Republicans are apparently okay with them. They’ve made a fuss about the New Haven firefighters case, but there she was standing on precedent, and alongside many other judges, both Republican and Democrat. Not much to grab onto there.

After sorting through Sotomayor’s huge backlog of rulings, Republicans have found nothing compellingly disturbing, nothing worth throwing at her. And so they focus on some stupid words in a speech. Come on, Republican senators–you need to give me a lot more than that. If the “wise Latina woman” remark is the only reason to denounce her, I’d say she’s a pretty good nominee.

I don’t favor packing the court with conservatives (or liberals). I think that’s unhealthy for the country. I like the court the way it is now–half skewed conservative, half skewed liberal, and a swing vote. That represents our diverse country well. If the Supreme Court was stacked one way or the other, it would lack credibility to at least half of the country. 

Interestingly, while Obama may have the chance to replace three justices, they will likely all be liberals–Souter, Ginzburg, and Stevens. He won’t change the complexion of the court, unless he accidentally appoints someone who ends up being conservative (as George H. W. Bush was surprised when Souter turned out to be liberal). Under Obama, the make-up of the Supreme Court will remain basically the same, and there’s nothing he can do about that.

Fox News darlings Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin insist that Obama planted the question about Henry Gates at last weeks’ news conference. Coulter even said on Fox, “I do have proof.” And Malkin says she “absolutely” believes it was planted.

Lynn Sweet, who asked the question, begs to differ in an article on Politics Daily. “If they had, my story would have been about their effort to plant a question,” says Sweet who, unlike Coulter and Malkin, is a real journalist with truth standards.

Sweet writes about how she came up with the question, and says Obama had no idea what she would ask. And why would they plant a question like that? It took them off-message (from healthcare), and caused Obama to speak stupidly. I saw the tail end of that press conference, and was astounded when Obama addressed it the way he did. Totally inappropriate.

Speaking of nutty conspiracies: Joe Klein weighs in about Lou Dobbs and the silly birth certificate controversy.