So it seems like Sonia Sotomayor has some bipartisan support. Introducing Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee, the president praised her as an "inspiring woman", adding that she has earned the "RESPECT of colleagues on the bench, the ADMIRATION of many lawyers who argue cases in her court and the ADORATION of her clerks WHO LOOK TO HER AS A MENTOR". The key words in this statement are undoubtedly "respect", "admiration", "adoration" and "look to her as a mentor". It doesn't get much better than that.

Standing next to Obama in the White House after the announcement, Sotomayor said "I strive never to forget THE REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government". This is a vow that Sotomayor will never forget that she grew up in a working class neighborhood in the Bronx.

Senators also seemed to be heaping praise on Sotomayor, who will become only the third female Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and former justice Sandra Day O'Connor as well as the first Hispanic. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement that he was looking forward "to working with BOTH Democrats AND REPUBLICANS on the Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the first Hispanic and the third woman (behind Ginsberg and former justice O'Connor) to sit on the court". However, as we have seen with all Obama cabinet nominees (with the exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton & Defense Secretary Robert Gates), confirmation is by no means guaranteed. As we have seen with both nominations and proposals, Republicans seem to be the biggest roadblock.

As far as overall Republican sentiment about Sotomayor is concerned, according to MSNBC, "Senate Republicans pleged TO GIVE HER A FAIR HEARING" which certainly is not a guarantee.

Furthermore, "...some questioned WHETHER SHE WOULD BASE DECISIONS BASED ON HER PERSONAL FEELINGS RATHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES" which is indeed a serious risk. Judges whether they are on the Supreme Court or serving on a local court must make RATIONAL decisions based on FACTS, instead of letting THEIR EMOTIONS overpower/run away with them.

So the next step is to figure out whether the following comments about Sotomayor are rational or emotional. Mr. Obama said that "Along the way, she has FACED DOWN MANY BARRIERS,, OVERCOME THE ODDS and LIVED OUT THE AMERICAN DREAM that brought her parents here so long ago". "faced down many obstacles", "overcome the odds" and "lived out the American dream" sound like EMOTIONAL APPEALS.

Also, "..she has already won Senate approval twice in her career". This is a rational statement, because Sotomayor also had to be confirmed in order to become Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. However, it's interesting to note that when she worked in these positions between August 12, 1992 & October 7, 1998 and October 7 until now, Sotomayor was nominated by George H.W. Bush, A REPUBLICAN, so could we possibly be looking at a conflict of interest here?

Sotomayor ruled in one of the most memorable cases in sports history when she sided with Major League Baseball players in a strike-shortened 1995 season. According to MSNBC, "IN ONE OF HER MOST MEORABLE RULINGS AS FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN 1995,Sotomayor ruled with Major League Baseball players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series".Here's evidence that Sotomayor doesn't just favor people with money (in this case, Major League Baseball owners).

In fact, "Obama referred to that in his remarks, THEN JOKED HE HOPED HER SUPPORT FOR THE YANKEES WOULD NOT UNDULY INFLUENCE NEW ENGLANDERS TO OPPOSE HER IN THE SENATE".

If this was meant to be funny, jhowever, it seems to be a lame joke because according to Vermont DemocraticSen. Patrick Leahy, "The American people will want the Senate to carry out its duty with CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND CIVILITY" so it seems as if Sen. Leahy seems to have some doubt about Judge Sotomayor's confirmability and perhaps ability to carry out the responsibilities for the post for which she was nominated.

According to Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, IT WILL BE UP TO THE SENATE to determine "IF Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to ACT AS A NEUTRAL UMPIRE OF THE LAW, calling balls and strikes fairly WITHOUT REGARD TO ONE'S PERSONAL PREFERENCES OR POLITICAL VIEWS". "without regard to one's personal preferences or political views" is obviously the critical phrase here and it seems as if Sen. Sessions has some doubts, WHICH ISN'T SURPRISING.

As far as Sotomayor's decisions are concerned, in a 1997 hearing prior to her confirmation as an Appeals Court Judge, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was a Republican senator from Missouri at the time asked her whether or not she would "read additional rights into the Constitution" including the right of prisoners to homosexual activity which is a hot-button issue. Sotomayor seemed to be cool and collected when she replied that "I cannot do it. The Constitution is what it is. WE CANNOT READ RIGHTS INTO THEM. THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR US". A contradiction to this statement will appear later in this report.

At her Senate confirmation hearing in 1998, Sotomayor said "I don't think we should bend the Constitution UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. It says what it says. We should do our best to honor it". There is a contradiction to this statement as well.

However, experts seem to be cautious about Sotomayor. According to Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, Sotomayor is "A LIBERAL JUSTICE OF THE FIRST ORDER who thinks HER PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LAW HAS WRITTEN". Here's the first roadblock for Sotomayor. Doesn't President Obama preach PARTY before SELF and COUNTRY before PARTY? IF THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE SOTOMAYOR WOULD BE PUTTING HERSELF BEFORE HER PARTY AND HER COUNTRY WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS LOOKING FOR.

Finally, Sotomayor has been quoted as saying that personal experiences affect "the positions that judges CHOOSE to see". Does this mean then that judges can "choose" to ignore certain critical facts? There's the contradiction.

Sotomayor's final full comment is about her heritage/culture: "I simply do not know what the difference will be in my judging. But I expect there will be some (bias?) based on my GENDER and LATINA HERITAGE". The obvious implication is: WILL SOTOMAYOR BE BIASED IN FAVOR OF LATINOS BECAUSE OF HER LATINA HERITAGE/BACKGROUND?  This could be yet another stumbling block BECAUSE THIS IS YET ANOTHER OBVIOUS BIAS. The big quesiton is: will senators be willing to overlook these obvious biases?