Tough vote on Sotomayor

As announcements trickle out regarding GOP senators' intended votes on the Sotomayor nomination, I can't help but feel (a teeny bit of) sympathy for them. Why? Because the Sotomayor who testified on Capitol Hill last week is different than the Sotomayor who has judged and seminared and opined over the past 17 years (and who is also the Sotomayor likely to reappear once seated on the Supreme Court). As Jay Nordlinger writes at NationalReview.com:

Well, that was an amazing performance by Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate committee. The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone. Gone was the woman who talked about the role of “physiology” in judging, who insisted that impartiality, objectivity, neutrality — all of that — was a fantasy, and a bad one. In her place was a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law: the rule of law, and nothing but. Doesn’t make a difference whether you’re a Latina or a whitey or whatever. “Empathy”? Never heard of it. Certainly has no role in the courtroom.

A funny thought occurred to me: Maybe President Obama should withdraw Sotomayor’s nomination? I mean, she seemed to repudiate everything he stands for in judging.

I must say I was especially grateful to those liberals who said, publicly, they were disappointed in Sotomayor’s choices: who said that her testimony before the committee was dishonest and disingenuous. They scored her for perpetuating the childish belief that judging can be impartial. They wanted the old, candid, racialist Sonia back. I would like to add that I think the old, candid, racialist Sonia would have been just fine. What I mean is, the Senate would have confirmed her anyway — there is that mountain of Democratic votes. She could have let it all hang out. She did not have to dissemble to stymie people like me.

The Sonia Sotomayor who testified before the committee, people like me could endorse and vote for. Somebody’s lying: either the Sonia Sotomayor of the past or the Sonia Sotomayor of the present. Or she has undergone a conversion. I doubt that such conversion has taken place. You?

So which vote should they cast? The one that will be characterized as partisan (and perhaps bigoted) or the one that will not avert her confirmation and is fairly rooted in a concern for Rule of Law and sound judicial philosophy?