It is probably true if the nomination of a woman of Puerto Rican decent (and a Catholic) was made by former President Bush or any one else other than Barack Obama, that there would still be a great deal of debate and dirt dished out over her merits as one of 9 Supreme Court Justices.  It is after the fact of her nomination, from a list compiled when Justice Souter informed the world that he would be stepping down from the Court, that criticism over the choice has been the chosen topic of Conservative talking heads and a prime topic taking pages of newsprint to allow full "discussion" of the choice.  Well, she isn't on the Court, yet.  Her nomination was just made and judicial reasoning tells us that it is not the Court that counts but the debate in the Senate that does.  The President nominates and the Senate either concurs or dissents.

Judicial reasoning is a subject I know nothing about.  This is another field in which I have no experience but know what I read in the papers.  The decisions that get me angry are those that bow to Conservative causes.  The decisions that make me glad are those that have been waiting for years to make it through the perilous journey through Senatorial scrutiny.  Most times, if the candidate were of Anglo/Protestant/old family and long history of service to the country, there would be no problem in deciding the outcome - all Conservative or Liberal predilections aside. 

It is interesting to note that each of the members of the Supreme Court has a history on that Court that has changed over time.  They grow as do we all grow and they change as the time changes.  The mills of the Gods grind slowly and so do the changes in the entire Court.  Remember when there was "Separate but equal"?  The law making that true was changed while, if you look closely - especially in High School proms in Georgia- the separate remains while equality is not practiced.

Judicial reasoning escapes me at times.  You read the individual arguments presented by a Supreme Court Judge and you wonder how torturously the argument is laid out.  You wonder how you get from point A to point B and it is not a straight line.

I think it is good that another woman has been NOMINATED.  I think it is good that a lady with lots of experience as a judge AND who has an Hispanic background has been NOMINATED.  I think the Conservative side will have its say and it will be a lot that may or may not be germane to how the Senate will vote.  But that vote will be along Party lines, you can be sure of that.  That is my reasoning about this judicial confirmation.