The only thing anybody was paying attention to about Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings was the Long Dong Silver...

I find this conversation rather odd... I think we should publicize stories of those who rise from unlikely situations into one that is making an impact on society. If she becomes the next SCOTUS member or not, it is great representation for those individuals out there who feel like they are stuck in their economic situation. I remember working at a grocery store, and hearing a girl talk about how she needs to have a baby soon so that she will qualify for welfare. To me, this seems like a defeatist attitude that a lot of disadvantages kids take. So any story that shows that they are not stuck in their current situation, I am definitely fond of. I think that is why Obama was hitting on the story, as education, and instilling drive within today's students has definitely been consistent with his actions so far.

Now whether or not it affects the senate's vote to confirm her, I think that is more of a problem of if we elected the right senators who can look past media biased and onto the pure facts at hand...

Look, here's the real issue, plain as day:

Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale?

White and from harlem maybe....but otherwise...NOPE.

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

I honestly dont remember

It would get play on a social class "up from boot straps" angle. Whites who overcome poverty are often noteworthy. They may've played up her gender more, though.

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him.

Wait, wait, wait.

In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized."

Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after.

Exactly - I think we have to be careful about how we define scrutiny. Every Supreme Court nominee, going back for many years (probably at least since the issue with Fortas) has been subject to extreme scrutiny throughout the nomination process. There are a ton of background checks, and they look into every iota of the nominee's personal and professional life.

Here was my whole issue with the thing - I just think that President Obama is underselling Sotomayor's considerable talents and professional experience by using this whole backstory of "empathy" and understanding, and by over-selling her personal background. You get people wondering whether she was nominated because of her feelings and personal background growing up, instead of focusing on the fact that she's a brilliant lawyer who has earned the right to be a SCOTUS nominee. At the end of the day, I don't think it's especially fair to her.

It probably won't affect the nomination process to any large degree, and I understand it makes for good copy and for a compelling story, but I just don't agree with the way it was framed.

What about the justice (Scalia?) who talked about his Italian American heritage and how he thinks about his ancestors who came to this country when making decisions. I do not recall anyone worrying about his identity politics.

The president is "selling" different things to different audiences with regard to this nominee. (just like every late 20th century, 21st century president before him has done.)

To the general electorate (political, gender, racial) audiences who, beyond an expected passing interest in her legal qualifications, want to connect on some deeper socio-political level, the persavearance angle plays and plays well. It's really politics 101.

The legal community will (regardless of whatever else the president says to other audiences) focus on her legal credentials. Again, standard operating procedure.

I really don't see what the big deal is. This is America. We see what we want to see.

During Scalia's confirmation process, Rehnquist was going through the Chief Justice confirmation process. Most of the concern was directed at Rehnquist, and honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of attention paid to Scalia.

Oh, I understand that it's politics 101, and I think pretty much everyone understands that there are political ramifications with the way these types of nominations (whether SCOTUS, Cabinet, or whatever) are presented to the public. Also, as I said, at the end of the day I agree that it's not a big deal. It's just something that bothered me stylistically about the way Sotomayor was presented. It's something that bothers me about the SCOTUS nomination process overall (i.e. the public posturing), and it just happens to be the current President who's at the center of it at the moment.

A sidebar (sort of):

Peggy Noonan's column in today's Wall Street Journal:

Republican's, Let's Play Grown-Up: Sotomayor's hearings are an opportunity for serious debate.

ETA:
I think that was Alito, not Scalia.

Plus, Roberts was POUNDED for a "lack of experience" during the initial part of the process.

NPR was all over that isht. Now they treat Sotomayor's nomination like the Second Coming--if they hadn't already blown their load like that over President Obama.

Even batisht Michael Steele's telling the GOP to bacdafucup:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/re...-on-sotomayor/

Interestingly, Michael Steele actually presented this using the music from Onyx's 1990s classic album, "Bacdafuccup"