Sotomayor Could Save Obama's Summer

In contrast to the messy complexity of just about everything else, the self-described "wise Latina" appeals court judge appears to be on a smooth path to confirmation after a run-up notable for its lack of fiery passion and big bucks.

With confirmation hearings scheduled to start in just three days, "The resources spent on both sides have been relatively minimal," says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice and a leader of the 75-member Coalition for Constitutional Values.

Shortly after Sotomayor was named, the coalition aired what appears to be the only TV ad anyone ran for or against her. It highlighted her background, achievements and qualifications. On the other side, the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, also made up of more than 70 groups, made an Internet video, citing the most controversial line of a Sotomayor speech about how gender and ethnic identity affect judicial decision-making: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

A little context here. CNN reported that the judicial network spent $200,000 on Internet banner ads guiding people to its Sotomayor video. The Washington Post says the health industry is spending $1.4 million a day as Congress writes a major overhaul of the nation's health care system.

While the judicial network video has never been on TV, network counsel Wendy Long says that's still an option as the confirmation process moves forward. She also says state affiliates have made their own videos and money has been spent on organizing. "It's always a cost-benefit analysis. We pride ourselves on spending our resources wisely," she told me.

For Republicans and conservatives, the political facts of life are these: Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, enough to end a filibuster. Obama won Latino voters last year two-to-one. Sotomayor would be the first Latina on the court. The American Bar Association gives her its top rating of "well qualified" for the position. Her opinions are painstakingly analytical and relatively non-controversial. She's expected to vote much like the retiring David Souter.

Bottom line: Barring some bombshell, she's headed for confirmation. There's no point in making it even harder for GOP candidates to win Hispanic votes by going all out against a nominee who won't dramatically change outcomes and probably can't be stopped.

That's not to say conservative groups and senators have been silent on Sotomayor. They want her to be questioned next week about guns, abortion, executive power, the work she did for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund and the weight she gives to foreign laws and world opinion. And no doubt she will be.

They want her to explain why she said a "wise Latina" would come to better decisions than a white man, and you can bet that will come up repeatedly. So will her ruling, along with two other appeals court judges, that New Haven, Conn., correctly threw out a firefighter's promotion exam after no blacks got scores high enough to move up. The Supreme Court reversed the decision last month and the firefighter who brought the suit -- Frank Ricci -- is scheduled to testify.

But there's a difference between raising concerns and raising the rhetorical level to boiling. When Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a racist, other Republicans told them to back off. Some Republicans who started out negative are now undecided. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina comes to mind. "I honestly think I could vote for her," he told McClatchy this week.

There's also a difference between raising concerns and arguing that the nation's fate or character rests on the outcome. That has been the case in titanic battles of the past.

During the heated fight over nominee Robert Bork in 1987, Ron Hrebenar writes in Interest Group Politics in America, Jerry Falwell told Christian conservatives that "the future of America may be at stake." More than 185 liberal groups fought Bork and they prevailed. Four years later, inflamed by his conservative ideology and Anita Hill's assertion that he had sexually harassed her, liberals mobilized against Clarence Thomas. That time they lost.

As the court shifted further right under George W. Bush and a Republican Senate, Democrats marshaled strong rhetoric against John Roberts in 2005. "Judge Roberts is on the fulcrum of a deeply divided nation with the Constitution in the balance," then-Sen. Joe Biden said. "What is really at stake is the wholesale liquidation of any constitutional protection of privacy."

Roberts was more conservative than retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Democrats knew he'd be a tipping point on a divided court. Long says the future of the Constitution is at stake now, too. But it's hard to get to fever pitch about replacing a liberal with a liberal.

So we can expect fascinating viewing next week and a full airing of conservative concerns. There is a remote chance of a surprise ending, but the confirmation process likely will seem more like a summer escape movie to Obama -- and a welcome relief from a bunch of suspense flicks that could turn unpleasant at any moment.