The Senate Judiciary Committee convenes today for the much-anticipated hearings into whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor should be confirmed as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the dominance of the Democrats has taken much of the suspense out of these proceedings, more than enough drama awaits Sotomayor, as well as those who watch the committee's historic sessions.

The process begins at 10 a.m., when the members of the Judiciary Committee give 10-minute prepared opening remarks and Judge Sotomayor gives her own (if you're setting your DVR, look for her to speak at roughly 1:30 p.m.). During the opening statements, expect the Democrats to lay out the case for the judge in phrases we've heard before, namely that she is a "moderate jurist" dedicated to "the rule of law." Republicans, on the other hand, will paint her as a liberal activist judge, more dedicated to advancing her own political agenda than dispensing blind justice. For her part, the judge is most likely to emphasize her personal story as a way highlighting her unlikely ascent toward the nation's highest court

Tuesday will begin the question-and-answer sessions between Sotomayor and committee members, who will each have 30 minutes for a first round of questions, and 20 minutes for a second rounds. Following the Q&A, the committee will hear from outside witnesses who have been hand-selected specifically for the unique insights they will give, both favorable and unfavorable, on the judge's philosophy, record or personal history. The committee expects the proceedings to wrap up by late Thursday or Friday.

The hearings will turn the tables for Sotomayor -- from the familiar role of judge to the newer role of lead witness at her own trial. Her feverish preparations since being nominated include answering the Judiciary Committee's lengthy questionnaire and sending several supplements, individually meeting with 89 senators, and preparing for this week's marathon grilling through a series of "murder boards" with White House staff. Keep in mind, however, that Sotomayor has appeared before the Judiciary Committee twice before, in 1991 and 1997, for her previous appointments, so experience will be on her side.

As the action gets underway, look for these five dynamics to be in play, both in front of the cameras and behind the scenes, at the hearings for the 111th member of the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. The senators: Is there any place more dangerous in the world than sitting between 19 U.S. senators and unlimited media coverage? Judge Sotomayor will find out when she takes her place before the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 12 to 7 on the panel, which includes two women, but no minorities. Lawyers, such as Harvard-trained Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as non-lawyers, including Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, a physician, fill out the committee's ranks. When not considering Supreme Court nominations, the Judiciary Committee is handling hot-button, and often partisan, issues like the legal rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bold-faced names and big personalities dominate the committee roster, starting with its chairman, Patrick Leahy, who last appeared on the big screen -- literally -- in a cameo in"The Dark Knight," the most recent Batman movie. Leahy is so strong a personality that he's the one who induced Dick Cheney to use the f-bomb on the Senate floor. Other members include ranking Republican member Jeff Sessions, Chuck Schumer, Lindsay Graham and John Cornyn; you'll find no shrinking violets here. Arlen Specter takes his seat for the first Supreme Court nomination since his move from top Republican on the committee to the second-from-the-bottom Democrat. Sitting next to Specter will be his newly minted colleague, Al Franken, who said last week that since he's not a lawyer and is just getting his bearings as a senator, he thinks he'll be "a proxy for the people's voice."

Questioning by the senators usually resembles speeches more than actual queries, but with Joe Biden no longer on the committee, the senator-nominee word count should change in Sotomayor's favor this week.

2. The witnesses: The roster of 31 outside witnesses includes several names you've heard before. Testifying for the majority, and presumably providing a favorable view of the judge, will be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Major League Baseball pitcher David Cone, former FBI director Louis Freeh, New York Congressman Jose Serrano and Rep. Nydia Velázquez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Testifying for the minority -- meaning, they'll give information that Republicans want to be made public -- will be Frank Ricci, the plaintiff in the firefighters' reverse-discrimination case that the Supreme Court recently overturned, and Linda Chavez, the nominee for secretary of Labor under George W. Bush who withdrew her name in the face of a difficult nomination hearing.

Also appearing will be two member of the American Bar Association, which traditionally rates court nominees as a part of the confirmation process. For Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination, the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously given her its top rating of "well qualified," the same rating it gave Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

3. The Arguments: Since the day President Obama nominated Sotomayor, a tension in the historic nature of her nomination has manifested itself in the arguments for and against her. As the third woman and first Hispanic nominated to the court, liberals welcomed her addition as a much-needed voice of diversity and, dare we say it, empathy.

Conservatives have accused her of holding a bias in favor of minorities, a view that informs her approach to the law. Newt Gingrich called her "racist" on his Twitter feed, although he has since backtracked from that harsh characterization. Sessions, referring to Sotomayor's comment that "a wise Latina" could reach a better decision than a white male, said on "Face the Nation" Sunday that Sotomayor has "advocated a view that suggests that your personal experiences, even prejudices . . . would influence the decisions you make, which is a blow, I think, to the idea of American justice."

Look for Republicans to hammer on that "wise Latina" comment, as well as Sotomayor's affiliations, decisions and positions that they believe paint her as a biased, liberal, activist judge. We'll also hear conservatives' concerns that Sotomayor is anti-gun (the NRA has registered its "very serious concerns" with the committee); anti-private property (as evidenced by Didden v. Village of Port Chester, in which Sotomayor found against private property owners); and that she advocated for minorities over whites through her role as a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which sued the New York City Police Department on claims that its exams discriminated against Latinos.

Democrats will counter by attempting to portray Sotomayor as a hard-working, and unlikely, heroine in a narrative that constitutes the ultimate manifestation of the American dream. They'll use her personal story, as well as witnesses from law enforcement, prosecutors' offices and New York City government, to portray her as a by-the-book, tough-but-fair judge. They'll even bring out a former New York Mets pitcher to testify that Sotomayor "saved baseball" as the judge whose ruling ended the MLB strike in 1995.

4. The History: Since 1868, the Judiciary Committee has played a pivotal role in the Senate's historic "advise and consent" function as it related to presidential nominees to the bench. In 1916, the committee debated for four months over the controversial nomination of Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson's nominee to the Supreme Court who would become the first Jewish member of the court. In 1925, Harlan Stone became the first nominee to appear in front of the committee, when he sat for five hours to explain his role in the Teapot Dome scandal.

Recent Judiciary Committee hearings have brought moments of history and spectacle that served to radically politicize the nominations process. The 1987 failed nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court remains a source of visceral anger for many Republicans, who believe that Bork was unjustly vilified during his nomination hearings. (Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said on the Senate floor, "No justice would be better than this injustice.") Four years later, the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings provided the unforgettable image of Anita Hill testifying to an all-white panel of men, alleging sexual harassment by Judge Thomas. The last-minute surprise ultimately did not prevent Thomas's confirmation, but he called the hearings "a high-tech lynching" and "a national disgrace."

Perhaps the most relevant Judiciary Committee nomination for this week's purposes came in 1986, when the committee rejected President Reagan's nomination of Jeff Sessions to the federal bench after accusations that he blocked a civil rights investigation in Alabama. Sessions denied the allegations, but because of that experience, he has promised to stick to the issues of Sotomayor's nomination and avoid personal attacks.

5. The YouTube Keepers: Along with the broad strokes of history, technology has given us a way to immortalize the small moments from Senate hearings. Past moments of high drama -- and high camp -- include Samuel Alito's wife crying as her husband faced tough questioning, then-Sen. Joe Biden donning a Princeton baseball cap at those same hearings ( for reasons never fully understood); and John Roberts easily parrying the worst treatment that Democratic senators could summon.

You can watch the hearings on the Judiciary Committee's webcast and come back to Politics Daily throughout the week for the best news and analysis on the web.