Sonia as Annie Oakley: 'Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better.'

We learned a lot on Day 2 of the Sonia Sotomayor Show, mostly about members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. For instance, I would have bet against the likelihood that the gentlemanly Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, would stoop so low as to try to lure the nominee into the trap of repeating her earth-shattering "wise Latina'' comment on camera -- you know, just a little something that Fox News could run 24/7 from now until Rapture. Golly, where is that gosh darn quote, he wondered aloud, while rifling theatrically through his papers: "Do you remember it?'' he asked her, faux distractedly. Yes. "OK, say it to me.'' She neither complied nor refused, but just sat there, nervously batting her eyes the way she did every time one of the questioners succeeded in getting to her. "Can you recite it from memory?'' That he must have known she would not perform on cue suggests he walked down that road for the sheer power trip of humiliating her. "I like you, by the way'' he told her before knocking her around, "for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you, that ought to matter to you.'' Oh, it matters, Mr. Man, sir, it matters! Is that what he wanted to hear?

To me, the million-dollar quote about how a "wise Latina'' can more times than not do a more bang-up job than anybody else on the planet is exactly as racist and scary as that song from "Annie Get Your Gun," where Annie Oakley sings, "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you.'' (It's a duet, actually, with Frank Butler, or in this case Senators Graham, Sessions and Kyl, doing the musical naysaying: "No, you can't!" Annie: "Yes, I can!'' And so on.)

Sotomayor repeatedly told her questioners that all she was trying to do was buck up and inspire the young Hispanic students and lawyers she was addressing -- very much the same way every mom says, "You can be the best, my baby!'' instead of "If you try your very hardest, then perhaps you can be exactly as good as but never surpass the current leaders in your chosen field.'' How threatened, thick and/or disingenuous do you have to be not to get that?

Until Graham lit so nastily into SoSo -- and I like him, by the way, for whatever that matters -- I was actually loving the tough questioning of the nominee. Yes, it was a bit of a Backwards Day moment to see Jeff Sessions of Alabama accusing Sotomayor of racism; as I've noted before, the committee Sessions now sits on voted down his appointment by Ronald Reagan to a federal judgeship in 1986, chiefly on allegations that he had made racially insensitive comments, including a joke that he was OK with the Ku Klux Klan before learning that some of its members smoked pot.

Still, it's important that all questions be asked and answered, and the Wiffle balls being pitched by Democrats were not getting the job done. Here's Patrick Leahy of Vermont, really putting Obama's Supreme Court pick to the test: "Have you set your goal to be fair, to show integrity based on the law?'' And here he is prodding the nominee to tell us all about the exciting case of the "Tarzan murderer," who was swooping around Harlem on ropes and killing people until Sotomayor prosecuted him as a young assistant D.A.: "So [having been a prosecutor] you see it from both ends? The fairly easy answer to that is, you do, do you not?'' Leahy's question about a gun-rights case did give him the opportunity to assert that he personally just loves a little bang-bang: "I enjoy target shooting at our home in Vermont.'' To which Sotomayor entertainingly replied that "Like you, I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt.''

The session really only came alive when Sessions began his questioning, repeatedly grilling Sotomayor on what exactly she'd meant by previous statements "suggesting you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision.'' Again and again, she answered that all she'd meant was that judges do have feelings and are better off acknowledging them so they can put them aside: "I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial.''

Fine, Sessions said, but "in the past you've said this: 'I wonder if achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all. I wonder if by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society.' Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to influence your decision-making?'' Fair question, and I'm not sure she was completely forthcoming in her answer: "What I was speaking about . . . was life experiences do influence us in good ways; that's why we seek the enrichment of our legal system'' from people with different life experiences. We do? How so?

The truth she wouldn't/couldn't acknowledge is that yes, having more women and minorities on the bench doubtless will change the judiciary. And?

Jon Kyl of Arizona focused on how she'd said in at least one speech that "I further accept that our experience as women and as people of color will in some ways affect our decisions." "The clear inference,'' he said, "is that this is a good thing this is happening. . . . That's the basis of concern a lot of people have.'' Sotomayor answered that in her 17 years on the bench, in "decision after decision, it's very clear I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases.'' Which if true -- and I do happen to believe her -- still does not really respond to Kyl's question. He and Sessions and Graham seem to want assurances that go well beyond that; they want her to say she doesn't think women and minorities will be any different from the white guys who've always been in charge.

Sotomayor's Republican questioners clarified matters considerably by stating in no uncertain terms that they fear the future: Her speeches, Graham said, "represent the idea that there's a day coming when there will be more of us -- women and minorities -- and we're going to change the law.'' He also is honest in saying that the other big issue on the table is abortion.

Contrary to other reports I've seen, Sotomayor did get rattled a couple of times on Tuesday. She did look silly pretending that as a board member of the Puerto Rican Defense Fund, she didn't know or care that the group was strongly pro-choice, and sillier yet telling Graham, on the subject of Islamic terrorists, that "I understand some of them have indicated women are not equal to men.'' But had she been forthcoming about either her views on abortion or how a more diverse judiciary will change the legal landscape, Obama's nominee would not be on her way to confirmation.