Finally, context. Sotomayor's point was that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging." Who doesn't believe that?

Just for fun, I might argue that Sotomayor is a conservative inasmuch as she implicitly recognizes that men and women are different and bring different perspectives to bear. Radical-liberal types tend to fantasize that sex is not a difference that matters. It also can't be denied that one's racial/ethnic background is profoundly significant, though we all pretend otherwise as convenient.

The broader concern, obviously, is that such considerations not interfere with how Lady Justice, her blindfold securely fastened, interprets the law. Hence questions about Sotomayor's role in the now-suddenly famous Ricci v. DeStefano case. To think, a few days ago, only seven people outside of New Haven, Conn., knew the name Frank Ricci. Today, rumor has it that Tom Cruise is considering playing Ricci just as soon as Joe the Plumber writes the script.

Briefly, Ricci is a white firefighter who performed well on a promotion-related exam. But because minorities didn't do as well -- and therefore couldn't be promoted -- the city tossed the test. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued.

The pinch for Sotomayor is that she and the other two appellate panelists affirmed a lower court ruling favoring the city's decision -- without evidence of having grappled with the legal issues. Thus, a legitimate question for anyone: What was she thinking?

By the time Sotomayor comes up for a vote, we'll know everything but her ring size.

For now, the hot winds of punditry could use a little chill.

Calling Sotomayor a sexist and racist, far from being fair, is an irrational rush to judgment unbecoming ladies, gentlemen, scoundrels and scholars.