Men can be temperamental and still be great; women are merely impossible to deal with. Why is that? While Sotomayor is pondering some of the Deep Thoughts suggested by her interrogators, perhaps those same wise blancos might give that question some reflection.

Deny as we might, the whole package of an individual being scrutinized for any position -- from cashier to Supreme Court justice -- includes appearance, personality and likability as well as qualifications, character and intelligence. It's our nature.

Which explains in part why the same Republican men who can't quite bring themselves to accept Sotomayor still swoon over their party's last vice presidential candidate. Extrapolate at your own whim -- and risk.

I don't doubt that Republicans are sincerely concerned about how Sotomayor views such issues as gun ownership, abortion rights, executive power and eminent domain -- core issues that divide us. To that end, consideration of Sotomayor's affiliations, rulings and public statements was all fair game.

But pounding her on her ethnic identity and temperament collapses the high road Republicans like to claim and betrays an intuitive vacuum that suggests, dare I say it, a lack of empathy.

I say this both with disappointment (I'm partial to men) and, yes, concern. I'm disappointed when men play the B card, by inference, if not explicitly. It concerns me that the Democratic Party may not have enough worthy adversaries in the coming years to save us from the tyranny of sustained one-party rule.

If confirmed, Sotomayor soon will blend into the folds of black robes as all the others have, and few will remember what the fuss was about. Something about a wise Latina. Did she wink?

But those who picked the wrong battles during her confirmation, reminding Americans that they are blind to their own biases and attitudes, may find themselves increasingly lonely in that great big tent.