I think that Sonia Sotomayor is a very strong nominee. As has been pointed out numerous times, she has more experience than any nominee in history. Her rulings are generally seen as pretty moderate. She has completely kept her cool throughout the entire questioning portion of the hearings. She has said all the right things. There is very, very little chance that she won’t be confirmed.

And so, the Republican senators have been forced to work with whatever negatives they can find about Sotomayor. Namely, her one speech that included the now-famous comment about a “wise Latina woman.” GOP Senator Lindsey Graham told her “don’t go into speechwriting if the law thing doesn’t work out,” and if I’m sure she deeply regrets making that speech.

Sotomayor’s comment implied that she thought it was okay for judges, in some cases, to rely on their backgrounds in ruling on cases, and not just rule objectively. Sotomayor clearly distanced herself from that statement during the hearings, saying that she would rule based on law alone.

Also brought up was a statement President Obama made during Chief Justice John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Obama said this:

The problem I face… is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court… what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

It’s interesting to note that Sotomayor said point-blank that she disagreed with Obama about this issue, and I think it was with that answer that she sunk the GOP ship. Her open disagreement with the president who nominated her about objectivity made the Republicans’ main objection to her – that she wasn’t objective – seem silly.

But the question still stands: should judges take Obama’s advice and take their values and perspectives into account in “the 26th mile,” or should they answer only to the law, acting more like umpires in a baseball game (another oft-mentioned analogy)?

In a perfect world, judging would be as easy as umpiring. The law would be perfectly clear about everything, leaving no gray areas. It would even be possible to process the law and hand down decisions with a robot.

But I think that the fact is that the law isn’t always as clear as balls or strikes, and I agree with Obama that in those kinds of cases it is acceptable for a judge to rule more subjectively. There’s a reason that so many Supreme Court cases end up 5-4.

At the same time, however, I think that it’s of utmost importance to keep subjective opinions out of the 95% of cases in which the law is clear. It would be a disaster for our legal system if judges began to rule on most cases based on empathy or personal beliefs instead of the law.

So while I don’t then agree with Sotomayor that a judge must be objective 100% of the time, I do think that she’s going to be an excellent justice.

By the way, you can read more specific reactions I had to Sotomayor and the committee on Twitter, where I tweeted live during the hearings.