A great comment. Thanks!

It is interesting that Sotomayor is not implying that she is a statistician, as she is able to resolve between-group differences in ability tests as the result of bias, and not actual differences. [1]

The Obama Administration’s politicization of science is distressing, but sadly in the mainstream of Democratic Party life. Sotomayor’s recent attempts to call herself a statistician (or else, imply that actual knowledge of statistics does not matter) is just one more example of this.

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/10/MNVK184GQF.DTL

But for better or worse, I think Sotomayor will be confirmed unless they find the proverbial dead hooker in her trunk. For what its worth, I think Charles Krathammer offered some words of wisdom in the Washington Post: [2]

“When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling “facially race-neutral.”

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less “advantaged.”

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.”

[1] http://fearandloathingintheblogosphere.blogspot.com/search/label/Sotomayor

[2] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/29/sotomayor_criticize_then_confirm_96713.html