There’s nothing Chris digs more than an old-fashioned American saga of political success from modest beginnings. Hence his rabid support for Miguel Estrada, Clarence Thomas, and Sarah Palin. As for Sotomayor, I was eager to finally experience firsthand the genetically endowed wisdom that comes with being Latina but didn’t find much amid the pap of her opening statement. Watch here if you like, but the only substantive bit is this:

Throughout my seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.

The Standard calls this a “confirmation conversion” but I’m not sure it is. The sort of “empathy” sought by The One in his judicial heroes isn’t so much a legal filter as a factual filter; his problem isn’t with “applying the law” but in deciding which of the “facts at hand” are relevant in deciding how the law should be applied. (E.g., is gender the relevant consideration when applying the Equal Protection Clause to gay marriage or is sexual orientation?) Exit question: What about that part about judges not making law, though? How do we square that with this? Click the image to watch.