Much has been made recently, particularly on slow news days, of Sonia Sotomayor's frequent invocation of the phrase "wise Latina" over the course of numerous speeches.  In the 2001 speech, she appeared to be referring specifically to her hope of bringing superior insight to cases involving gender or racial discrimination of the kind she had experienced.  In earlier remarks, the same phrase may not have been equally limited (although I haven't seen the text of those speeches), and so alarms are ringing over fears she will unfairly favor Hispanics, or women, once she is elevated to the Supreme Court..

The excessive use of "wise Latina" by Sotomayor does seem a bit over the top to me, but I recognize that when someone comes up with a felicitous phrase, it's hard to resist reusing it, like a plastic bag that is still so intact it's a shame to throw it in the trash after only one shopping trip.  What then to make of the notion of Sotomayor as "wise Latina"?  Does her obsession with the concept imply that she's too Latina but not wise enough to decide cases without prejudice?

Nothing in the record of her judicial decisions even hints at such a prejudice, and in fact her decisions have generally tended to rule against plaintiffs in discrimination cases, but of course this is unlikely to hinder speculation.  My own interpretation of her emphasis on "wise Latina" is that in the context of her speeches and the nature of their audiences, the phrase reflects a very substantial ethnic pride in her Puerto Rican heritage - pride perhaps worn too publicly for the taste of some - but pride nonetheless.

Now it's quite reasonable to expect our judges not to translate pride into favoritism, but I would hope we would not wish them to take no pride in who they are.  Equally, we should be wary of attempts to discourage expressions of pride, lest we add to the list of hypocrisies we expect nominees to employ during confirmation hearings. 

"Have you ever come to an opinion about Roe v. Wade"?
"Of course not."
"Your heritage is [fill in the blank - Hispanic, Russian, Italian, Jewish, etc.]  Do you consider that important in the way you see things?"
"Of course not."

Here's the problem.  Almost everyone, to the extent he or she sports a minority ethnic heritage or identifies with a group that has suffered discrimination, will feel the pride of group identity.  What happens if that becomes a disqualifying stigma?

Unfortunately, there is probably one group that can most often be honest in denying substantial group pride.  I suggest that if you ask someone, "Are you very proud to be a white male?", only a few will answer "Of course", whereas a much larger number will reply, "You know, I never really think about it."  Nothing in the American experience suggests any reason why they would need to, but for many other groups, heritage is a sustaining element in their sense of worthiness in a nation symbolized by words at the base of that statue in New York harbor .

If we wish to be fair in choosing our Justices, perhaps it's something we all should think about.  Pride is one thing and prejudice another.  I didn't make that up.  Didn't someone once write a book telling us they're two very different creatures?