Editor's note: Abigail Thernstrom is the author of "Voting Rights -- and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections," published last month by AEI Press. She is the vice-chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Her writing can be found at http://www.thernstrom.com/.



Abigail Thernstrom says an impressive biography isn't a qualification for the Supreme Court.



(CNN) -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor is all but certain to be confirmed as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. It is close to unimaginable that the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to stop Senate confirmation.



She's a first: a Latina. And she has an impressive life history: Raised in a housing project by a single mother, she went to Princeton and then to Yale Law School. It's a classic American overcoming-the-odds story, but, while admirable, it is not a qualification for the highest court in the land.



Democrats themselves have often implicitly made the same point -- about other minority appointees, in fact. They never saw the much humbler origins of Justice Clarence Thomas as an argument for his elevation to the Court.



And they used a filibuster to stop Bush appointee Miguel Estrada from getting a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which they feared would be a springboard to the Supreme Court.



Estrada is a Honduran who arrived in America at age 17 with only limited command of English; he was also raised by a single mother and made it to Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the law review.



Supporters of Sotomayor argue that she will add needed "diversity" to the Court. Yet, with her confirmation, there will be six Catholics, two Jews and one Protestant. For many Americans, religious affiliation is more important in defining an individual than race or ethnicity. But no one is complaining about "too many" Catholics or Jews -- thankfully.



America is supposed to be a land in which individuals are seen as ... individuals. Too many, too few: that is the language of un-American quotas.



Sotomayor has suggested that race and ethnicity, to a substantial degree, define individuals.



"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," she said in a 2001 speech.



At her confirmation hearings, she will undoubtedly dance away from such ethnic determinism. But it would appear to be what she believes, since she has reiterated the point several times in different venues.



Her supporters also emphasize the "empathy" she would bring to the court. It is a quality the president promised he would look for in making court appointments.



In a July 2007 campaign speech, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old, and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."



Evidently, however, not all impoverished backgrounds leave you empathetic. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding appears to be party membership.



By definition, conservatives are assumed to lack empathy. As Berkeley professor George Lakoff has argued, "Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. ... Progressives care about others as well as themselves." And, by implication, conservatives don't.



Empathy has thus become a code word for progressive politics -- the likelihood that, as a justice, the nominee will take politically liberal positions. Public policy preferences driving Supreme Court decisions? What a shock.



Some justices have much more respect for the law than others, but if the opinions were not often judgments driven by political values as well, they would be less predictable. Most court-watchers thought (correctly, as it turned out) that the recent New Haven firefighters' case would come down four-four, with only Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote hard to call.
What is Thernstrom concerned about? What type of nominations are they talking about? Who's empathy is code word for one brand of politics? Who is Abigail Thernstrom?
an impressive biography isn't a qualification for the Supreme Court. associate justice on the Supreme Court. George Lakoff author of "Voting Rights
question: What is Thernstrom concerned about?, answer: an impressive biography isn't a qualification for the Supreme Court. | question: What type of nominations are they talking about?, answer: associate justice on the Supreme Court. | question: Who's empathy is code word for one brand of politics?, answer: George Lakoff | question: Who is Abigail Thernstrom?, answer: author of "Voting Rights