President Obama couldn’t have dreamed up a better pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream; The child of Puerto Rican parents, Sotomayor was raised by her widowed mother in a South Bronx public housing project. She attended Princeton on scholarship, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and received Princeton’s highest undergraduate honor. She then attended Yale Law, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

And, unlike many Ivy Leaguers who got in because Daddy went there — cough, Dubya — Sotomayor earned it.

If that’s not enough American dreaminess for you, she saved baseball. Really — Judge Sotomayor’s ruling ended the baseball strike of 1994.

American dream symbolism aside, Sotomayor’s record is plenty impressive. Her career has been almost entirely in public service, as a prosecutor, trial judge and appellate judge. The White House notes that, “Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years.”

Not only is Sotomayor qualified, but she also has a history of bipartisan support. President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the federal bench in 1992, and President Clinton elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998.

According to the White House, “In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95 percent of the time.”

Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Judiciary Committee member who voted against Sotomayor’s promotion to the Second Circuit, told C-SPAN that he thinks Sotomayor will be confirmed this time. Regarding his prior opposition, Grassley said it should not indicate “me having my mind made up now.”

And yet, conservative voices are desperately searching for ways to attack Obama’s Supreme Court appointee.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh wants her to fail. He said so in his radio show — and yup, he still wants Obama to fail.

In other news of absurd slams, Mike Huckabee was quick to post a statement on his Web site criticizing Obama’s appointment of “Maria” Sotomayor. Maria… Right, because all Latina women are named Maria. The post has since been corrected.

Nice one, Huck.

But charges of racism, misnomers and hopes of failure aside, there are still plenty of unfounded arguments against Sotomayor permeating what should be a rational discussion of issues.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist … who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench,” writes Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network.

Where are the facts to back up that statement?

Judge Sotomayor stated her judicial philosophy at her 1997 confirmation hearing: “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

Sounds like “the law as written” is pretty important to her.

Despite the fact that Sotomayor has only decided one abortion case — ruling against the pro-choice side — Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, describes Sotomayor as “a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board.”

Uh huh.

Research her case history and you’ll find Judge Sotomayor is the opposite of a judicial activist. Her legal writings demonstrate a moderate, text-based approach to cases — much like Justice Souter. Since Sotomayor’s judicial record is strong, critics have attacked her as an “identity politics” advocate.

Former Bush administration attorney and torture memo author John Yoo wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer that, “Obama … now proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race and social and economic background of the players.”

Obama said in 2007 that he would seek judges who have the “empathy” to “recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom … to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” Sotomayor possesses that empathy.

Interestingly, Yoo wrote in a review of Justice Clarence Thomas’s memoir that Thomas “is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals.” He added that Thomas’s work on the court had been influenced by his personal experience with poverty and his understanding of the less fortunate. But that’s OK, because Thomas is a conservative judge, right?

Samuel Alito’s blue-collar roots were played up during his confirmation process, but heaven forbid anyone suggest Sotomayor’s upbringing might help her understand the implications of her rulings.

During Alito’s confirmation process, the media condemned Democratic criticism of Bush’s appointee. From Fox News to CBS to Newsweek, the Democrats were portrayed as bullies.

On CNN, Bob Franken said the Democrats’ questioning “could turn to the desperate side.”

What’s more desperate than resorting to gender- and race-based attacks against a judge whose solid judicial background likens her to Justice Souter himself?

Through their attacks, the Republican Party is solidifying its identity as the “Party of No.” Republicans have yet to present a legitimate criticism of Sotomayor — instead, they can only say “no.” Because an attack on an Obama appointee — no matter how qualified she may be — is better than no attack at all.

– Jessica Opoien is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from Marinette, Wisconsin