Much -- might we say perhaps too much? -- has been made of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, especialy by the Senate Judiciary Committee considering her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today's Op-Ed page gives voice to four Latinas to interpret the meaning of that phrase through their own experiences. Antonia Hernandez writes, for example:

Many years ago, one of the first times I went to court, the bailiff stopped me and said, "Excuse me, you belong on the other side with the interpreters." At least he didn't think I was the defendant. You learn survival skills from this kind of experience. You learn how to bridge; you learn how to be entrepreneurial. It's a cliche, but we are framed by our experiences.

Also on the Op-Ed page, the author of a book on plague -- the literal disease -- argues that threats of bioterrorism (Need we say more than "anthrax"?) have been overblown and that too much money and fear is being wasted on biothreats.

On the other side of the fold, the editorial board chastizes Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for wasting time instead of resolving the budget crisis and then saying that the wasted time actually accomplished something. The board also faults the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for failing to test its rape kits, collections of evidence on each rape case that have been found in other jurisdictions to dramatically increase arrest rates. The LAPD found the money to start clearing its backlog of untested kits, the board notes, and so can the sheriff.

And the board says thanks, but no thanks, to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who has offered to investigate the execution-style killing of a human rights worker who was documenting Chechnya's political murders and kidnappings. Kadyrov is the same man who earlier threatened the worker:

U.S. and European officials must keep a spotlight on these cases and demand that the murderers be brought to justice. Only then is there any hope of reducing the violence in Chechnya. Only then will they quit killing the messengers.

* Photo of Sonia Sotomayor by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Here's something that leftish Democrats talked about a lot -- but only quietly, over drinks in back rooms -- when they were trying to decide whether to back Judy Chu or Gil Cedillo to replace Hilda Solis in Congress when President Obama picked Solis for labor secretary.

If we go with Gil, they said, we can hand-pick some reliable Democrat to replace him in the state Senate. But Gil's gone sort of moderate. So maybe we should go with more reliably leftish Judy. Oh, but wait, that will mean Schwarzenegger would appoint her replacement on the state Board of Equalization, and he'd choose someone who's gone sort of moderate.

Well, they went with Chu in the special primary, and she won. Today Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed moderate Democrat Jerome Horton to the Board of Equalization, and if he's confirmed, it's a major defeat for leftish Democrats. Even though Horton's a Democrat. Which raises some questions:

Q: What the heck is the state Board of Equalization?

A: It's the nation's only elected tax body. It's in charge of collecting sales and property taxes, and is not to be confused with the Franchise Tax Board, which collects income taxes. We need a separate, elected BOE because -- um, because -- well, because California needs more elected officials. Also, without a BOE, termed-out legislators who aren't yet ready to run for statewide office but who can't get appointed to the Waste Management Board would have no power base and limited fund-raising opportunities. The BOE keeps them in the game.

Q: Horton's a Democrat. And there's nothing wrong with being a moderate. So what's the big deal?

A: In tax policy circles, "moderate" is code for business-friendly, which changes the balance on the five-member board. The state is divided into four districts: 1st (representing the entire California coast, from Oregon to Santa Barbara; automatically a Democratic seat); 2nd (cow counties, tax revolt counties, the desert portion of L.A. county: Republican seat); 3rd (San Diego, Orange, Inland Empire; in other words, Republican seat); and 4th (the non-desert portions of L.A. County. Democrat). The tie is broken by the state controller, who is Democrat John Chiang. But Horton would be expected to mix things up by voting, sometimes, with the Republicans. And those tax policy votes will make a far bigger difference to California, in the short run at least, than anything Chu could possibly do in Congress.

Q: Wait, didn't Chu beat Horton in the last BOE Democratic primary?

A: Indeed she did: Chu got 49.7% of the vote in the 4-person field; Horton got 31.5%. So should we say that Schwarzenegger is flouting the choice of voters, who had a chance to pick Horton and overwhelmingly said no? Or should we say that Schwarzenegger is doing the voters' will by giving them their back-up choice?  

Q: Is Horton even qualified for this job?

A: No, unless you count his two-decade career at the BOE, his six years as a state assemblyman, and his four years on the Inglewood City Council. Some Democrats who oppose Horton likely do so because of his pro-business approach on taxes and his penchant for avoiding Assembly votes to keep lobbyists on both sides courting him until the last possible moment.

Q: What about Chu's husband, Mike Eng? Doesn't the state Constitution require Eng to always succeed Chu in any elected position?

A: No, although it's understandable why someone might think that. Eng succeeded Chu on the Monterey Park City Council, as Monterey Park mayor, and as member of the Assembly from the 49th District.

Q: Is Horton going to be confirmed by the Legislature?

A: Not without a lot of angst and political saber-rattling. If he's not confirmed, and no follow-up appointment is confirmed, a former Chu staffer will fill in until the BOE election next year. Bet you can hardly wait.

Q: If the BOE board is supposed to represent the entire state, how come four of five members come from the L.A. area?

A: District line-drawing at its finest.

Photo: Robert Durell / LAT

This week five esteemed legal minds have been commenting for Opinion L.A. on the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Here are the submissions for Day Four of the hearings, in chronological order. To read the two previous installments in this series, go here and here.

Thursday, July 14

12:14 p.m.
Vikram D. Amar
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, UC Davis

Less than useless. If Judge Sotomayor didn't discuss any areas of law with President Obama and his folks (as she maintained), and won't meaningfully discuss any legal topics in front of the Senate (on the bogus ground that any such discussion would either be too abstract to be useful or too concrete to allow her to then be open-minded in the future), then what's the point of hearings?

It insults the intelligence of lawyers and non-lawyer alike for the Republicans to insist that federal judges ought not to make policy, and for the Democrats to insist that Judge Sotomayor hasn't made and won't make policy. What we all should be talking about are the ways in which legitimate judge-made policy differs from the kinds of policy decisions elected legislators and Presidents fashion. Federal judicial policymaking, when done right, is interstitial (accomplished with the boundaries of statutory and constitutional parameters); incremental (attendant to the size and speed of trends and currents in American law, history, economics and sociology); thoroughly transparent and explained in a published format that responds fully to arguments on the other side, and not particularly concerned with the next electoral cycle (even as it is properly aware of longer term American attitudes). Ironically, by misleadingly suggesting that judges do not and ought not to make policy, and saying that because of concerns about the immediate perceptions of voters in the next election, Judge Sotomayor and her supporters undermine, rather than support, the idea that judges can be and are different than other politicians. I had hoped for more from my own Democratic party.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support Judge Sotomayor's nomination and expect her to be an able justice. I simply think these hearings are, at best, a waste of time.

Vikram D. Amar is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis

1:33 p.m.
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

As I suggested in my first post, Republicans could do much worse than confirming Judge Sotomayor, and statements by various Republican Senators today confirm that fact. These hearings are a litmus test of what is happening (and what should happen) to the Republican Party. The interests that have secured power for Republicans in the past have been those involving the encouragement of capitalism, or business, and law and order. She has a solid record and impressive experience in both fields from a traditional Republican perspective, and the willingness of some Republican Senators to vote for her signals a new era in which Republicans are re-awakening to the basics.

Republicans lost their way when some among them tried to re-brand the party as one of narrow social interests that do not have the support of a majority of the American public (e.g., hard-line stances against abortion and gay marriage). Were they still capable of controlling the Party, the hearings would have been far more contentious and unpleasant.  Sotomayor simply is not a bitter pill for traditional, foundational Republican interests.

With the push by the Obama Administration for expensive health care reform in the context of a weak economy and many lost jobs, Republicans have a golden moment of opportunity to escape the maze in which they lost themselves and to get back to their strengths. The tenor of these hearings and the statements today indicate they may well get there.

Marci A. Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and is the author of "God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law."

Photo: AP Photo / Charles Dharapak

Some reaction in today's Los Angeles Times editorial pages to the coming deeper cuts to the state's higher education system, and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's assertions about welfare cheats.

Start with the University of California. UC Berkeley professors Robert Cooter and Aaron Edlin say it makes more sense to fire people (presumably their colleagues, not them) than to impose across-the-board salary cuts. Why?

Growth has led to bloat at UC. The bloat and bureaucracy stifle creativity and productivity. The bloat is in unproductive workers and unproductive jobs.Many jobs have little to do with our core missions of teaching and research.

Next, the Cal State system. CSU Long Beach geography professor and department chairman Vincent J. Del Casino Jr. says cuts to his schools are necessary, too, but beware the consequences:

So what is the cost of gutting the Cal State system? Fewer nurses. Fewer teachers. Fewer engineers. Fewer poets and artists. Fewer film and electronic arts experts. Fewer MBAs. Fewer people to drive the future of California, including fewer geographers trained in my department. These reductions in educated human capital will hit California at a time when the state needs 2 million additional college graduates by the year 2020.

Also on op-ed, Douglas MacKinnon shows why he's one of those conservatives that liberals love, when it's convenient, and that conservatives love to hate. He takes on the GOP for hypocrisy and calls on the party to shed the "morally bankrupt leaders who have violated the trust of their families and constituents" (think Appalachians and Argentina) and to embrace a wider base. Read more about MacKinnon here and here, and more from him here.

You've noticed those billboards about your right to have a pet? So has columnist Meghan Daum.

On the virtual pages, like this one, check out a response from Los Angeles County welfare chief Philip L. Browning to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attack, a couple weeks ago in the Times, on the CalWorks welfare-to-work program.

On the editorial page, the Times continues its Rehabilitating Healthcare series with a thumbs-down on the portion of the House bill that would fund reform with tax increases on the rich. Better, the page says, to roll back the tax exemption on health benefits.

The exemption is worth $3.5 trillion over 10 years, so even a modest reduction could raise a significant amount. Trimming the exemption would also discourage gold-plated insurance plans that promote excessive consumption of healthcare services. Such a move would face stiff resistance from unions and President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But it would send the valuable message that everyone pays for this reform because everyone benefits.

The editorial page also remembers the Apollo 11 moonshot and offers that clean and efficient energy is just as far away, and ultimately just as achievable. And we observe President Obama's brave willingness to acknowledge that he is a White Sox fan.

 Photo: Alex Gallardo / LAT

The editorial board grants rare praise to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday for his actions with regards to the California Nursing Board. The governor dismissed four members of the board after a L.A. Times and ProPublica article exposed negligent nurses who stayed on duty during protracted investigations into their conduct. While the board members called Schwarzenegger an "action hero" for his response, they wished it would have come sooner -- and with other boards too:

The Times endorses an unusual idea being considered today by the L.A. Unified School Board: allowing assorted groups inside and outside the district to operate 50 newly built schools over the next four years. Yes, there are pitfalls to this idea, but it's still the most intriguing experiment to reinvent local education to come along in years.

The ongoing crisis in Honduras, meanwhile, is starting to look like it won't be resolved without some "superpower pressure" from the United States, The Times opines. It's time to impose sanctions on those behind the coup that ousted the country's rightful president, Manuel Zelaya, and take other actions aimed at restoring democracy. "Failure to return to constitutional order would send a signal to the rest of Latin America that once again political problems can be solved with an old-style coup."

And we celebrate the nomination of Regina Benjamin as surgeon general. This "angel-like" figure, known for her work bringing clinics to rural areas, rebuilding health centers devastated by Hurricane Katrina and leading medical associations, "has the potential to be one of the strongest voices in public health in decades."

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg raises an eyebrow over a recent comment in the New York Times from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

'Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,' Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, 'there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.'

Goldberg lists other prominent abortion backers, including former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who appeared to think that abortion was necessary to cull undesirable elements -- like the poor and minorities -- from the population. He'd like to see more questioning of such attitudes in the media.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project says the Obama administration is breaking its promise to bring transparency to government surveillance programs. The administration is reportedly proceeding with a Bush-era plan to use the National Security Agency to screen government computer traffic on private-sector networks, a program known as Einstein 3 that has no intrinsic security value -- but will allow spooks to read e-mail communication between the government and private citizens.

And Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to document all the fraud he claims to have identified in the state's In-Home Supportive Services program, a quarter of whose funds he says are wasted. The governor not only hasn't proven the accuracy of that figure, he has proposed fixes that could well cost more than they would save.

Joshua Roberts / Bloomberg News

Monday, July 13

10:32 p.m.
Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

I of course agree that it is possible to find a few objectionable decisions from virtually any judge. However, these are four of the most important constitutional cases that Judge Sotomayor has handled in her career. They surely fall within President Obama's famous 5% of cases that truly reveal a judge's "deepest values."

Regarding Maloney, it is true that the Supreme Court ruled in the 19th century that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. But the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Due Process Clause of the same amendment doesn't do so. Over the last 60 years, The Court has in fact ruled that  most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states through that Clause,  and in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court specifically urged lower courts to consider the possibility that the Second Amendment is incorporated under that Clause.

On Ricci v. DeStefano, I think that Prof. Chemerinsky ignores my point that even the liberal dissenters in the Supreme Court criticized Judge Sotomayor's ruling that the case should not even have been sent to a jury. There was extensive evidence that racial politics, not a desire to avoid Title VII liability, was the real cause of city's decision. The District Court opinion that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues endorsed in their Second Circuit opinion acknowledged as much, noting that evidence suggested that the city was motivated in part by a desire to promote "diversity" and by fear of adverse "political consequences."

Finally, I think Judge Sotomayor's decisions in Didden and Doninger were clearly not required by Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, in Didden she upheld precisely the sort of "pretextual" taking that even the Supreme Court majority in Kelo said was unconstitutional.

Ilya Somin, a constitutional law scholar, is an Assistant Professor at George Mason University School of Law and co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review.

9:59 p.m.
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean, UC Irvine School of Law

The most revealing statement during the first day of the confirmation hearings was by Senator Lindsay Graham....

An international accord on global warming? The editorial board celebrates, even though the agreement falls far short of what's needed to make a real difference. Still, it represents a new willingness by industrialized nations to tackle the issue in a serious way. The board finds something else to celebrate in the new get-tough stance by L.A. schools chief Ramon C. Cortines, who sent out letters saying that teachers who don't perform basic job duties -- like giving required tests -- will be written up. A week later, the union suspended its boycott of the tests. Coincidence? The board thinks not. One final thing to kvell about: LAPD did a great job on security for the Michael Jackson memorial, the board cheers -- but what was going on with the rest of city government? Ordering sandwiches in from Wrightwood and posting a humiliating plea for pennies to cover the costs of the memorial? The posting didn't even work; the website went down.

It's not like the city is incapable of doing anything right. By all accounts, the Police Department and traffic officers handled their end of Tuesday's event flawlessly. But in so many other ways, City Hall bumbling makes Los Angeles look laughably low-tech, shamefully disorganized, simultaneously an easy mark and a swindler, and cheap and pathetic besides.

On the other side of the fold, former longtime legislator John Vasconcellos analyzes the ingredients that went into making the state budget crisis so bad (Hint: Proposition 13 gets dragged in by its tax-restricting toes), and offers his personal recipe for climbing out of the hole. And Miguel A. Estrada, a native of Honduras and member of the U.S. delegation to President Manuel Zelaya's 2006 inauguration, explains why Zelaya's ouster isn't the millitary coup people think. To understand that, he writes, you need to know a couple of quick things about the Hunduran constitution:

Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession.

Photo: The closing moments of the Michael Jackson memorial event at Staples Center. Credit: Mark Terrill-Pool / Getty Images

In today's Los Angeles Times editorial pages, race. Aren't we past all that? No. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court wants us to be.

But it's not clear how long this conservative court will hold off. In the Austin case, the court noted ominously that "we are now a very different Nation" and hinted that a new look at the constitutional issues surrounding race might be coming. In the New Haven case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court "merely postpones the evil day" when these issues will be taken up.

Your editorial writers also find themselves wondering what the folks at the Orange County Museum of Art were thinking when they flouted art-world protocol and did a quickie and quasi-secret sale of California Impressionist works.

Though OCMA officials may have meant well -- and Szakacs is a respected director who deserves credit for returning more than 3,000 works to the Laguna museum -- they have done their institution few favors with the sale. At least one museum in addition to Laguna's is miffed at not being offered a chance to outbid the mysterious buyer.

Lots to think about on the Op-Ed side today. Start with Times columnist Meghan Daum's look at Sarah Palin's resigna... -- no, wait! Come back! This is new and different! There's some good stuff here -- Daum checks out Palin through the lens of her Christian conservative Palin-fan friend, and offers some insight:

* Photo: Karen Bleier / AFP / Getty Images

Here's a look at the blogosphere's reactions to the work of the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division this week:

The Real Clear World blog responds to Andrew Bacevich's op-ed on the White House's overlooking of strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq in favor of tactics:

Musings, a blog discussing culture, politics, and education, took offense at the Opinion L.A piece about Amnesty International's recent report that accused Israel of "wanton destruction" and Hamas of "war crimes" in the December conflict in the Gaza Strip. The writer disagreed with the post's assertion that both sides were blamed, saying that the report's full text put much more blame on Israel for the war.

The Oy Vay blog, featuring the voice of a self-proclaimed Jewish conservative on various issues, liked Patt Morrison's post on her disgust with the cash-strapped city of Los Angeles' commitment to using taxpayer money to pay for the security detail for Michael Jackson's funeral.

And the Opinion L.A. poll urging fans to boo Manny's return to Dodger Stadium on July 16 made it onto the Major League Baseball's Fanhouse blog:

Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugged blog praised John Bolton's op-ed piece that stated the only way to fix Iran is to institute regime change in the country:

The War Victims Monitor blog re-posted, sans comment, Ahmed Rashid's op-ed on Pakistan's more serious commitment to getting rid of the Taliban and its influences, and the need for strong international support to complete a successful campaign against the militants.

Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media was not a fan of the L.A. Times' coverage of I.F. Stone, both in the op-ed section and the book reviews, implying that the paper overlooked the unsavory parts of the journalist and radical's past.

The Guardian UK's Haroon Siddique included Michael Carey's op-ed on the beginning of Sarah Palin's end in a wrap-up of skeptical articles regarding the Alaska governor's motives for resigning abruptly.

Finally, a few blogs picked up on Jonah Goldberg's column about the Washington Post salon, which charged $25,000 a ticket for dinner at publisher Katharine Weymouth's home and promised networking with top Obama administration officials and the Post reporters who cover them.

The Open Secrets blog linked to Goldberg's piece in their rehashing of the Post's response that claimed they would amend any business practices that weren't clear.

And Chicago Boyz, a blog composed of many different voices, said the following about WaPo after linking to the column: