So far the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor have been as predictable as a Bob Herbert or Charles Krauthammer column. Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have tossed her softballs. Republicans, slighting her voluminous work product as a judge, have harped about her now-infamous comment in a lecture that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

Equally predictable, and perhaps necessary, was Sotomayor’s artful recantation of her “wise Latina” gaffe (gaffe as defined by Michael Kinsley: telling the truth). Pressed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama (Latino population: 2.7 percent), the nominee acknowledged that her “wise Latina” comment was “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.” It left the misimpression, she said, “that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge.”

Strictly speaking, she’s right on both counts. Her speech didn’t include the word “command.” And she did say in the lecture that she aspired as a judge to “transcend . . . personal sympathies and prejudices.” But the theme of the speech is hard to square with Sotomayor’s statement on Tuesday that judges “should examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome.”

Whoa. If that's what her speech was saying, why bother dwelling on the importance of race or gender if the perspectives they yield are to be abandoned? Actually, in her speech Sotomayor referred to “excellent” studies showing that female judges “vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases.” If they don’t, what’s the point of seeking gender diversity?

You don’t have to believe that judges are “robots” who vote only and always on the basis of their life experiences to accept that outcomes sometimes are affected by such factors. I’m going out on a limb here, but maybe, just maybe, Chief Justice John Roberts’ experience representing business clients allows him to appreciate (or overvalue) the employer’s perspective in a job discrimination case.

It’s likely both that experience affects how judges rule in some cases, and that those same judges believe they are transcending their experience and ruling simply on the law. Alas, that reality is too complex to be acknowledged in the partisan forum of a confirmation hearing.

As I sat listening to Sen. Orrin Hatch's (predictable) opening remarks at Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation, I hoped -- against hope? -- that Republicans eventually would move beyond whining about "Democrat" opposition to President Bush's nominees. If that happens, C-SPAN junkies will be bombarded by technical terms and case citations. Click here for a crib sheet, originally published on the first day of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s confirmation hearings. Here's a sample:

• United States v. Lopez. In this 1995 decision the court by a 5-4 vote struck down the federal Gun Free School Zone Law, saying that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities under the purview of the states.
• Color-blindness. The notion, frequently invoked by opponents of affirmative action, that the Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" and the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibit laws that confer any benefits on the basis of race, even if the beneficiaries are members of groups that were the victims of racial discrimination in the past.
• Comparable worth. A system in which a government agency sets pay scales based on whether jobs done primarily by women (e.g., nursing) are of "comparable worth" to those mostly done by men (e.g., truckdriver). As a lawyer in the Reagan administration, Roberts called the concept "pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."
• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. A July 15, 2005, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which Roberts joined the majority opinion upholding the legality of the military tribunals established by the Bush administration to try foreign suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

As a bonus, here's the Supreme Court decision overruling Sotomayor's ruling in the now-famous New Haven firefighters case. Who knows, somebody might bring it up.

Nicholas Kamm / AFP/Getty Images

As confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor near, my inbox runneth over  with commentary on the nomination from special-interest groups. the latest is a release from the conservative group Committee for Justice (not to be confused with the Committee for Public Safety). Here's the leadoff:

"In a letter released today and attached below, more than two dozen leaders of the Second Amendment community from across the nation urged senators 'not to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court,' citing their 'grave concern' over her Second Amendment record."

This irked me for a reason that has nothing do with the merits of Sotomayor's nomination. I'm not surprised that the gun lobby has "grave concern" about the judge (someday I'd love to receive a press release expressing "mild concern"). It's the use of the term "Second Amendment community," the latest in a long line of psuedo-communities.

I still find the term "intelligence community" bizarre, maybe because it conjures up the image of a suburban cul-de-sac where every father playing basketball with his kids is a spy. But there's also the "gay community," the "disability community" and, of special interest to Angelenos, the "entertainment community." 

This perversion of the word "community" has insinuated itself into dictionaries. Webster's online version offers eight definitions of "community." Fittingly, the first is: "A group of people living in a particular local area." But No. 4, with a bullet, is: "The body of people in a learned occupation." (I suppose firing a gun is a learned occupation if you're a sniper.)

"Community" bothers me not just because it's a cliche; the use of the term in political contexts is freighted with the dubious assumption that "communities" are monolithic. What is the "black community,"  invoked so facilely by activists and politicians? Or the "Latino community"? As the liberal-conservative schism over the policies of the current pope demonstrates, a cohesive "Catholic community" is also an illusion.

Our current president was a community organizer, but the ones the young Barack Obama organized were real communities, not constructs. Maybe Obama's experience will rehabilitate the original connotation of the term -- including in the journalistic community.

Photo: Stephen Osman / Los Angeles Times

By now you may have heard the tittering and seen the finger-pointing in the direction of Missouri. A Republican state representative named Cynthia Davis offered several news commentaries in her June newsletter – including one questioning the value of free or cheap summer meals for public school students in summer school.

Davis wrote that "bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another." Why not "get a job during the summer by the time they are 16" to feed themselves? "Hunger can be a positive motivator." Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.

A positive motivator to what? For a 10-year-old to steal a candy bar because there’s nothing to eat at home?

Such programs, she fretted, only increase government spending.

Rep. Davis, you want to see what real increased government spending looks like? Take away the free lunches and breakfasts. Teachers find that hungry kids don't pay much attention in class over the rumble in their bellies. Their grades suffer. They get into fights. If they graduate, they may not go on to college. If they don't graduate, they float through lousy-paying jobs with little or no health insurance and maybe can't afford to feed their own kids properly. That's an expensive cycle to start when you might be able to stop it before it begins, with a banana and a peanut butter sandwich.

All this sounded familiar to me, in a California-flashback fashion, and sure enough, I found it:

In 1994, in a series on hunger, The Times wrote about some California school districts refusing, for politico-philosophical reasons, to serve free or discounted breakfast programs to their students – even though the money was already available, and not out of the districts’ pockets. Two-thirds of the money set aside for student breakfasts in California in 1993 didn’t get spent because not enough districts asked for it – and principals and superintendents like this one made it clear why: "The parents have some responsibility for these kids. It’s not the schools’ job to be all things to all people."

One Orange County principal asked, "What’s next? Are we going to provide housing for these people too?"

Mike Spence, a member of the West Covina school board member and future head of the conservative California Republican Assembly, said then, "The government is trying to usurp the responsibilities of the parent. There is a trend to take over aspects of what the family does." The one self-styled liberal on that board said his colleagues believed that "ultimately, God put parents on this Earth to take care of their children. By God, that is what they should be doing."

This sounded to me then as though parents chose not to feed their children: Oh honey, I thought about making you oatmeal and scrambled eggs this morning, but I just decided not to. Buh-bye, have a good day at school!

If kids don’t eat breakfast at home, it’s probably because there isn’t breakfast at home. Teachers and school nurses reported students fainting and crying from hunger. Some of them said they had only one meal a day, and sometimes two, if you counted the free school lunch. Teachers tried to keep snacks on hand, like peanut butter crackers, when kids couldn’t handle their hunger. And when they did eat, teachers saw the difference in attitude, performance – just about every metric they had.

Now Davis has revived the discussion – I won’t say debate because as far as I’m concerned, that’s like saying ‘’creationism’’ is worth debating vis-a-vis evolution. Just because someone poses a question doesn’t mean that question constitutes any basis in fact. Questioning the need for school meals doesn’t prove that there is no need for them – only that someone’s not paying attention, or chooses not to.

Comedian Stephen Colbert’s TV persona was so taken by Davis’ argument about hunger being a positive motivator that he suggested that Davis hadn’t climbed higher on the political ladder herself because of "the anti-motivating habit of eating." He implored the people of the Show-Me State to help: "If you see Representative Davis at a restaurant or a hot dog stand or even through the window of her own dining room, do the right thing and take her food away."

That goes especially as a motivator for all you hungry kids there in Missouri.

Updated at 3:49 p.m.: Rep. Davis responded with a statement explaining her stance, which you can download here. It's long, but the first paragraph provides an effective summary:

We all agree on the importance of feeding children, but we differ on who should do this.  I believe this duty belongs to the parents.  Instead of honoring this time honored jurisdiction of the family, the summer feeding program treats families like they do not exist.

Photo courtesy of Rep. Davis' website.

An international poll comes along showing that although Americans are fairly knowledgeable about Charles Darwin, they don't hold much truck with this whole theory-of-evolution business.

Some 71% of Americans know of Darwin and at least a little about his theory of natural selection, a number right up there with Great Britain, according to the poll of 10 countries conducted by the British Council, which describes itself as "the UK's international body for cultural relations." And if 71% seems sort of low, compare it with South Africa, where 73% had never even heard of Darwin.

But knowing isn't necessarily loving. Among those who are familiar with the author of "On the Origin of Species," only 41% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." Where were the believers in evolution most likely to live? India, with 77%. And we wonder why that country is renowned for its good education, especially in the sciences--and why this country historically tests in the mediocre realm.

Photo by Darko Vojinovic/AP
 

I'm not a doctor, and the guy who tried to revive Michael Jackson is. But it's hard to avoid having questions about how Dr. Conrad Murray went about administering CPR to the pop star.

Why did he perform the chest compressions while Jackson was still in bed rather than move him to a firm surface? On a bed, the victim is simply pressed deeper into the mattress. According to reports, Murray tried to overcome this by bracing Jackson's back with one hand, which left the doctor only one hand to do compressions. Usually, the rescuer uses two hands, interlocked, pressing down with the heel of the lower hand. It's hard work to get a compression deep enough.

Murray also, according to his lawyers, performed the technique for 25 minutes or so before having an ambulance called. But according to the CPR classes I've taken, the procedure seldom revives a patient; it's more a technique to keep blood flowing until an ambulance arrives. Rescuers also generally aren't supposed to try to do CPR for such a long period even if an ambulance isn't immediately forthcoming. They're supposed to show someone else how to do it as they do it, and have that person spell them for awhile. It's exhausting to give CPR properly, and studies show that rescuers, without noticing, start to let up on the speed or depth of the compressions after a few minutes.

It's early for anyone to be passing judgment on how things were handled in Jackson's particular situation, but it would be helpful to have some top experts come forward to comment on how people should handle CPR in an emergency. Given the phenomenal interest and concern in this case, doctors and public-health officials have been presented with a teachable moment that might be used to save other lives.

Photo: A July 2006 photo of Dr. Conrad Murray. Credit: AP Photo / Houston Chronicle

A would-be Republican challenger is trying to capitalize on Sen. Barbara Boxer's now infamous reprimand of a general for addressing her at a hearing as "Ma'am" instead of "Senator." According to Chuck DeVore, Boxer's dressing down of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers reflected liberal contempt toward the armed forces and was just what you'd expect from a Vietnam War protester.

But you don't have to be a Republican to be appalled by Boxer's display of pique, which has become must-gag TV on YouTube. "Do me a favor," Boxer told Walsh at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Could you say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am?' It's just a thing; I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it." To his credit, Walsh didn't reply: "Yeah, you did raise a lot of campaign contributions, Senator." Later, a Boxer aide said she and the general were pals.

Maybe, but Boxer had better forget about a campaign contribution from Miss Manners. As bloggers have pointed out, "Ma'am" is a term of respect comparable to "Sir," which is the way military officers address the president. It's also a contraction of "Madam," as in "Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton." (Walsh began his testimony by addressing Boxer as "Madam Chair.")  If "Ma'am" is good enough for the Queen of England, it ought to be good enough for Boxer. Yet it was the senator, not the monarch, who was not amused.

What's really galling about Boxer's snit is her refusal to give the general the benefit of the doubt. My mother taught her children that if someone knocks you over on a bus, assume it's an accident even if you suspect otherwise. There's no evidence that Walsh was deliberately belittling Boxer, but she flamed him anyway -- before TV cameras. That would be gauche even if Walsh were in the habit of referring to male senators by their proper title but not female senators. But Boxer didn't make that accusation.

Correcting the way someone addresses you almost always makes the other person uncomfortable. Reporters covering the Supreme Court cringed when the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist would correct a nervous lawyer who addressed him as just plain "Justice Rehnquist." Pointing out an error can be awkward even when you're demoting yourself -- which is why I no longer object to being called "Professor" by students who don't realize I'm a lowly adjunct instructor. Cardinal Newman (or maybe it was my mother) said that a gentleman never offends. Neither does a lady senator.

* Photo of Sen. Barbara Boxer by Rich Pedroncelli / AP

Obviously, some California public services will have to be cut, the editorial board observes, but what sense does it make to eliminate CalWorks, a program funded mostly by the federal dollars that enables people to get jobs and pay the rent? The board also notes that this is the big day for switching to digital TV, and it calls on the Federal Communications Commission to define the broadcasters' public-service obligations for digital channels.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta might be right in saying that he can't possibly make public a single paragraph within 65 documents describing his agency's interrogation techniques, the board says, but that doesn't mean the federal judge in the case should take his word for it. The judge should review the documents personally before making a decision, the board advises.

 On the other side of the fold. a teacher of history and education says the use of the term "Hispanic" to denote an ethnic group is a relatively recent phenomenon in the nation's history, and one that has served to make those of Latin American descent feel more "other" than they used to. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor should be seen as the first person of Puerto Rican descent who might be appointed to the high court, Jonathan Zimmerman argues, rather than as Hispanic. And Bill Maher has had enough with the puppies and the hamburgers; he wishes President Obama were less visible and barking more orders over the phone. The man is in serious danger of cute media overexposure, Maher huffs:

We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something.

Illustration: Pedro X. Molina

Twenty-four years ago in London I was crossing a street when I was hit by a car, breaking an arm and a leg (but not paying an arm and a leg to the National Health Service surgeons). After my leg was reset in the United States, I hobbled around on crutches for a while, gaining a smidgen of insight into the inaccessibility of so many public places, especially in my hilly hometown of Pittsburgh. (When I asked for a wheelchair, the nurse refused, saying, "In my experience, if you give a patient a wheelchair, it just becomes a crutch.")

That experience gives me a tenuous connection with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who broke her ankle yesterday and was photographed negotiating a hallway on crutches. Actually, this is my second Sotomayor link. It seems we shared a Torts class at Yale Law School in 1976, though I don't remember her and I'm sure she doesn't remember me. The class itself, taught by a professor who is now one of Sotomayor's colleagues on the federal appeals court in New York, was quite memorable. It introduced me to one of the great phrases in Tort law, "attractive nuisance."  

I don't know if Sotomayor will be able to sue New York's LaGuardia Airport, where she stumbled. The real consolation for the judge is that this experience increases her empathy quotient. It's debatable, however, whether she should tell the Senate that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman who has had to schlep around on crutches would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who can run down the stairs of the Capitol."

Photo: Sonia Sotomayor walks on crutches following a meeting with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) at the U.S. Capitol Monday (Win McNamee / Getty Images).

Newt Gingrich has offered a grudging apology to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for calling the judge a racist. Here it is, from his Human Events column:

"Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct.  The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice. With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree.  The word 'racist' should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted)."

I don't want to defend Gingrich, but his initial use of the R word is part of a larger slippage of precision about the definitions of "racist" and "racism."  In the 1960s, it was pretty clear who was a racist: an anti-black bigot, a segregationist (George Wallace) or a beliver in the innate mental superiority of one race (usually the white race) to others. Then the fudging began.

The initial blame belongs to the left, which liked to talk about "institutional racism." To borrow some legal jargon used in civil-rights cases, this established an "effects" test for racism rather than an "intent" test. If an institution (the military, higher education, the polity) is racist because its policies or folkways disproportionately disadvantage members of a particular race, they are "racist." This more encompassing connotation provided a short-term polemical advantage for liberals, but at the cost of diluting the original meaning of the term. The easier it is to cry "Racism," the less those accused of it will be stigmatized. If everyone's a racist, no one is.

But conservatives must share the blame for watering down "racist," again to score political points. I'm referring to the notion, dear to opponents of affirmative action, that racial preferences benefiting blacks or other Americans amount to "racism in reverse." This view is reflected in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s view that a program that takes race into account for the purposes of educating black and white children in the same classroom is just as invidious as the segregated schools struck down in Brown vs. Board of Education. 

Rush Limbaugh at least acknowledged the sliver of difference between the two concepts  when he attacked Sotomayor: "Here you have a racist – you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist." But even the "reverse" qualifier distorts an important difference between old and new "racism."  Take Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment. OK, it does assert that, in some cases at least, the wise Latina would out-judge the white male judge. But that supposed superiority has nothing to do with the argument of old-style racists that God or evolution had made whites smarter than other races.

It isn't just "racist" that has lost its sting through overuse. So has "homophobic." Here's a quotation from a primer from the The Campaign to End Homophobia: "Institutional homophobia refers to the many ways in which government, businesses, churches, and other institutions and organizations discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation."

I'll close with a thought experiment: If combatants in political and cultural wars were forbidden to use the R word, would they have to be more specific about their assertions? I think so, but we'll never know. Now I just hope that no one calls this post "racist."

* Photo of Newt Gingrich by Mary Ann Chastain / AP file