Her colleagues and legal opponents in the early 1980s draw a picture of her as a zealous prosecutor whose experiences combating crime have made her, according to experts who have studied her legal decisions, something of a law-and-order judge, especially when it comes to police searches and the use of evidence.

In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.

In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.

"I think her experience as a prosecutor balances out her liberal tendencies," said New York University law professor Kenji Yoshino.

What liberal tendencies?

I honestly think the left has fallen in line behind Sotomayor because they blindly support the decision making of their party without critical consideration. I can see almost no area in which liberal political interests would be served by her nomination. Conversely, the right must criticize her because Obama must be wrong, although I cannot see how their interests would be harmed through her nomination. Conservatives are intentionally making assess of themselves with ugly racial slurs so that they can simultaneously stoke the rationalizations of their flock while ensuring that they loose the debate.

During the Bush years the Democrats have paid a lot of lip service to ideas about freedom and civil liberties that they do not actually support. Guantanamo and the Patriot act have been inflated to fun house proportions precisely because the "outrage" is intended to serve a marketing purpose. The debate about the former, worldwide, is now totally focused on the irrelevant question of whether or not the physical place is open or closed, instead of the critical question of what policies the place operates under.

I was greatly disappointed when Obama spoke to the muslim world of closing Gitmo, instead of speaking to the strength of our legal traditions in applying habeas corpus to those prisoners. He presents an argument which is vapid and seeks to avoid the fundamental issues in favor of glam and symbolism.

Perhaps we've entered a phase where glam and symbolism are what America does best. Freedom is no longer our greatest export. Its Hollywood.

Now the critical question for the myth makers becomes whether they can implement the authoritarian policy preferences of the Democratic party without causing suspension of disbelief among their progressive followers. They seem to be doing a great job so far.