Supreme Court nominee season is upon us and it definitely started with a bang! But with a Latina nominee we get to witness not just the weighing of every single issue from privacy to abortion rights, but we also get tussles around affirmative action, racism and even "reverse sexism." But hidden within all of these debates is one of framing.

What do you call someone you work with who is a bully? If it's a dude, it might be bully, jerk or dick. But if it's a woman...oh, we know what word we'd use!

And that's just what the media is telling us about Sotomayor -- through their interviews with GOP spokespeople to reading the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary notes:

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like". . . .

Thankfully Dissenting Justice lays it out straight for everyone and compares Sotomayor's comments to comments on Scalia.

Scalia is portrayed as tough, but he's a buddy. Sotomayor is not to be trusted.

Go ahead, read through the news outlets and the blogs to get your idea of who Sotomayor is -- I still am -- but be careful of gendered and racist language. It's a hard thing, but I try to flip things. I ask myself, "If this were a man, would I care? How would I react?" It you still think it's a bad policy stance or a jerkwad of a move, then move on. But sometimes you might find yourself going, "Oh, damn!"

[Image: Jack & Jill Politics]