Whether Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, is a racist or sexist is a critical question that will be addressed during her confirmation hearings. The media, however, has blown the issue out of proportion at the expense of other, more central questions while the Democrats seem blatantly dismissive of the idea.

Based on a speech by Sotomayor in 2001, accusations of racism have been brandished repeatedly by Republicans and yet, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is any example, the Democrats don't really give a rat's behind as long as they get a liberal in the seat. "I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions," Reid said. "I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them."

If Sotomayor's racist words were as offensive as the media claims, then they should also be outraged that Obama, jockeying for more votes in 2012, chose this candidate because she is a Latina woman, and he thinks this will secure him the Hispanic and female vote. His nomination highlights his insulting view that women and minorities suffer from a dearth of critical thinking skills and will fall at his feet simply because he has thrown them a bone. This makes him both racist and sexist.

The media's harping on Sotomayor's misguided verbal blurts has served to obscure the insidious motivations that led Obama to nominate her. Perhaps, given their love affair with Obama, this fixation has been a deliberate move to obscure the bigger issues at hand.

In fact, if you examine legal proceedings adjudicated by 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which Sotomayor participated, the evidence is clear that racism did not cloud her judgment. According to Tom Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump who has argued more than 20 cases before the Supreme Court, in 96 cases, "Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times," and "the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous."

Sotomayor's statement 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" alone does not make her any more or any less racist than any other judge. It is likely that a truth serum would reveal that men and women of all ethnicities in positions of influence hold similar, self-aggrandizing sentiments. Sotomayor, however, made the mistake of saying it publicly instead of over Latina cuisine with good friends who would be sure to understand the context and motivation for her slip of the political tongue.

A real concern that deserves in-depth examination is whether Sotomayor is a constructionist who will not attempt to make laws, but cleanly apply the law, or if she is a judicial activist who will allow empathy and a preset liberal agenda to color her judgment. Yet to be determined is whether Sotomayor can be just as a powerful force in the highest court in the land, or if she is Obama's newfound equalizer with the intent to level the playing field without judicial integrity.

Thus far, the media has been critical of Sotomayor in two areas. First, she spouted incendiary verbiage in her 2001 speech entitled, "A Latina Judge's Voice," which included her better than a white male phrase. This phrase has been repeated so often now that it will soon be a jump-rope rhyme in the schoolyards of the underprivileged.

Secondly, her involvement in the firefighter discrimination case Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed the city discriminated against them by throwing out the results of a promotion exam after minority firefighters did not score high enough. This act seems racist enough to give any critical mind a moment's pause and clearly indicates her support for the asinine policy of affirmative action.

However, Sotomayor is well educated and experienced. She has a motivating history of pulling herself up by her bootstraps. Unless there are undiscovered skeletons in her closet, she is adequately qualified.

Whether Sotomayor is the most qualified for this tenured position is debatable and statements, such as "She'd be an asset as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, as well as the third woman," only serve in this modern-day era to reinforce issues of race and bigotry.

The sooner the political arena disallows identity politics, the sooner America can, like a phoenix, rise above the antics of men like Obama and Reid and reap the benefits of direct competition in the playing field. Only then will advancements be based on actions, competence, dedication and skill instead of genetics and power mongering.