What’s food got to do with it?

Admittedly, I am very pleased with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But I also hope that the debate for and against her nomination is based on legitimate reasons like her judicial acumen and previous rulings. (If you have a few hours to spare, for instance, check out this 500+ page document of some cases that she presided).

Sadly, some of the discourse against Sotomayor has been off-base and uneccessary. For example, a few commentators have called Sotomayor’s intelligence into question and have gone as so far as to compare her to Harriet Myers. But even that sounds brilliant compared to other arguments such as one blogger who wrote a diatribe on how Sotomayor’s name should be said.

Quite possibly the most off-the-wall criticism of Sotomayor is the insinuation that her culinary affinity for “platos de arroz, gandules y pernil - rice, beans and pork” would somehow cloud her legal judgment. That possibility was first mentioned in an article on The Hill and later followed up by Talking Points Memo:

(The Hill's Alexander Bolton said) "a source I spoke to said people were discussing that her [speech] had brought attention...she intimates that what she eats somehow helps her decide cases better."

Bolton said the source was drawing, "a deductive link," between Sotomayor's thoughts on Puerto Rican food and her other statements. And I guess the chain goes something like this: 1). Sotomayor implied that her Latina identity informs her jurisprudence, 2). She also implied that Puerto Rican cuisine is a crucial part of her Latina identity, 3). Ergo, her gastronomical proclivities will be a non-negligible factor for her when she's considering cases before the Supreme Court.

Have you heard any other irrelevant criticisms of Sotomayor? Conversely, have there been any arguments made in her favor that were way far too positive? Please let us know via your comments.

Image- CBS News
Online Sources- The Hill, Talking Points Memo, The Plank, Wonkette, New York Times