The confirmation of a nominated Supreme Court justice can bring out the worst in partisan politics.

There is no question this country is as polarized as ever, and the political fangs have been bared during the confirmation hearings for virtually every Supreme Court nomination since the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

That's the tradition facing Sonia Sotomayor, who recently was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama.

Some believe Sotomayor is a shoo-in, considering the Democrats' strong majority in the Senate and the threat that Republican badgering could distance a growing Hispanic voting bloc. Sotomayor could become the first Hispanic and third woman in history to serve on the nation's highest court.

Others believe that some on the right are still waiting to pounce, ever since liberal-leaning legislators orchestrated the rough handling of past court nominees Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. Thomas made it through the process. Bork did not.

Tough scrutiny is appropriate since appointees have the potential to be ruling on the nation's most monumental cases for decades to come.

In 2005, the process quickly revealed that George W. Bush nominee Harriet Miers was ill-suited for the position of Supreme Court Justice, because of her evident lack of familiarity with constitutional law. Her ultimate decision to withdraw from the confirmation process was the right course for everyone.

Still, in these days of 24/7 media exposure, that scrutiny can cross boundary lines and invite a lot of political posturing by confirmation opponents and supporters alike.

Researchers have been quick to glean snippets of Sotomayor speeches since Obama's announcement. One of the most notable came from a 2001 speech at the University of California-Berkeley in which she challenged the notion that a wise old woman and a wise old man will reach the same conclusion in judicial cases.

"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," she said.

Sotomayor can hope and think all she wants, but making such a public statement does not seem wise for someone in her position, since it will smack of racism and sexism to many - although we're sure it was well received at Berkeley.

That's one statement that will evoke legitimate questions. We would certainly like to hear her expound upon it, and the context in which it was intended, instead of listening to the many references about it we are sure to hear from other sources until the confirmation hearings.

Another of her quotes that is being tossed around is this comment she made during the 1997 hearing on her appointment to the appeals court: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

That sounds like a Supreme Court justice we can all get behind.

The confirmation process should cover a lot of ground that lies between those two statements. We hope it concentrates on qualifications. And we hope it's done in a responsible manner, with a minimal amount of grandstanding by lawmakers with an ax to grind or political ground to gain.

We can hope.