What I wish Sonia Sotomayor would say…

American democracy is never more oblique and dull than during Supreme Court confirmations.

Sonia Sotomayor’s review is taking prevarication and fudgery to new levels, as she side-steps years of her own speeches, judicial decisions and activism.

Here’s what I would love to hear Judge Sotomayor say, so that we can have a fair and open debate about what her appointment means:

Senators, thank you. We all know how this process works. It’s political. We now have a strongly pro-choice Democrat in the White House and a solid Democratic majority in the Senate.

When Republicans dominated Washington, you got John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Now you’ve got me.

I stand before you as a progressive judge.

That means I believe in the rule of law but I also believe that the judiciary has a decisive and forward-looking role to play in a changing American society.

Yes, that will put me at sharp odds with many of the opinions written by my more conservative colleagues on the bench, who worry that America has strayed too far from its traditionalist roots.

So let me speak frankly about some specific concerns raised by this committee.

I said that sometimes a “wise Latina” would make better choices than a white man.

Why do I believe this?

Because for two centuries white men have held a privileged position in our society. For much of our history, they alone held the power to vote and own property.

In recent decades, institutional racism and, more recently, soft racism have tipped the playing field in favor of white men.

Sometimes people who have come up from very bottom, clearing those hurdles, have more insight into the challenges of life faced by women and people of color.

What’s more, many white men — I offer you the US Senate as Exhibit A and the Republican Party as Exhibit B — are out of touch with the demographic revolution underway in our country.

By mid-century, whites will no longer be the majority population in the US. And white men will represent only a small component of the overall tapestry of our society.

We need to adapt our institutions — and perhaps our interpretation of our laws — to a new emerging culture that no longer resembles the WASP establishment of the 1950s.

One example is affirmative action, which I support and view as a successful experiment.

Affirmative action produced me. It also produced Colin Powell. We need to help elevate more Sotomayors and Powells.

Not as payback or to right racial wrongs — though I view racial justice as an important moral value — but because the new America will need talented and educated people of color if we are to be a strong and successful society.

Does that mean whites will occasionally feel the sting of unfairness? Yes.

And because I have experienced prejudice, I understand the pain of that experience.

Which means that I will look at affirmative action cases closely and carefully, weighing carefully the law and the societal benefits at stake.

But there is a clear and stark moral and legal distinction between Jim Crow and affirmative action. A distinction that has been muddied by many conservatives.

The one was created to protect a divided and unfair society. The other was created to restore a more perfect union.

Finally, let me say that as a judge, I will of course respect the law and the Constitution.

Moreover, I will apply myself to interpreting the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted:

Not as sacred writ, but as a living, breathing human document, designed intentionally by living, breathing men.

Not as scripture but as a legal framework, erected with enough wiggle room to accommodate changing values and attitudes.

I acknowledge that this kind of judicial approach entails risks. It is possible to interpret the Constitution in ways that lead in dangerous directions.

The Supreme Court was created to take on the most challenging cases, to walk the finest of lines.

But the brilliance of the Founders was that they didnt believe in dogma. They believed in democracy, debate, and human progress.

They believed that we must have the courage to keep moving forward, even when the changes that surround us appear frightening.

I will bring those values of the Founding Fathers to my role as Justice.

One final thing. Just like every white man who ever sat on the Supreme Court, I will be influenced by my culture, my ethnicity and my heritage.

But like those men, beginning with the Framers, I will also strive for fairness and open-mindedness. Of course I will fall short at times.

But the principle of equality is one that I cherish.

Now that would give our society something to chew on: something real to argue with, debate, disagree with, learn from.

I know, I know — she’ll keep mumbling and dodging. But if sports fans can have fantasy baseball, can’t political wonks like me have fantasy confirmation hearings?

–Brian, Westport