SotomayorThe media is already preparing us for another Supreme Court nomination fight.  The WSJ Law Blog asks if we should not consider Sotomayor’s nomination due to health concerns because she has been treated for Type 1 Diabetes since she was a small child.  Time Magazine adds:

“The nominee’s chronic condition is worth noting, since it puts her at increased risk of several serious medical conditions, including heart disease, kidney problems, blindness and nerve damage — and an increased risk of early death. Studies show that adults with diabetes are two to four times more likely than non-diabetics to die of heart disease. But when treated correctly, say doctors, type 1 diabetes patients are able to lead relatively healthy lives. The latest data suggest that patients can successfully manage the disease for four or five decades with no serious health complications…”

The ADA issued the following press release:

“In the days leading up to this nomination, there were several media reports suggesting that Judge Sotomayor should not be considered for this position simply because she has type 1 diabetes,” said R. Paul Robertson, MD, President, Medicine & Science, American Diabetes Association. “The advancements in the management of type 1 diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades and the ability of people to manage their diabetes successfully has been proven. People with diabetes can function and live a long and healthy life…”

My advise to the opposition party.  Don’t go there!  However, her record is fair game as Rush said today on the radio:

I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped.  She should be.  She is a horrible pick.  She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words.  She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court.  She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she’s overturned.  She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided.”

What do you think?  Good or bad pick?  How should the Repubs respond?