Here's the full text of Sotomayor's controversial speech

Here.

Rereading it in full, I'm somewhat less upset by her now infamous "better conclusion" comment. However, the speech is rife with identity politics. By my quick counts, the word "Latina" or "Latino" occurs 39 times. In contrast, the word "justice" (in the context of impartiality and adhering to the truth and the law) does not appear. The word fairness appears only once, and she agrees with the goal but wonders if it is possible. The word "objective" appears once, and she argues against it, quoting a colleague who said "there is no objective stance...". For better or worse, she is a post-modernist full of identity politics.

I found one section (from page 5) very disturbing:

"For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach."

Apparently only men need to work on reaching enlightenment. Try switching the words around, say, "Men, how does your experience of "fair play" in sports on the fields of Eton enlighten your lawyering? Women, what do you need to work on to reach that level of enlightenment?" We'd be aghast. These (reversed) arguments sound like those used against woman's suffrage.

Sotomayor will likely be confirmed, and likely be a decent Justice. But I'm hoping this gives you a feel for her philosophy.