The senators know that, of course, but that doesn’t stop them from asking lots of inane questions they know Sotomayor won’t answer. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at times barely stopped peppering her long enough to let her start her answer before he moved on to the next subject: from racial preferences to gun rights to publicly funded abortions.

Perhaps most disturbing about the hearings wasn’t the political posturing, which is to be expected.  It’s the dishonest way in which the debate has taken shape between Republicans and Democrats, as if Democrats are squishy touchy-feely people who let empathy guide judicial decision-making, and Republicans are automatons who miraculously apply the law to the facts without letting any trace of humanity get in their way.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe aptly describes how a historic and arguably important debate about constitutional interpretation and judicial processes in this hearing has become completely disingenuous:

Attending to one’s prejudices and doing one’s best to set them aside is admirable. Convincing oneself that one can render judgments in a way that makes one’s personal experiences and views irrelevant is dangerous self-deception. Why, after all, do the justices so often disagree about what result “the law” commands? What accounts for their different perceptions of the rules of law that govern disputes and of the facts involved in those disputes? Justice Antonin Scalia, among others, has publicly said that his own background and upbringing necessarily influence how he decides cases. How could it be otherwise?

Tribe was actually criticizing Sotomayor for flip-flopping on her previous positions that acknowledged she and every judge would be influenced by her background and experiences. But I don’t see Sotomayor as changing her tune so much as having to over-simplify an inherently complex and delicate concept to a bunch of aggressively tone-deaf senators, now themselves sitting in judgment and arguably abusing that power.

Sotomayor has obviously been practicing patience: Despite what Graham called her “nasty” judicial temperament, even as she dodged the slings and arrows, on Tuesday she was often smiling.

On Tuesday, senior Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said that while Obama agreed the Guantanamo prison should be closed, there was “absolutely no truth to reports that a decision has been made about how and where to try the detainees, and there is no process in place to make that decision until [Obama’s] national security and legal teams are assembled.”

Still, the apparent leak that Obama was even considering a special court system was a step into a legal policy minefield.

Advocates on all sides have staked out strong positions on the matter: the ACLU and a bipartisan coalition created by the Constitution Project, along with some lawyers who have represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay, make a strong case that specially-created national-security courts are unnecessary and likely unconstitutional. And Human Rights First has issued a study demonstrating that the federal court system works just fine for prosecuting terrorists.

Meanwhile, the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group started after 9/11 that includes former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, supports creating special courts.

So does Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, who served briefly as director of the Justice Dept.’s Office of Legal Counsel before resigning and writing his book, “The Terror Presidency,” which includes a scathing critique of the Bush administration’s legal analysis and policies on the treatment of detainees.

But it’s not just conservatives that support a special court system to try suspected terrorists. Moderate liberals like Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, before the U.S. Supreme Court, and later at his military commission trial, has written in favor of creating special courts to try suspected terrorists, and even their “preventive detention.”

Harvard Law Professor and Obama adviser Laurence Tribe has written (with Katyal) that the use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists could be constitutional and even wise, so long as they’re authorized by Congress and comport with constitutional commands.

How a President Obama is going to weigh all these different viewpoints remains to be seen. As I pointed out yesterday, the challenge Obama faces is made far more difficult because of the harsh interrogation methods used against suspected terrorists, or “enemy combatants,” as the Bush administration calls them. The problem is that evidence obtained by coercion isn’t admissible in regular U.S. courts; but letting potential terrorists go, possibly to strike again, isn’t a politically acceptable option for a new president.

Then again, a special court created to accommodate the torture problem and even permit preventive detention of suspected warriors would set a troubling precedent that we’d be stuck with for many years to come.