In 1987 during celebrations marking the bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States, Thurgood Marshall, the late, great associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, had the temerity to say the following:

"The government [the Founding Fathers] devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights we hold as fundamental today."

If he were making the same speech before the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sitting in judgment of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, Justice Marshall would look up from his notes, scan the room and smile mischievously before delivering his final thought:

"Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights."

At that point, the emergency stockpile of smelling salts would have to be deployed in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. "I believe I have the vapors," Sen. Jeff Sessions, senior Judiciary Committee Republican, would shriek before collapsing into a heap of nervous tears. The sight of Justice Marshall cackling in response to Republicans fainting en masse would be priceless.

If Thurgood Marshall were alive today, he would be amused by the angst and ill-disguised racial anxiety swirling around the Sotomayor hearings. As the first African-American associate justice of the Supreme Court, he would recite Judge Sotomayor's 1991 statement that has caused so much consternation, pausing for effect along the way:

"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."

After locking eyes with each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would ask which of them was brain-dead enough to believe Judge Sotomayor was advocating a philosophy that would make her the second coming of David Duke.

In response to their silence, Thurgood Marshall would jab the table with his index finger and insist that a jurist's life experiences, the sum total of their successes and failures, including the limitations and advantages of their backgrounds, couldn't be separated from judicial temperament like a dirty pair of socks in a laundry bag. Diversity enhances an appreciation for the law.

Thurgood Marshall was a child of Jim Crow. Denied entry to the University of Maryland Law School because of his race, he graduated from Howard University magna cum laude. As a lawyer in private practice, he represented Donald Gaines, a black Amherst College graduate also denied entry to the University of Maryland Law School despite excellent grades. The second time around, Thurgood Marshall won.

The fierce advocate of civil rights argued his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court when he was 32 years old. He quickly became the chief legal counsel of the NAACP, prevailing in 39 of 42 cases he argued before the high bench. He was anything but a "dispassionate" lawyer. He attacked Jim Crow with a sledgehammer. He argued and won Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954).

Thurgood Marshall's personal experience with racial discrimination meant that portraying himself as an "originalist" during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1967 was out of the question. As he would say 20 years later, he believed in a living, breathing Constitution. That's considered heresy today. Now, everyone is an originalist -- or pretends to be.

Justice Marshall was confirmed 69-11, with 20 senators abstaining. Only one Republican -- Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina -- voted against him. Meanwhile, 10 Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, voted against the confirmation of the first African-American to the Supreme Court.

It was a different era, but the fear of elevating a civil rights lawyer to the Supreme Court was remarkably similar to the fear of putting a "wise Latina" with 17 years of federal experience on the bench. Yesterday, Judge Sotomayor pledged even more "impartial justice" if confirmed. Many conservatives are not convinced. If she's half as gutsy as Thurgood Marshall, they know what's coming.