Optimists see the controversy over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a teachable moment. The challenge is that we have too many slow learners.

It wasn’t that long ago that Barack Obama’s “Jeremiah Wright” speech was supposed to shed light on the different experiences we all bring to the table.

In fact, the entire presidential campaign— from the controversy stirred by Bill Clinton, to Geraldine Ferraro’s references to race and gender—was supposed to help put this issue behind us as voters rose above it all.

Instead, here we go again as the GOP fringe takes one Sotomayor quote out of context and runs (off at the mouth) with it.

They call the judge “racist” for saying in 2001 that she “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.”

It was a clumsy way of saying, in a “law and cultural diversity” lecture, what is obvious to most Americans: Diversity matters.

It matters because it brings to the bench a broader understanding of what the vast majority of Americans go through. Who—especially in a poor city such as Buffalo—doesn’t want judges to have that understanding?

If it was simply a matter of “following the law,” we’d have 9-0 Supreme Court votes on everything. In fact, we wouldn’t need judges at all, because there would be no room for judgment.

The gray areas and the wiggle room in many laws are why judicial selections matter. It’s not a question of whether judges will interpret the law; they all do. It’s a question of how, and what experiences they call on in doing so.

Apparently, some would prefer that this task be left to rich white guys so that we get “correct” rulings on everything from gender equity in pay, to restraints on labor organizing, to whether a pregnant woman is forced to give birth.

Sotomayor, in examining statute language and the Constitution, might well rule differently than Antonin Scalia on each of those issues. We can only hope.

Of course, right after the targeted quote, she went on to say that “we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.” That sentence never gets quoted.

She cautioned, however, that such understanding “takes time and effort, something not all people are willing to give.”

The judge could have been talking about detractors such as blowhard Newt Gingrich and pill-popper Rush Limbaugh, who trot out the “racist” label because they have nothing else.

“I think they’re afraid. You have a woman there who happens to be a minority, who happens to be intelligent,” said Common Council Member David Rivera of the Niagara District. “They’re not certain which way she’s going to lean.”

Yet the public doesn’t seem afraid; it’s not buying the “racist” label. A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows the public backing Sotomayor by better than a 2-1 ratio. Apparently most agree with Rivera, who said there’s no reason the first Hispanic high court nominee’s “life experiences should count against her.”

“It’s really a golden opportunity for people to face the issue of race,” said Buffalo NAACP President Frank Mesiah.

That’s one good that can come out of this—again. The other good is that Gingrich, Limbaugh, et al. keep talking. Rivera said they’ve already angered Hispanics. If the GOP fringe keeps alienating more voters, it will find itself a permanently marginalized minority.

Then it’ll be glad that there’s someone as empathetic as Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.