Skip to the bottom paragraph of this New York Times piece on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's first written decision, and start the clock ticking on how long it will be before former Rep. Tom Tancredo issues a press release blasting her.

Sotomayor's offense? Substituting the phrase "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal immigrant" -- the first time, according to the Times, that the phrase "undocumented immigrant" has been used in a Supreme Court ruling.

This does raise a serious question, in fact.

Would South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham have announced his support for the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor if the National Rifle Association had announced a week ago its determination to rate the confirmation vote?

That's the question some conservative leaders and activists are asking themselves today, as they ponder stories with headlines like "Graham takes on conservatives."

Graham, after all, has always scored exceedingly well on the NRA's important congressional ratings.

Republicans trying to figure out how to position themselves on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor had two lifelines thrown their way yesterday. The question is, will they have the wisdom necessary to use them?

Ever since the nomination was announced, Senate GOP leaders have recognized the corner into which Barack Obama painted them: Oppose Sotomayor at the risk of potentially crippling and permanent damage with the nation's ever-growing Hispanic voting bloc, or fail to oppose Sotomayor at the risk of a schism with the party's conservative base.

That latter risk was heightened earlier this week, when leading conservatives wrote to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, demanding that he start thinking about leading a filibuster against the nomination.

President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor -- born to a Puerto Rican family in the South Bronx -- to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States may be the kind of political master stroke that puts Obama on the glidepath to reelection.

How? By locking in Florida, a state without which any hopes of a GOP comeback in 2012 dwindle virtually to nothing.

In the 15 presidential elections going back to 1952 -- of which Republicans have won nine, and Democrats six -- Florida was part of the winning GOP coalition in each of the party's nine national victories.

Will Republicans wage war on ideological grounds against President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David H. Souter?

That certainly seems to be what they're preparing for, based on this senator's statement that's being emailed around:

See if you can guess who's speaking:

"If the president uses ideology in deciding whom to nominate to the bench, the Senate, as part of its responsibility to advise and consent, should do the same in deciding whom to confirm. Pretending that ideology doesn't matter -- or, even worse, doesn't exist -- is exactly the opposite of what the Senate should do."