Confirmation hearings begin this week for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and while President Barack Obama's early days in office have seen their share of tumult and controversy - economic, political and so on - few events stir up politicos like a good high court nomination battle.

Certain to be brought up as evidence against Sotomayor's confirmation is a 2001 statement that as "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."

And then there's a Supreme Court ruling that overturned an earlier ruling on a reverse discrimination case brought by mostly white firefighters who were denied promotions by their department heads who were more concerned about Civil Rights than the qualifications and test scores of applicants.

But if these are the worst things that come out in the hearings - regardless if she is ultimately confirmed or not - this will be relatively timid compared to many in history.

Here's a quick look at some of the more controversial failures at achieving a seat on the Supreme Court over the past 225-plus years or so.

Alexander Wolcott

James Madison's appointment of Alexander Wolcott to the Supreme Court failed in large part because of the nominee's ardent support of to highly unpopular laws during Wolcott's time as a customs collector.

Now, on the face of it, one might believe that a former customs clerk elevated to a Supreme Court nomination would be measured more on how closely he followed those laws. But when those laws turned politically unpopular, it was quite the opposite.

Wolcott strictly enforced the embargo and nonintercourse laws (the latter nowhere near as dirty as it sounds) that basically nudged the country toward an isolationist stance.

In the end, Wolcott was defeated as soundly as any nominee ever, being rejected by a vote of 9-24 in 1811.

John J. Parker

Whereas Wolcott met with wide political dislike in his bid, sometimes it's more about who dislikes you and for what reason than how many.

Such a case was that of John J. Parker. Nominated in 1930 as the economy was just beginning on an unprecedented plunge, Parker was largely considered an able jurist.

However, his nomination attracted plenty of bad press as organized labor and pro-Civil Rights groups took aim on the North Carolina native. Labor groups took aim on Parker for a decision he made on the appeals court that significantly limited the strength of unions. Meanwhile, the NAACP said comments made by Parker in a previous governor's race were downright racist.

Bring into the fact that he was nominated by a hugely unpopular president in Herbert Hoover during a time when ruling against labor interests was politically unacceptable, it's somewhat remarkable he missed the nomination by a mere 41-39 vote.

Abraham Fortas

Not all Supreme Court nomination rejections have been about simply getting on the court. In the case of Abraham Fortas, the real fight began when he was nominated to become chief justice.

Fortas, a well-known civil libertarian, was confirmed to the high court by a voice vote of the Senate in 1965. But the longtime friend of the man who nominated him - President Lyndon B. Johnson - earned him few friends on or off the court.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced in 1968 that he would retire, Johnson - who had already declared he would not seek re-election - nominated Fortas for the position previously held by Warren.

The subsequent investigation and vetting was the beginning of the end for Fortas. During the confirmation process, the Senate found that Fortas had counseled Johnson on national policy before AND after Fortas had joined the Supreme Court. As one who had advocated for expansion of the executive branch, this did not sit well with Senators. Add to that revelations he had received $15,000 for a series of seminars in the summer of 1968, and the nomination ended up all but dead.

In the next year, more charges of unethical behavior followed Fortas, leading to his resignation from the Court on May 14, 1969.

Robert Bork

The rejection of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork is largely considered the most wicked of all confirmation fights.

Brought forth by a popular Republican president but voted upon by a Democratic Senate, the lines in the sand had been drawn long before Ronald Reagan announced that he was nominating Bork.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the court, Sen. Ted Kennedy delivered a strong condemnation of the nominee on the Senate floor during a nationally televised speech. In it, he said:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is - and is often the only - protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."

The problem was, Bork was considered supremely qualified as a legal scholar and technically advanced as a justice. He had the highest rating given by the American Bar Association, and he had advanced some key legal ideas on antitrust issues and the idea of judicial restraint - not to legislate from the bench - which still hold in many respects today.

Still, Bork's political past essentially doomed him to failure. His role in President Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, as well his staunch anti-abortion views, were just part of the political storm that reached such fervor that it changed the American dialect.

Bork lost his confirmation battle, but he will be remembered for said battle for some time. The word 'borked' was introduced as a verb, basically equating to an assassination of character via political means.

Douglas Ginsburg

After the Bork debacle, President Reagan turned to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg. But Ginsburg was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after it was revealed that he had used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s while a college student and Harvard Law School professor.

The confession began a historical trend. Soon after, a number of politicians admitted to smoking pot in their younger years. Among those admitting their past indiscretions were Newt Gingrich and Al Gore.

Later, in the 1992 presidential race, Bill Clinton admitted to smoking - but, miraculously and inexplicably - not inhaling. And the current president admitted to doing much harder drugs in his youth.

Needless to say, it's unlikely that Sotomayor will face a political grilling on similar drug use questions.