Actually, let me correct the title. He didn’t just not disclose it…he lied about it. Because there’s no way he simply forgot.

From LA Times:

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed. [...]

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as “none.” Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

Wonder if he’ll disclose her 2010 income?

Of course Thomas is famously an advocate of zero transparency when it comes to campaign contributions, so it’s not like this is necessarily surprising. Still, what could happen to Thomas for these very obvious violations? Would you be surprised if I told you absolutely nothing?

And not only will nothing happen to him, but, well, you’ll see…

But Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, said such an infraction was unlikely to result in a penalty. Although unfamiliar with the complaint about Thomas’ forms, Lubet said failure to disclose spousal income “is not a crime of any sort, but there is a potential civil penalty” for failing to follow the rules. He added: “I am not aware of a single case of a judge being penalized simply for this.”

The Supreme Court is “the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules,” Gillers said.

So let’s get this straight…the highest court in the land with the most at stake doesn’t have any code of ethics? Talk about unfettered and unchecked power. We seriously need to reform the SCOTUS. No more lifetime appointments. Sure, maybe lifetime appointments made sense back in 1776 when the life expectancy was 35, but not anymore. It doesn’t make any sense.

Your thoughts?

UPDATE:
This from ABC:

“It has come to my attention that information regarding my spouse’s employment required in Part III B of my financial disclosure report was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions,” Thomas wrote in a letter to the committee that handles the reports.

I call shenanigans. Especially when you consider this…

None of Thomas’ forms, covering activities through Dec. 31, 2009, mention his wife’s work at Liberty Central, a conservative political education group she co-founded in January 2009 in part to energize Tea Party activists.

But the group did not officially launch until May 2010, which will only be covered during in the next disclosure period.

More as it develops…

This is why I can never get on board with judges like Scalia. Is he a smart guy? Of course. But the following? Not so much…

From Callawyer comes this Q&A:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Here’s what the 14th Amendment says regarding equal protection…

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How can you read the above and not see that it was written broadly so it could be applied broadly? Of course gender isn’t referenced. But why has judge after judge after judge referenced this to strike down law after law after law that seeks to discriminate against nearly any person or group? The idea that we’d have to legislate sexual discrimination on a state by state basis is insane.

But here’s why I take issue with strict constitutionalism: it seems to be anything but. Scalia says above, “Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.” Okay, fair enough. So how can Scalia square those statement with his use of the equal protection clause in Bush v. Gore where he argued that different standards of counting ballots violated the amendment and infringed Bush’s rights? And before you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why it’s okay for that case and not discrimination cases…save your breath. Or, well, you can try, but you’re just proving my point…that we all interpret things differently and the overwhelming consensus is that the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of who you are in a very broad sense.

Oh…and newsflash…the Constitution isn’t a perfect document. And guess what? The Founders knew that. That’s why they made sure it could be amended. That’s also why they established the judiciary…to sort through the subsequent questions that would arise.

Still, if you want more reasons why Scalia is just plain wrong, read what Jack Balkin has to say.

Specter lost his senate seat, but he has some parting shots for Republican appointed judges.

From CNN:

“Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising – thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote,” said Specter. Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.”

Wait a second…activist Republican judges? That’s crazy! They’re strict constitutionalists!

By the way, Specter lost to Joe Sestak for the Dem primary victory…who then lost to Republican Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth…who doesn’t think corporations should have to pay any taxes. He also claims to want to end abortion and put doctors in jail.

Wait…let me say that again…Specter lost to Joe Sestak for the Dem primary victory…who then lost to Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth…who doesn’t think corporations should have to pay any taxes. He also claims to want to end abortion and put doctors in jail.

Welcome to our crazy new world.

I don’t think there was any question she’d become a Justice, but I think it is surprising that more Republicans didn’t vote for. Especially John McCain.

From NY Times comes some of the reasons why…

“Judge Sotomayor is certainly a fine person with an impressive story and a distinguished background,” the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said this week. “But a judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice evenhandedly, as the judicial oath requires. This is the most fundamental test. It is a test that Judge Sotomayor does not pass.” [...]

Before announcing his opposition to her nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee who has been sympathetic to calls by Latinos and others for reforming the nation’s immigration laws, first described her as an “immensely qualified candidate” with an “inspiring and compelling” life story. And he dwelled on his support for Miguel Estrada, an appeals-court nominee of President George W. Bush whom Democrats blocked from a vote even though “millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation,” Mr. McCain said.

Many other Republicans echoed Mr. McCain’s approach in explaining their votes. On Thursday, for example, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, spoke at length about the “unfair and disgraceful” treatment of Mr. Estrada, while criticizing Judge Sotomayor’s record. “I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee whom all senators could support,” Mr. Hatch said.

In the end I think Sotomayor will be a lot less liberal than many Dems would like and that all of this talk about her focus on race will be be forgotten when she’s anything but racially motivated.

We shall see…

No major gaffes in her testimony, so the Republicans really don’t have much choice at this point. Sure, they may not agree with her politics, but they have to save their strength for bigger fights.

From Wash Post:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor won virtual assurance of rapid confirmation yesterday when Senate Republicans announced that they do not intend to block a vote that would make her the first Hispanic on the nation’s highest court, concluding three days of intense questioning.

Sotomayor’s path to becoming President Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment was enhanced by a two-pronged strategy: During more than 15 hours of questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she revealed little about the type of justice she would be, declining to disclose her views on the most significant and polarizing legal matters working their way through the courts. In addition, she deflected critics’ allegations that her public speeches showed a bias based on her sex and ethnicity, assuring the committee she is a moderate jurist and not a liberal judicial activist.

By the time she stepped out of the witness chair, Sotomayor had earned the grudging respect of even conservatives on the committee who are not likely to support her. “Thank you for giving us such a cordial response, and I am mightily impressed,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

The only question now is which Republicans will vote for her confirmation and which ones will vote against it.

Any guesses?

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has reversed the appellate court decision on a controversial race case involving firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut.

Previously, the appellate court including Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that the city of New Haven did nothing wrong by throwing out the results of a promotion exam because no African Americans and too few Hispanic firefighters passed the test. In a decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the High Court disagreed:

Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Predictably, the dissenters came from the “liberal block” with the dissenting opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said the white firefighters “had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

Sotomayor has been criticized for the appellate court’s decision, partially for its ruling and partially for what some perceive to be simplistic and faulty legal logic. If the Supreme Court had reversed the ruling with something other than the usual 5-4 split, Sotomayor opponents may have found some traction with this issue. However, with retiring justice David Souter essentially voting to uphold the lower court’s ruling, I imagine this case will quickly fade from the Sotomayor debate.

Note: The original title of this post implied the court ruled in favor of only white firefighters. This is an inaccurate representation of the case as two of the firefighters receiving promotion are Latino.

Have you noticed how little you’ve heard about Sonia Sotomayor lately?

The reason is pretty simple, there are bigger fish for the Republicans to fry. Replacing a liberal justice with a liberal justice on the SCOTUS isn’t a huge deal at the end of the day and they have to save their strength to work on health care reform.

Also, just like the rest of us, Republicans are poll watching and all signs don’t favor a fight.

Read the rest at True/Slant

Looks like I’m not the only one.

From Huff Post:

“Of course this disturbs me,” said Lionel Sosa, one of the more influential Hispanic media advisers in the GOP. “I’m not surprised at Rush Limbaugh but I’m very surprised at Speaker Gingrich because he is one of the key people who knows the importance of the Latino vote to the Republican Party. He must realize how his rhetoric, if it does influence any Hispanics, how damaging it could be. This [confirmation] is something that is going to happen anyway. For a senator to have strong opposition to her, they are either not aware of the impact Latinos will have on the next election or they don’t care.”

Ultimately, I don’t really know how much play Newt’s comments are getting among Hispanic voters, but if he runs for President, they’ll definitely be part of the debate.

The last paragraph in SCOTUSblog’s evaluation of her decisions on race says it all…

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decision making.

Does any reasonable person think she’s a racist? And I’m genuinely surprised that Gingrich actually went there because it plants him firmly on the unreasonable fringe.

Moving on…

Here’s how the numbers break out…

• Votes approve 54/24 %
• 22% undecided
• Democrats support 81/3 %
• Independents support 50/26 %
• Republicans oppose 46/26 %
• Men approve 48/31 %
• Women approve 59/18 %

It’s pretty much a done deal at this point. The “racist” meme isn’t sticking and many Republicans are calling for their cage-rattling compatriots to cool it. So now it’s more about principled opposition and that won’t be enough to stop this appointment.

In fact, I get the sense that some of the moderate Republicans actually want to support this nomination because she’s actually incredibly qualified.

In other words, say hello to Justice Sotomayor.

But I still think Justices should have term limits of 16 years. I don’t think lifetime appointments are helpful or even appropriate in democracies. Convince me otherwise.

Does anybody think Sonia Sotomayor isn’t going to get confirmed? Well, if you do, here are some reasons why you may want to rethink.

First, the rollout went off without a hitch. Even moderate Republicans lavished praise on her credentials, which are impressive and exactly what you’re looking for from a SCOTUS nominee. And there was Obama, smiling ear to ear, having just nominated the first Hispanic to the SCOTUS. Hello electoral jackpot.

Second, the right wing’s attacks are particularly poor this time around. Claiming that she could be a liberal judge is one thing, but claiming she’s a racist? Come on folks…

Third, well, she’s going to do the same song and dance that every other SCOTUS nominee does these days when they’re getting confirmed and not really answer any questions. And so she’ll sail through.

Fourth, Obama is trying to lure Republicans into a trap, and they know it. So they’ll let the fringe scream loudly, but the GOP isn’t going to fall on their sword and alienate an increasingly dwindling base by opposing the first Hispanic nominee to the court. Yes, it’s not fair, but it’s politics. This is a contact sport.

But hey, I’m willing to entertain some reasons why she won’t. However, make them plausible please. I don’t want to see the weak sauce.

This was a bit of a surprise when I heard about it, but apparently Ted Olson has joined forces with the Equal Rights Foundation and they’ve just sent out a press release about yesterday’s decision.

Here are some key excerpts (.pdf) …

“Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that the California Constitution compels the State to discriminate against gay men and lesbians who have the temerity to wish to express their love and commitment to one another by getting married,” Olson said. “These are our neighbors, coworkers, teachers, friends, and family, and, courtesy of Prop 8, California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity. Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not.” [...]

Today’s lawsuit argues that the California’s Constitution — as amended by Proposition 8 — violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a provision with which all state laws must comply.

Relegating gays and lesbians to “separate but unequal” domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states. California’s domestic partnership law is not an adequate substitute for access to the State’s institution of civil marriage, the suit states, because domestic partnerships do not provide all of the legal and government benefits and protections that marriage does.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

According to the suit, Proposition 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
• Discriminates on the basis of gender.
• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

That’s a lot stronger case than I thought it would be, and maybe they’re right to challenge this one. But the key difference between Loving v. Virginia and this case is that racial identity is pretty much fixed, while it can be argued that sexual identity is not necessarily. Sure, we make sure folks can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that doesn’t infer marital rights to those folks. Of course, then it gets into the idea that bisexuals should be allowed to marry whoever they want, and I’m obviously fine with that too. But there’s a difference and it will be brought up.

Also, common sense tells me that if the liberal CA Supreme Court voted against overturning Prop 8 by 6 to 1, does anybody think the US Supreme Court will overturn that? Seems highly unlikely, so they could be handing their opponents a very easy win. (Note: This case is different than the one the CA Supreme Court just decided. My apologies for the confusion, but it also means their case is MUCH stronger now.)

Regardless, it’ll be an interesting case and this could be a watershed moment for gay marriage…one way or another.

(h/t: Volokh)

Trying to understand what kind of justice a Supreme Court nominee will be is a bit like solving a puzzle. You have to decide which pieces (which legal decisions, which law review articles, which public speeches) are the most important to the picture and which are merely outliers. In the case of Sonia Sotomayor, a lot of critics are focusing on a speech she gave earlier this decade which was published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002.

Sotomayor said: “Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,” she declared. “I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”

An editorial by the Wall Street Journal provides us with the going conservative interpretation of these words:

[E]ven more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor’s likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo.

But these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second. Judge Sotomayor’s belief is that a “Latina woman” is by definition a superior judge to a “white male” because she has had more “richness” in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn’t what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the “richness” of her experience comes to believe it should be.

The worry is that Sotomayor doesn’t believe in immutable law but believes the Constitution and precedent should be elastic, allowing personal experience to take a place beside legal judgment in determining how our laws should be applied.

There’s some reason to think that’s exactly the kind of judge Obama wants. Yesterday he said:

“Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers,” Mr. Obama said yesterday in introducing Ms. Sotomayor. “It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court.”

Is he saying overcoming hardship is more important (or even just as important) as a rigorous intellect? As a consistent, reasonable judicial philosophy? Can you imagine what those on the left would have said if President Bush had made Samuel Alito’s religion an explicit selling point of his nomination? Obviously, all judges are influenced by their cultural beliefs and personal experiences, but to believe there’s something innately superior in a specific blend of hardship and ethnicity seems misguided, if not downright arrogant.

However, all I’ve got to work with in this post is one quote from one Sotomayor speech and a typically Obamaian celebration of diversity. Two pieces to a much larger puzzle. The job of the Senate, if they so choose to perform their job, is to determine the extent to which Sotomayor believes she can manipulate the law so it conforms to her personal understandings of right and wrong. If she’s smart, she’ll take a page from Antonin Scalia who denies his Catholicism affects his judgments, despite all evidence to the contrary. Then again, maybe Sotomayor will do less of the usual obfuscating and actually defend her experience as being a vital part of her ability to make good judicial rulings. That would make for some very interesting confirmation hearings.

First, the less reactionary ones…

• President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.
• Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor’s legal views, judicial record and qualifications.
• Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor’s record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments – which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.
• To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
• Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.
• The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor’s thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court’s fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
• Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.
• Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor’s legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.

And now the attacks…

On Obama…

• Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president’s choice of judicial nominees.
• Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their “heart” and “empathy.”
• Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court’s role “to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process.”
• Obama has declared: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

Then the overarching scare tactics…

• Justice Souter’s retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

Stripping “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

Abolishing the death penalty;

Judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers.

By the way, this is all fair since this is how the game is played. But NONE of these things will be strong enough to bring Sotomayor down. It’ll have to be something personal and embarrassing, and we have yet to see any of that today or in the pre-vetting period.

More as it develops…

(h/t: The Hill)

So far, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has produced the expected reactions from political commentators.

On the right, Sotomayor is being positioned as a liberal activist and an identity-politics hack who indulges leftist policy preferences rather than ruling fairly. On the left, Sotomayor is being praised and her critics positioned as desperate obstructionists who are already stooping low to try to stop the nomination.

We know this dance don’t we? Didn’t we do the same predictable steps with Samuel Alito, except the dancers stood on opposite sides of the floor? So let’s slow down for a moment and try to look at whether Sonia Sotomayor is qualified – not just whether or not her rulings will benefit our political goals.

For background, CNN provides a good career history complete with controversial decisions and statements while Powerline prints colleague opinions on Sotomayor from the Almanac on the Federal Judiciary (Powerline adds predictable editorializing before the excerpt but the excerpt itself is informative).

Based on the basic information we have available, Sotomayor has the requisite judicial experience (she’s no Harriet Miers) and seems to be a highly intelligent, tough jurist who pushes lawyers hard and dislikes weak arguments. All good things. But when it comes to critiquing Sotomayor, I think we should look deeper. Here’s what I wrote about the Alito nomination and I think it applies here too:

I think the proper way to question this and every nominee is by delving deep into their judicial philosophy. What methods does he use to arrive at his decisions? What role should the original intent of an Article or Amendment play in decision making? What role should precedent play and when is it acceptable to overturn precedent?

…

Will Alito rule consistently, based on rigorous intellectual discipline or will he twist logic to fit desired outcomes? In my mind, that’s the real question. And that’s how I would decide if he should be confirmed.

I don’t really care about the motivations behind a nomination. Of course a liberal president will choose a liberal judge (like our former conservative president chose conservative judges). And, as far as I’m concerned, trying to measure what role identity politics played in this nomination is a dead-end street. We have to judge the nominee on her qualifications and what she will bring to the highest court.

My general philosophy on judicial nominees is this: I’m wary of judges, whether liberal or conservative, who use their position to try to remake the nation as they see fit. That’s the basic criteria/prejudice I’ll use in critiquing Sotomayor. But first I’ll need to learn a lot more and not simply rely on the sound bites and small collection of important cases currently filling the coverage of her nomination.

No doubt you’ll be hearing A LOT about this decision…

Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights.

Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves.

Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

This could actually diffuse the only real hot button issue Republicans have, although one can’t help but think they’ll be asking a lot of questions about privacy rights, etc.

More as it develops…

I know she was the most buzzed about, but I genuinely didn’t think he was going to go with her because there’s a good chance it’ll turn into a fight given some of her past statements. Also, some of the left were whispering that they weren’t too impressed with her intellect, so I thought Obama would want to avoid any sort of Harriet Miers situation.

However, you can tell the administration is trying to do a very heavy sell job to the moderate Repubs and conservative Dems right now.

From the talking points they put out…

• Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton in 1998, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush – a show of bipartisan support that proves good judging transcends political party.
• Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.
• Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”

What do you think? Good choice?

The pick is in. President Obama has chosen federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the third woman and the first Hispanic to serve on the nation’s highest court.

The AP has a roundup of her life and career.

We’ll have a lot more to say soon…

Political Wire shares some news about Intrade futures and says that Sonomayor is still in the lead…

Intrade has opened betting markets for the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice with Sonia Sotomayor currently the favored candidate at a 28% chance. Elena Kagan has a 23% chance of becoming the next justice, followed by Diane Wood and Kimberly Wardlaw.

I’ve never heard of Wardlaw before today, but as I said in my previous post…I think all the signs point to Kagan…

Well, I think you can count out Sotomayor, Garland and Granholm. The first because there’s been too much negative buzz about her in Dem circles, the second because he’s a man and the third because Granholm isn’t a natural born American citizen and she’s too political. [...]

So my bet is on Kagan because of her background at Harvard law and her affiliation with the University of Chicago. Also, the administration has been hinting that this person would come from a non-traditional avenue, and while that might be a head fake, I think it would rule out Wood.

Still, there is buzz about Wood and the Election Law Blog details the reasons…

2. The President has gone to his trusted circle (and those who can be vouched for from his trusted circle) whenever he can for sensitive positions. This explains Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, and others. When he’s gone outside his circle, as with the choice of Vice President Biden, there’s greater room for tension and mismatch. Judge Wood comes from the same University of Chicago circles, and she can be vouched for. She would not be a “stealth” Justice, as Justice Souter was.

3. Nominating Judge Woods gets a progressive judge on the Court using the Roberts/Alito playbook. If you choose someone who has a truly excellent reputation as a judge, it becomes very hard for opponents of that person to block the nomination on ideological grounds. If the real goal is getting a progressive leader on the Court, this is the easiest path.

So what say you? Predictions?

And is anybody willing to put some money behind it? :-)

First Read did some digging and came up with the following names:

• Diane Wood – 7th Circuit
• Merrick Garland – DC Circuit Court of Appeals
• Sonia Sotomayor – 2nd Circuit
• Elena Kagan – Solicitor General
• Jennifer Granholm – Michigan Governor
• Janet Napolitano – Homeland Security Secretary

So who’s realistic?

Well, I think you can count out Sotomayor, Garland and Granholm. The first because there’s been too much negative buzz about her in Dem circles, the second because he’s a man and the third because Granholm isn’t a natural born American citizen and she’s too political.

That leaves Napolitano, Kagan and Wood.

First Read has an idea of who could be the frontrunner…

Keep an eye on Napolitano. For this pick, it would be surprising if Obama named someone he didn’t either know well or trust personally. Wood, Kagan, and Napolitano all fit this bill (Wood taught at the University of Chicago with Obama, and Kagan and Napolitano already have top slots in the administration). As for Napolitano, remember that she endorsed Obama early on (despite Emily’s List pressure to do otherwise). And from people familiar with the president’s thinking, he’s been as impressed with Napolitano as anyone in his cabinet. They click. That matters…”

Personally, I think Napolitano won’t be picked because vacating the Homeland Security spot would give Republicans a very easy way to criticize Obama on national defense.

So my bet is on Kagan because of her background at Harvard law and her affiliation with the University of Chicago. Also, the administration has been hinting that this person would come from a non-traditional avenue, and while that might be a head fake, I think it would rule out Wood.

What do you think?