Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) released a statement upon the announcement of President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. He said:

I believe this criterion is essential; activist judges have no place on the highest court of the land.

Pryor voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts and for cloture for Justice Alito, both of whom were in the majority in the most blatantly judicially activist Court decision in recent memory, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District, where the court struck down a desegregation plan approved by the elected body chosen by the people of Seattle. That blatant act of judicial activism stands in stark contrast to the now controversial Second Circuit decision Ricci v. Destafano (PDF). The opinion is reproduced in its entirety below the fold.

Atlantic has Specter's reaction:

I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court. While her record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process.

Judiciary Committe Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy released this statement: [More...]

President Obama will begin the announcement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court any moment. I'll do some live-blogging of his remarks.

Obama enters with Joe Biden and Sonia Sotomayor who is smiling very broadly (who wouldn't be?)

Few of a president's responsibilities are more serious than selecting a supreme court justice. I don't take this decision lightly. It was made after careful deliberation. Qualities needed: Rigorous intellect, mastery of the law, ability to hone in on issues. Recognition of limits of judge's role. Commitment to impartial justice, not to make law but interpret it. But we need more: [More...]

Update: CNN factsheet on Judge Sotomayor.

Thanks to ScotusBlog for its analysis of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's legal opinions in civil cases and cases in which at least one judge dissented. There are some criminal cases in the "dissent" category.

• Decisions in which at least one other judge dissented
• Civil Opinions, Part IV
• Civil Opinions, Part III
• Civil Opinions, Part II
• Civil Opinions, Part I

President Barack Obama will make history today, nominating the first hispanic justice for the Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. NYTimes:

President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

The announcement will come at 10:15 am. Analysis of her 2nd Circuit opinions. More . . .

The ongoing discussion of preventive detention is likely to spill over into the discussion of President Obama's Supreme Court choice, expected to come in the next few weeks. For example, Professor Darren Hutchinson notes that Solicitor General Elena Kagan, reported to be on President Obama's shortlist, stated in her confirmation hearing that she believes indefinite detentions of enemy combatants would be constitutional:

[Kagan] echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges. . . . Last year, the Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a setback when it ruled these alleged "enemy combatants" have a right to be heard by a judge and to plead for their freedom. But the high court left unanswered whether accused terrorists and others with suspected ties to Al Qaeda can be held for years without a trial.

This burgeoning issue will certainly make for an interesting confirmation process as we may see Obama's choice get criticized from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Federal Seventh Circuit Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood (appointed in 1995 by President Clinton) is rumored to be on the short list of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama. Wood, in contrast to appeals court Sonia Sotomayor, has received a favorable review from TNR's Jeff Rosen (ironically, Rosen objected to her elevation to the 7th Circuit.) But Wood's views on constitutional interpretation are likely to be attacked by extreme conservative legal commentators. This 2004 talk at NYU (via SCOTUSblog) is likely to be the focal point of attack. A key snippet:

It is time . . . to end the long-standing and unproductive methodological debate over “originalism” versus “dynamism” or “evolution” and focus instead on how, as a substantive matter, we should interpret the Constitution in the twenty-first century, and what it has to say on questions unimaginable to our eighteenth-century Framers.

Fighting words for the the extreme right wing legal community. More . .

Some good news in the medical marijuana area today. The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges by San Diego and San Bernadino counties to California's medical marijuana law.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

[More...]

After 9/11, 762 people, were arrested in New York, most on immigration charges. Of them, 184 were subjected to extremely harsh, conditions while being held at MDC's SuperMax Special Housing Unit (SHU). Some, including, Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani who pleaded guilty and subsequently was returned to Pakistan, sued then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Chief Robert Mueller and other officials for discrimination.

The Supreme Court rejected his suit today, but stressed it was because his complaint didn't set forth sufficient facts against Ashcroft and Mueller to establish discrimination. It made no determination as to the other named officials who allegedly mistreated Iqbal and others while in custody.

The opinion is here (pdf). Snippets below: [More...]

Joel Hilliker's objection to judicial empathy is apocalyptic:

The court becomes a charity organization rather than a dispenser of justice. The rule of law is destroyed. The rules are written in sand. We are left at the mercy of the whims of the judge.

Anarchy! The end of civilization! Snakes on the plane!

Empathy, Hilliker argues, is inconsistent with impartiality, and judicial impartiality is commanded by the Bible, the only law book that counts. Sen. Orrin Hatch embraces the argument that there is no place for empathy in the heart of an impartial judge while Andrea Lafferty warns that President Barack Hussein Obama isn't looking for ordinary empathy but for "liberal" empathy "for the poor, minorities and gays." In an effort "to build the conservative movement and identify the troops," conservatives are branding empathy as the force that empowers their once-reliable nemesis, the activist judge. [more ...]

Stuart Taylor writes:

Obama has repeatedly stressed the "empathy" criterion . . . Meanwhile, conservative senators and legal experts and some centrists have criticized it as a thinly veiled rationale for seeking justices who will bend the law to benefit favored classes of people.

(Emphasis supplied.) "Centrists" like Taylor and Jeffrey Rosen he means ("centrists" who believe Roberts and Alito are "moderates.") But back in the real legal world, this is what "centrist" Supreme Court Justices have written, via Prof Darren Hutchinson: [More...]

If Justice Breyer had his way, lawyers and litigants would be able to get a decent meal when a federal judge recesses for lunch.

"Every federal courthouse could have something called a citizens advice bureau," he suggests. "Not necessarily legal advice—'What's your problem?' 'Maybe you ought to see a doctor, I don't know,'" he joked. He thinks that serving tasty food helps, too. "It's important to have a good restaurant in a building."

The quality of advice dispensed by a "citizens advice bureau" would likely depend upon whether a Democratic or Republican administration hired the advice giver. Good food, on the other hand, is a bipartisan joy. [more ...]