You Do Not Have a Right to Remain Silent Unless You Speak, Court Says

Statist reactionaries on the U.S. Supreme Court have again chipped away at the liberty of American citizens.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. have joined forces to comprise the Soviet bloc on the Court that consistently takes a narrow view of the individual liberty of American citizens in the case, Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470.

The Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has become a Constitutional wrecking ball.

Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent, concluding: "Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today’s broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent."

Mere Silence Doesn’t Invoke Miranda, Justices Say

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, refining the court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”

Monday’s decision followed two in February that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.

The latest case concerned Van Chester Thompkins, a Michigan man accused of shooting another man to death in 2000 outside a mall. Arrested a year later, Mr. Thompkins was read his Miranda rights but refused to sign a form acknowledging that he understood them.

Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.

After two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, Mr. Thompkins said yes in response to each of three questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God?” And, crucially, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”

His affirmative response to the last question was used against him at trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled in 2008 that his statement should have been excluded because prosecutors could not prove that Mr. Thompkins had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.

Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “some language in Miranda could be read to indicate that waivers are difficult to establish absent an explicit written waiver or a formal, express oral statement.”

Indeed, the Miranda decision said that “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” It added that the government faced “a heavy burden” in trying to prove that a suspect’s waiver was knowing and intelligent.

Justice Kennedy said that decisions since Miranda had undercut its language and that a more sensible rule put the burden on suspects to invoke their rights.

“A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the majority had created a kind of paradox. “A suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent,” she wrote, “must, counterintuitively, speak.”

Justice Kennedy said that people who knew their rights and acted “in a manner inconsistent with their exercise” might be presumed to have waived their rights, meaning that responding to police questioning is itself an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.

Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, said “these principles flatly contradict” earlier decisions from the court.

“At best, the court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions,” she wrote. “At worst, it overrules sub silentio an essential aspect of the protections Miranda has long provided.”

The better practice in the face of ambiguous responses from a suspect, Justice Sotomayor wrote, would be for the police to ask follow-up questions like, “Do you want to talk to us?”

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.

77 Percent of GOP Sens Committed Against Sotomayor

Update: For Puerto Ricans, Sotomayor's Success Stirs Pride

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor poised to be confirmed as Supreme Court Justice, the Republican Party did not disappoint its political opponents expecting it to overwhelmingly oppose confirming the first Latina on the high court.

Of the 40 GOP senators, 31 have committed to opposing Sotomayor. That's 77 percent. The White Party remains true to its ultimately destructive and contemptible form.

Nationally, the Southern Strategy is still employed, it just does not work as well in a changing America.

Sotomayor is a wise Latina judge, and the White Party remains mostly foolish, oblivious or hostile to the concerns of brown and black America.

Robort Bork Thinks Sotomayor Unqualified

This is from the guy who said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rested on a principle of "unsurpassed ugliness."

The rightwing Newsmax has an interview with Robert Bork by Jim Meyers. Bork had earlier told Newsweek Magazine that nominating Sonia Sotomayor is a "bad mistake."

Reports Meyers:

'It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not,' said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

Hey Bork, your confirmation conversion didn't work in 1987, and your authoritarian radicalism was rejected by the country.

This Latina woman you think is unqualified, she's getting confirmed.

Your views have been soundly rejected again. Go back to the Hudson Institute and dream of police states and an apartheid America. You lose.

As Stephen Macedo writes in The New Right v. the Constitution:

When conservatives like Bork treat rights as islands surrounded by a sea of government powers, they precisely reverse the view of the Founders as enshrined in the Constitution, wherein government powers are limited and specified and rendered as islands surrounded by a sea of individual rights.

The GOP Went Racist, Again

Update: See David Neiwert's The right's irrational view of race is on full display in Sotomayor hearings.

The biggest question when the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings began was: Would the GOP be so foolish as to make race an issue and taunt and condescend to the Latino community?

The answer is Yes, and to the GOP's detriment; those boys still just couldn't accept the brown and black as equal people.

I'm not surprised or disappointed, just happy that the GOP will suffer politically for its ultimately infantile display.

From ThinkProgress; Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ryan Powers, Nate Carlile, and Ian Millhiser report on the hearings:

A TAINTED LEADER
In what may be the biggest strategic blunder since Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chose Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as his running mate in the 2008 presidential election, Republicans selected Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as their point person on the Sotomayor hearing. Sessions, whose own nomination to the federal bench was rejected by the Senate in 1986, has a long history of controversial statements about race. He once quipped that he ‘used to think [the KKK] were OK’ until he found out some of them were ‘pot smokers.’ He routinely referred to an African-American attorney who worked for him as ‘boy,’ and he once warned that attorney to ‘be careful what you say to white folks’ after Sessions overheard him chastising a white secretary.

Yesterday, at Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Sessions wondered aloud how Sotomayor could have voted differently than another judge of ‘Puerto Rican ancestry.’ So, it's odd that conservatives would pick this man as their leading voice against the first Latina nominated to the Supreme Court. The selection suggests that Senate conservatives wholeheartedly embrace Sessions' views on race.

SOUTHERN STRATEGY
It is clear, however, that Sessions is the architect of the conservative strategy against Sotomayor. In a campaign that echoes Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ad and Jesse Helms' ‘white hands‘ ad, attacks on Sotomayor have focused almost exclusively on race. Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, called Sotomayor's remarks ‘worse than Macaca,’ claiming that she ’doesn't have any intellectual depth‘ and that she is a ‘bigot’ and a ‘racist.’ Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) spent six uninterrupted minutes lecturing Sotomayor about her so-called ‘wise Latina’ speech during yesterday's hearings. And conservative senators repeatedly raised the specter of Frank Ricci, the white firefighter whose discrimination claim was rejected by a panel of judges that included Sotomayor, even though Sotomayor simply followed a 1984 precedent, whose facts are nearly identical to those presented by Ricci's case, when she considered his claim. Apparently conservatives believe the facts must take a backseat to race-baiting.

THE KITCHEN SINK
Race may have been the centerpiece of Sessions' playbook against Sotomayor, but in their desperation to keep her off the Court -- or at least tar her as a liberal extremist -- conservatives have resorted to throwing everything they can imagine at the nominee. The right-wing Committee for Justice, whose leadership played a key role in selecting President Bush's nominees, launched an ad yesterday claiming that Sotomayor led a terrorist organization, and linking her to ‘Obama's buddy Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who bombed American buildings in the seventies.’ Meanwhile, conservative senators have accused her of being hostile to the Second Amendment, even though her only major Second Amendment decision relied entirely on a binding Supreme Court precedent. They have painted her as an enemy of property rights, citing an eminent domain decision where she held that a land developer who filed his eminent domain case two years after the statute of limitations had run shouldn't get a special exception from the law. And many have repeatedly claimed that Sotomayor is disqualified because President Obama once said that judges should have ‘empathy.’ Amusingly, when NPR pointed out that forbidding judges who use empathy in their decision-making would bar ultra-conservative Justice Samuel Alito from the bench, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) responded that he shouldn't have voted in favor of Justice Alito. Ultimately, however, no one actually believes that conservatives are regretting their support for Alito -- and certainly no one believes the Committee for Justice's claim that Sotomayor is akin to terrorists. Conservatives are simply demonstrating, once again, that they will say absolutely anything to obstruct President Obama's agenda, no matter the facts.

Full-Spectrum Confirmation Dominance

A political shellacking; that's what we are seeing.

Wonkette's parody below on the start of the hearings is spot-on. Sessions, Graham and the goofs just can't help themselves.

From Wonkette:

"Ha ha ha ha, you’re telling me Lindsey Graham’s a pussy! Jesus, lady, he defines the term. Anyway, I gotta go talk to somebody about North Korea or something, you just take it easy and don’t let any of these old white motherfuckers get you down, right? Oh, and if there was ever a day to wake & bake, it’s tomorrow. Peace out, Sonia.” [White House Flickr]

And consider this letter from President Obama, the sub-text is sticking it right to the GOP and the rightwing crazies:
---
Yesterday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor made her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and moved another step closer to taking a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

In case you missed it, watch the video of her opening statement [below]:



As President, there are few responsibilities more serious or consequential than the naming of a Supreme Court Justice, so I want to take this opportunity to tell you about the qualifications and character that informed my decision to nominate Judge Sotomayor.

Judge Sotomayor's brilliant legal mind is complemented by the practical lessons that can only be learned by applying the law to real world situations.

In the coming days, the hearings will cover an incredible body of work from a judge who has more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. Judge Sotomayor's professional background spans our judicial system — from her time as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, to her work as a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

And then there is Judge Sotomayor's incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream.

This character shined through in yesterday's opening statement: Watch the video.

In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor's decisions on the bench "have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice."

In anticipation of today's first round of questioning, I hope you'll share this email widely, because Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is something that affects every American. It's important for these hearings to be about Judge Sotomayor's own record and her capacity for the job — not any political back and forth that some in Washington may use to distract you. What members of the Judiciary Committee, and the American people, will see today is a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into breaking from the rule of law.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

Sotomayor Is Manny Pacquiao

Sonia Sotomayor outclasses her opponents in every round.

The collection of bigots, racists, ignoramuses, and the closeted gay-basher who comprise the GOP Senate Committee of the Judiciary members don't stand a chance as they laughably speak of objectivity and will not let go their foolish "wise Latina" mini-crusade.

The New York Times reports that "four of the panel’s seven Republicans invoked the 'wise Latina' reference."

Good, this should certainly help the White Party make some inroads into the Latino population.

From one of the good guys, Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl:

Kohl's Opening Statement on the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Judge Sotomayor, let me also extend my welcome to you this morning and to your family. You are to be congratulated on your nomination.

Your nomination is a reflection of who we are as a country and it represents an American success story that we can all be proud of. Your academic and professional accomplishments - as prosecutor, private practitioner, trial judge and appellate judge - are exemplary. And as a judge, you have brought a richness of experience to the bench and to the judiciary which has been an inspiration for so many.

Today, we begin a process through which the Senate engages in its Constitutional role to 'advise and consent' on your nomination. This week’s hearing is the only opportunity we, and the American people, will have to learn about your judicial philosophy, your temperament, and your motivations before you put on the black robe and are heard from only in your judicial opinions.
The President has asked us to entrust you with an immense amount of power. Power which, by design, is free from political constraints, unchecked by the people, and unaccountable to Congress, except in the most extreme circumstances.

Our democracy, our rights, and everything we hold dear about America are built on the foundation of our Constitution. For more than 200 years, the Court has interpreted the meaning of the Constitution and in doing so guaranteed our most cherished rights. The right to equal education regardless of race. The right to an attorney and a fair trial for the accused. The right to personal privacy. The right to speak, vote and worship without interference from the government. Should you be confirmed, you and your colleagues will decide the future scope of our rights and the breadth of our freedoms. Your decisions will shape the fabric of American society for years to come.

That is why it is so important that over the course of the next few days, we gain a good understanding of what is in your heart and your mind. We don’t have a right to know in advance how you will rule on cases which will come before you. But we need – and we deserve – to know what you think about fundamental issues such as civil rights, privacy, property rights, the separation of church and state, and civil liberties, to name a few.

Some believe that the confirmation process has become thoroughly scripted, and that nominees are far too careful in cloaking their answers to important questions in generalities and with caveats about future cases. I recognize this concern, but I also hope that you recognize our desire to have a frank discussion with you about substantive issues.

These are not just concepts for law books. They are issues Americans care about. As crime plagues our communities, we navigate the balance between individual rights and the duty of law enforcement to protect and maintain order. As families struggle to make ends meet in these difficult times, we question the permissible role for government in helping get the economy back on track. As we continue to strive for equal rights in our schools and workplaces, we debate the tension between admissions policies and hiring practices that acknowledge diversity and those that attempt to be color-blind.

These issues invite all Americans to struggle with the dilemmas of democracy and the great questions of our Constitution. If we discuss them with candor, I believe we will have a conversation that the American people will profit from.

When considering Supreme Court nominees over the years, I have judged each one with a test of judicial excellence.

First, judicial excellence means the competence, character, and temperament that we expect of a Supreme Court Justice. He or she must have a keen understanding of the law, and the ability to explain it in ways that both the litigants and the American people will understand and respect, even if they disagree with the outcome.

Second, I look for a nominee to have the sense of values which form the core of our political and economic system. No one, including the President, has the right to require ideological purity from a member of the Supreme Court. But we do have a right to require that the nominee accept both the basic principles of the Constitution and its core values implanted in society.
Third, we want a nominee with a sense of compassion. This is a quality that I have considered with the last 6 Supreme Court Justices. Compassion does not mean bias or lack of impartiality. It is meant to remind us that the law is more than an intellectual game, and more than a mental exercise.

As Justice Black said, 'The courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered or because they are non-conforming victims of prejudice and public excitement.'

A Supreme Court Justice must be able to recognize that real people, with real problems are affected by the decisions rendered by the court. They must have a connection with and an understanding of the problems that people struggle with on a daily basis. Justice, after all, may be blind, but it should not be deaf.

As Justice Thomas told us at his confirmation hearing, it is important that a justice, 'can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.' I believe this comment embodies what President Obama intended when he said he wanted a nominee with 'an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.'

Your critics are concerned that your background will inappropriately impact your decision-making. But, it is impossible for any of us to remove ourselves from our life story with all of the twists and turns that make us who we are.

As you have acknowledged, 'My experiences in life unquestionably shape my attitudes.' And, I hope that we on this Committee can appreciate and relate to ourselves what you said next, 'but I am cognizant enough that mine is not the only experience.' You will have an opportunity before this Committee to assure us that your life experiences will impact but not overwhelm your duty to follow the law and Constitution.

After your confirmation to the Court of Appeals in 1998, you said about the discussions at your confirmation hearing, 'So long as people of good will are participating in the process and attempting to be balanced in their approach, then the system will remain healthy.' I hope our process will include a healthy level of balanced and respectful debate and I look forward to the opportunity to learn more about you and what sort of justice you aspire to be.

Sincerely,
Herb Kohl

Judiciary Comm. Members Vary Radically

Amazing the disparity in the quality and diversity between the Democratic and Republican members of the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary.

On the Democratic side, we have women, Jews, humanists, scholars, civil libertarians and classical liberals. Now, check the out the Republican Members: White men, genuine bigots, racists, ignoramuses, a closeted gay-basher, among other sordid social-political characters.

Enjoy the hearings this week live at C-Span.

U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary

Democratic Members...........................Republican Members

Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, D-Vermont.............Jeff Sessions R-Bama
Herb Kohl D-Wisconsin......................................Orrin G. Hatch R-Utah
Dianne Feinstein D-California..........................Charles Grassley R-Iowa
Russell D. Feingold D-Wisconsin......................Lindsey Graham R-SC
Charles E. Schumer D-New York......................Tom Coburn R- OK
Richard J. Durbin D-Illinois.............................John Cornyn R-Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin D-Maryland......................Jon Kyl R-Arizona
Sheldon Whitehouse D-Rhode Island........................
Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota......................................
Edward E. Kaufman D-Delaware................................
Arlen Specter D-Pennsylvania....................................
Al Franken D-Minnesota..............................................

Sonia Sotomayor Hearings Today

Update: Civil Rights Groups: 'We are watching;' GOP: We don't care.

As much as the rightwing has tried to bash Sotomayor, "They haven't laid a glove on her," in the words of Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), her leading Senate supporter.

The Brennan Center for Justice has a comprehensive report on Judge Sotomayor’s Record in Constitutional Cases by attorney Monica Youn.

Youn's report builds an irrefutable case on Sotomayor’s outstanding performance as a judge, but facts seldom get in the way of the Republican Nutty Party.

Look for GOP Senators to be respectful in the hearings, and for activists to be true to their rightwing, racist, hate-America roots going back to Nixon, to Sen. Joe McCarthy. [By the way anyone been to that POS's grave site lately up in Appleton?]

Sotomayor Critics Do Not Dissapoint

The attacks against Judge Sonia Sotomayor are more fun than progressives anticipated.

Fun because the predictable impotence and incoherence of the anti-Sotomayor campaign could not have been better formulated by Democratic political operatives hoping to consolidate the growing political power of Hispanics and women.

Here we have a Hispanic woman living the American dream and all the rightwing can do is engage in hysterical, uninformed commentary and personal smears.

Making the rounds is Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, who is upset that "Sotomayor has admitted that she views the role of a judge as an activist who makes policy decisions."

Is Lafferty suggesting that the top appellate court renounce its role for judicial review and halt judicial policymaking applying constitutional and statutory analysis to given situations in American society?

These guys are whack.

See also Joan Walsh on The vicious attacks on Sotomayor.

Maybe if the Roberts court guts the Civil Rights Act and Congressional authority in the coming days [see There They Go Again], Lafferty will be right there to blast these damn policy deciders.

Rightwing Activists: Filibuster Sotomayor

Bring it on.

The White Party says filibuster the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. [In Wisconsin, the White Party says: Do not gather racial profiling data.]

The GOP did well in the deep south and Appalachia in the last election. But I think even the religious right might be getting tired of these guys.

From the Politico, Manu Raju reports:

Conservatives are demanding that Senate Republicans take a harder line on Sonia Sotomayor, with new signs of tension between the Hill GOP and elements of the Republican base over the direction the opposition should move in the Supreme Court fight.

In a letter to be delivered to Senate Republicans Tuesday, more than 145 conservatives – including Grover Norquist, Richard Viguerie and Gary Bauer — call for a filibuster of Sotomayor’s nomination if that’s what it takes to force a 'great debate' over judicial philosophy.

But as is clear, the the White Party hates a debate.

Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) Republicans are white with the vast majority of those people describing themselves as 'conservative' (63 percent). Just seven percent of Republicans are either Hispanic (five percent) or black (two percent).

The more the GOP listens to its base, the more it isolates itself.

Sotomayor and Maher Arar

Adam Liptak and Jo Becker have a piece in the New York Times today about Judge Sonia Sotomayor and the case of Maher Arar—an innocent Canadian man abducted by US authorities, "held in solitary confinement and subjected to harsh questioning before being sent to Syria ... where (he) was tortured ... and imprisoned for nearly a year in an underground cell the size of a grave until the Syrians finally let him go. (NYT. Feb. 17, 2009)"

Seems Sotomayor didn't approve of rendition and the innocent Arar being tortured. But some believe this case demonstrates a "blunt and even testy side (that) was on display in December during an argument before the federal appeals court in New York."

I hope that should President Obama continue this repulsive practice that all decent men and women display their blunt and testy sides.

Write Liptak and Becker:

'So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security,' Judge Sotomayor asked the lawyer, Jonathan F. Cohn, 'it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone?'

Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: 'No, your hon—— .'

Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position. The lawyer managed to say she was wrong, but could not clarify the point until the chief judge, Dennis G. Jacobs, stepped in, asking, 'Why don’t we just get the position?'

Good for Sotomayor. The United States can afford to be just and humane and when we lose our capacity for outrage, we're through.

GOP Can't Win on Sotomayor

Update II: Smearing Sotomayor

Update: See also Joe Conason's Obama's Pick Is a Winner, Already.

The GOP attack on Sonia Sotomayor delivers the message that no matter how hard you work and how much you achieve, the GOP will still call you names and attack you.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed and the best that GOP senators can hope to do is obstruct and delay. That's an achievement for Republicans.

This is three weeks before last November's election, sure to bring out the worst and end in a victory for the good guys. Enjoy it.

From MoveOn:

Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor

1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.

2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.

4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.

5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.

6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.

7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.

8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.

9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.

10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."

Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.

Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=1
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=2
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=3
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=4
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=5
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=6
9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=7
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=8
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=9
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

On the GOP, writes Joan Walsh:

Where do I begin? First of all, if Republicans are going to be tin-eared enough to attack Sotomayor on her intelligence and qualifications, they are going to wind up an even tinier minority party than they are now. Acting as though Obama had to lower his standards to appoint the first Hispanic justice is offensive to more than just Hispanics; it exposes a profound prejudice and lack of knowledge about the vast talent pool in our country. Certainly Sotomayor will face tough questions on her judicial philosophy from liberals and conservatives, and she should, but to insinuate she's merely an affirmative action pick is wrong and repellent.

Supreme Court Pick Is Sonia Sotomayor

Update IV: Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

Update III: GOP, Rush, Romney trash Sotomayor. Keep talking.

Update II: See Greenwald's Obama's excellent pick and Conason's The justice of Obama's dreams.

Update: See also Jeff Zeleny's profile of Sotomayor at the NYT.

The Supreme Court pick is Sonia Sotomayor.

The political fight comes

The rightwing hates Sotomayor. Michelle Malkin on May 1 writes: "Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges."

So we will be treated to watching the rightwing's impudence because there is absolutely nothing that they can do to derail this nomination.

Ed Gilgore sees a white, male pity party coming. Great, Hispanics and women are the muscle of electoral politics so let the GOPers and the fools dig dipper.

If they wish, Republicans can turn Sotomayor's confirmation hearings into a white male pity party, and make it all about identity politics. This would not, of course, go over very well with Latinos, who will naturally feel strongly about their first-ever Supreme Court nominee, and who probably think white men have been pretty well represented in the Court's history.

Some conservatives may seize on the already-infamous New Republic article by Jeff Rosen suggesting that unnamed former clerks and associates think she's insufficiently brilliant and/or temperamentally unsuited to be on the Court.

This is an even more perilous line of attack, since the whole premise of Rosen's piece was the progressive hunt for a strongly ideological judicial titan who could go toe-to-toe with the Court's conservatives. Most regular folks will also have a hard time accepting that someone who graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was then on the law review at Yale isn't smart enough for the Court. And she is classically prepared for the appointment, having taken a textbook path to the Court, from prosecutor to district court to Court of Appeals. She doesn't have the Harriet Miers problem of a skimpy resume.

And from Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog:

Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.

Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative. She is a first generation American, born of immigrant parents. She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service–as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.