Update: I think Sotomayor was a good pick in regard to the typical skeletor supreme court crew.
Original: I think Obama's pick is pretty smart considering she was appointed to Appeals by George Bush, so it might be hard to bitch about her from either aisle (even though both aisles suck).

I don't expect the court's ideological balance to be changed that much from this pick. Both David Souter and Sonia Sotomayor are slightly left-of-center. If Obama ever gets a chance to pick a judge that will replace one of the constructionists on the court, including Kennedy who isn't part of this camp but is a "swing vote", that will change the balance of power at SCOTUS.

My bet is that we will see more of the liberal justices retire in the next few years to give Obama a chance to pick a like minded judge in their place.

The Republicans should be focusing more on the broader issues: her judicial philosophy, does she consider the constitution to be a "living document" whose interpretation can change over time or does she consider it to be immovable from the Founders original intent. Focus on her decision on eminent domain, anti-trust law, and the taking clause; along with other economic and social issues. These are the issues I really want to hear about, along with her views on what the role of the judiciary should be vis-a-vis the legislative and executive branches. Also I want to hear more about her views on Executive Authority, as the court has heard a few contentious cases about this over the past few years, and will likely continue to do so.

Instead of hearing about these important matters, almost 50% of the hearings are focusing on those "wise Latina women" comments that have little to nothing to do with her judicial views and temperament.

The Republicans are taking the wrong tack by attacking these innocuous comments she made over 5-10 years ago. It's been taken out of context and overly emphasized by the Republicans desperate to create controversy and distract the Obama Administration. They're picking the WRONG battle here. According to an analysis done by SCOTUS blog (www.scotusblog.com), out of the 93 discrimination cases she heard during her time as a federal judge, 78 cases she ruled against the minority. Those numbers say that she's impartial and tries to focus on the facts of the case.

From a political standpoint, it is stupid for the GOP senators to attack on this issue, as it will make it easier for the Democrats to paint them as anti-Hispanic. In Florida, Texas, California, Ohio and a few other swing states, the Hispanic vote is gaining in prominence. Here in FL, you can't win a statewide election without 50% or less of that vote. It's a terribly short sighted tactic that won't gain any ground, as she already has the votes in the Senate to get in. While she's not an originalist in the mold of Scalia, she is a moderate jurist who likely won't make many liberal rulings. In fact I suspect she'll be a disappointment to most liberals given her past record.

That's why I think the Republicans should pick another fight. Health care, the next stimulus program and the continued battle against cap-and-trade are all good spots to begin. Fighting against Sotomayor is a loser.

I don't expect any major changes should she be confirmed.

Like Obama, she's in the camp of the connected criminal class.

Three stars is probably an unusually high rating from me, given the liberal dingbat president nominating a seemingly liberal Supreme Court nominee. But, the courts have become as politicized as any other governmental body, in dangerous contradiction to the design of our country's system of government.

Today, the make-up of the Supreme Court consists of four conservative "strict constructionists" in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts who attempt to maintain the original (or constructionist) views of its framers/writers, in interpreting today's cases. With David Souter gone, there are three wild-eyed liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer) who see everything through a European/progressive prism and a moderate (Kennedy)who can and does go either way depending on the case. I personally like Sotomayor and am confident she will be approved by a shamefully partisan, wild-eyed liberal activist majority in the Senate, and she probably should be. She has said some silly things in the past to ingratiate herself to other wild-eyed left-wingers but seems to be pretty level-headed and thoughtful.

I believe she will be a disappointment to Obama, much more heady and less activist than he believes her to be and, therefore, a solid intellectual choice, who will be tough enough to withstand the avalanche of criticism levelled at her by the daily kos and other anarchist blogger conglomerations (the Huffington Post and the NY Times come to mind) early in her term.

Back when regional differences meant the most to people, supreme court nominees were carefully selected based on the states they came from. There was a "New York Seat", a "Virginia Seat", etc. This kind of thing matters very little to people now.

When religious differences were more important in society, the selection of, for example, a Catholic, made a big difference to some people. There was a "Catholic Seat" occupied by three successive justices. The fact that five of the justices are Catholic -- at the same time! -- is almost a nonissue now -- sane people don't complain about them taking orders from Rome, or something.

Now there is a seat that people are saying was selected for a hispanic woman -- ie a judge representing the fastest growing demographic in the United States. I say so what -- the court has always represented the differences that matter between people in America.

Since 106 out of the 110 supreme court justices have been white men, they're still doing pretty well.

The Themis is the ancient Greek goddess of justice.
Justice should not have racial or different color and because justice is more than people for people.
Congratulations Mr President thus showing that you are not adhering to old ideas.

An improper choice.

Brilliant. There isn't any other judge as qualified. Sonia's statement was very similar to Elito's. We need a counter weight in the Supreme Court. I don't want white Christian males dictate our live's with their historically right male riligious corporate mogul sided decisions.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. This is what Sotomayor said in 2001. A statement like this is bigotry pure and simple. Not only does it disqualify her from the Supreme Court she should be removed from any court.

I wish the four conservatives on the court the very best in health.

UPDATED, MAY 29, 2009: Hmmmm! To paraphrase the quotation from our equality loving Latina justice nominee: "I would hope that a wise White man (GenghisTheHun) with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female or Hispanic female who haven't lived that life." (chortle)

ORIGINAL COMMENT: It is too early to say, just a day after the nomination, how to view this nominee. She is definitely the politically correct choice that is for sure. Let's look at her record before making a choice.

CS sums this one up pretty well.
This woman is a leftist radical who said that her gender and ethnicity should affect her decisions; yet...she is a she. She is also Hispanic. She is also rumored to be a lesbian. So, never dare disagree with her or her nomination or you will be labeled a xenophobe, racist, misogynist homophobe.
Jees.....thank god for his lordship Obama.

World's easiest three star rating. . .

I guess everyone (everyone) can stop asking our party leaders to appoint the 'best' judge for the job. (If that was the case, Clarence Thomas wouldn't be within several zip codes of the court.) This is one pick that was calculated for political perfection. Woman. Hispanic. Experienced. Bingo. If the repubs. foolishly attack her it could piss off a few Latino voters - if they're smart they'll throw this fish back into the ocean. . .they don't have the votes or the muscle to do anything but complain and won't gain any social or political currency by putting on bad-ass airs when the press delivers her oh-so-sad-yet-inspirational story.

. . .and the left isn't thrilled either. They wanted a judge with a history of decisions that support more of their ideology- that's certainly not the case.

As with everything thus far with Big O, it's calculated for positive effect- her years of experience is her best asset.

. . .but I am left cold with any (any) Supreme Court appointment that's so obviously political as to pass over a more qualified judge. She's a silver or bronze. . .but no one's going to claim she's the gold medal. Most likely Big O is biding his time- the politically-correct appointment now and a (gasp) best-person-for-the-job with his next appointment. Makes the most sense. . .and Big O has a habit of getting what he wants.