Obama's First Supreme Court Choice

Well, based on her record on limiting executive power, I'd have to go with Wood. But Sotomayor is a "sentimental" favorite because she was subjected to a smear campaign, and such campaigns should not be permitted to succeed.

I think it will be Diane Wood. I don't know why, I just have a feeling.

Not Napolitano - we need her at DHS. Otherwise, I agree with pluk for the same reason. Sotomayor is perfectly well qualified and the smear campaign was absurd.
.
But would Ben Nelson join a filibuster against her?

Having read-up a bit on all four candidates I think my personal choice would be Diane Wood.

Considering your previous post, who's going to be pwned?
.
I don't know any of these women well enough to have a specific choice. I hope it is in fact someone who can go toe to toe with scalia, maybe with the temperament of Breyer.

Per Joe Sudbay: UPDATE at 8:04 AM: NBC just reported the announcement will come later this morning. Via MSNBC, we're told the president will make his pick public at 10:15 a.m.

So now the question is, will the Dems support his nominee? Will Nelson join a repug filibuster? Will Reid show some backbone?
.
Just kidding there. Reid and backbone don't belong in the same sentence, without the word "lacking." Sargent reporting on the Gitmo debacle: If Nagourney is right about Reid's thinking, the Republicans don't even have a candidate to run against him yet, but they've already gotten Reid to adopt a defensive crouch. Clearly, last November's victory did little to impair the unerring instinct Congressional Dems have for letting Republicans set the terms of the debate on key national security issues.

Or someone who doesn't come right off the appelate bench, someone like Kagan or Napolitano?
_
while I don't have a problem with the concept of "not right off the appellate bench", both Kagan and Napolitano are political hacks rather that strong legal intellectuals. If we're going to go with someone without significant experience on the federal bench, we should be looking toward state courts and/or academia, rather than politicians with law degrees.

Count me among those who consider the question of 'executive power' to be vital, particularly in light of the number of issues where Obama's lofty rhetoric and his actual performance have been at severe odds.
.
I don't know enough about the various candidates to judge when the announcmentment is made whether I should be further worried or reassured that Obama is choosing someone with enough fortitude to act as a check on his own ambitions.
.
I'm hoping some intrepid reporters can help me sort that out at the appropriate moment......

So which one of the 4 ladies has the "empathy" quality, Karen? Isn't that the one requirement Obama said he wanted in a Justice?
.
Empathy is good when you are providing counsel. However, I think Presidents forget that "justice is blind". Whatever happened to that saying?
.
My bet is on Obama picking the most liberal of liberal justices, who is currently an activist instead of a jurist. It just makes sense that he will pick someone at this stage of the game when his popularity ratings are at their highest. Does Ayers have a law degree? It really wouldn't surprise me if it isn't that type of radical far left extremist.
.
Just saying.

Paul, xpostfactoid has a long post that addresses your questions about Obama's "ambitions", ending thusly:
.
This claim raises the question: why trust Obama's judgment that a substantial number of such captives are a) too dangerous to be released, and b) impossible to try try in criminal court? For at least a partial answer -- or at least, an important piece of evidence -- I would submit the pattern of Obama's decision-making as displayed since January 20.
.
On questions of security and civil liberties, Obama has issued split decisions. He banned torture and embraced preventive detention. He released the torture memos and held back the torture photos. He wants to reconstitute but preserve the military commissions. These decisions look to me like the opposite of triangulation. They seem to be determined not by political calculus, but by a hard look at the facts and by listening to opposed arguments. On the photo question, Obama made it pretty clear that he had been turned by Gates and his generals. On the memo release, he held up at the behest of intelligence officials, decided to buck them, but offered concessions to allay those of their worries he deemed legitimate. Obama calls his approach surgical -- and from what he's revealed of the process, that seems to be an accurate description.
.
Obama's "trust me" is different in kind from Bush's. Bush meant "trust my gut," trust my good-faith effort to keep America safe, trust me not to abuse an authority that acknowledges no Constitutional bounds whenever a threat to national security can be invoked. Obama's trust me means "trust the process as I lead you through it."
.
That leaves ample space, of course, to oppose his policies on the merits. I for one am not convinced that we should accord the government the power to detain persons without trial. But I would be disposed to listen assuming Obama makes the case in more detail.

Not to engage rusty, but:
.
But let us remember that empathy is not sympathy. It doesn't require that we take sides. Nor is it an emotional shortcut that upends all legal reasoning to declare a winner.
.
Empathy is rather the ability to imaginatively enter into the experience of others. As Harvard law professor Carol Steiker says, "We think of this as central to moral reasoning of any kind." How else to understand such moral basics as the Golden Rule?
.
The capacity to recognize another person's reality is not just liberal. The conservative jurist Richard Posner has described empathy as an important instrument in a judge's tool kit. It doesn't trump reason, it informs reason.
.
--Goodman

Sudbay: MSNBC is reporting, via AP, that Obama will nominate Sonia Sotomayor

I'm picking Sotomayor just so the WaPo will be right about something for a change.

Obama's "trust me" is different in kind from Bush's. Bush meant "trust my gut," trust my good-faith effort to keep America safe, trust me not to abuse an authority that acknowledges no Constitutional bounds whenever a threat to national security can be invoked. Obama's trust me means "trust the process as I lead you through it."

-
the problem, of course, is that "the process" remains opaque -- we cannot determine if "politics" or "policy" actually prevailed because we're not included in the process itself. All we're left with is "trust me" -- and unfortunately, the precedent established by these policies mean the "trust me" really designates "trust me and everyone who succeeds me.
_
in other words, your distinction is irrelevant

NY Times (Zeleny) is also saying Sotomayor

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/obama-makes-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee/?hp

Funny that Rusty should bring up empathy.
One of the first thoughts that I had when I saw today's headline is the fact that even though a close and careful reading of the law and precident is required of a good Justice, there is a specific instance wher 'empathy' is vital. Is it perhaps possible that the phrase 'expectation of privacy' might have slightly different meanings netween members of the two sexes? I suspect that it does and that 'empathy' to the notion of soveriegnty over your own body might be a fully legitimate concern.

I love how Republicans are branding themselves as the anti-empathy party...

It's Sotomayor. I love this pick. If the republicans try to block the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, they lose even more of the Hispanic vote and the women's vote. If it goes through, we get a great addition to the liberal wing. Win/win for Obama and the democrats.

Rose, hard to imagine the pro torture party could be anything else.

I can't wait to hear Limbaugh today. It's going to be 5 oxys and bourbon straight up. I'll bet he stabs his inflatable doll too. Break out the tire patches.

KT - Now that we know it's Sotomayor, do me a favor don't repeat the erroneous facts that I assume is floating around nexis and is making some reporters look more stupid than usual (politico's Mike Allen). Yes, she was raised in a public housing project in the Bronx. However, just because it is the Bronx, doesn't mean it's the more ominous sounding South Bronx. And no, the Bronxdale housing projects is not anywhere near Yankee Stadium.

Rose -- I think it goes beyond that. No empathy, pro-torture, anti-reason, no progress...I think we can safely say that they are branding themselves as the anti-humanity problem

Let the festivities begin. I am looking to a Republican loss of 2-3 points on the popularity scale because they will say something outrageous about Sotomayor. More Spanish voters turn left.