While I can’t say I agree much more with her politics “judicial philosophies” than those of the man who nominated her, nonetheless congratulations are in order for Sonia Sotomayor becoming the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. All I can hope is that in what are likely to be many years on the court that she will come to understand that her job is not to promote a particular party’s political agenda, but instead to act as a bulwark against executive and bureaucratic excess and majoritarian zeal in Congress and the states in the fine, but somewhat spotty, tradition of her best predecessors on that bench.

Isn’t anyone else still curious whether or not Sonia Sotomayor is still a secessionist*? Our esteemed governor was—quite rightly—recently ridiculed for his ramblings in that direction, and the idea that someone who could be appointed to the Supreme Court who apparently doesn’t (or at least didn’t) believe that her people should be a part of the United States seems a bit odd. This, to me, would seem to be the more important question than her views on the value of descriptive representation or her apparent inability in Ricci to preemptively read the minds of her soon-to-be colleagues on the Court.

* I realize that the historical circumstances of Puerto Rico’s association with the United States are not entirely comparable with those of the incorporated states, and thus that there is more legitimacy to be given to the idea of Puerto Rican self-determination and to providing some sort of finality of its status.

Charles Franklin applies Zaller to the public’s reaction to the Miers SCOTUS withdrawal. Meanwhile, the post-Miers speculation centers on Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig, two potential nominees who are, in the words of Steven Taylor, “radically more qualified than Miers.” Then again, pretty much everyone who’s ever cracked the spine of a con law textbook probably falls in that category…

I’m not feeling particularly diplomatic these days (in part, because my visit to Target this evening came up with some cold medicine with some newfangled pseudophedrine substitute instead of the real thing, as if I was going to be making some crystal meth in the apartment while trying to recover from my cold)... so, here’s a definitive political stand: I oppose the Miers nomination—or, more accurately, I oppose her confirmation by the Senate.

And, for what it’s worth, “trust me” is a pretty lousy argument if you don’t trust the president’s judgment on other matters (in my mind, Gitmo first and foremost) either.

I think I speak for all Americans when I say, “Who?” In other words, I’m not “less than thrilled”, I’m just very, very confused.

Then again, if the point of the exercise was to downgrade the Supreme Court (or at least its image) from an assembly of legal minds reviewing the most important legal cases of the day to a nine-member superlegislature, appointed for life, that arbitrarily and capriciously overrules the decisions of elected officials on a regular basis, I can sort of see the point.

Just in: the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is John G. Roberts, a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Orin Kerr, at least, is very impressed with the selection; I don’t know that much about Roberts myself, but he seems to have quite an impressive resume. Despite Kerr’s assessment that Roberts is respected by both Republicans and Democrats, Steven Taylor predicts a fight nonetheless.

Meanwhile, SayUncle is quite disappointed that Roberts doesn’t have a vagina—at least, none that we know of.

The Supreme Court nominee is going to be announced tonight by President Bush, according to various news outlets. I won’t bother repeating the speculation seen elsewhere, although I might have something substantive to say once the nominee is announced.

þ: OTB and many others.

For the second time in so many days, the Volokh Conspiracy is announcing the retirement of “Sandra O’Connor.” This time, however, it’s Sandra Day O’Connor, the associate Supreme Court justice, creating the first opening on the Supreme Court in 11 years—and also, more importantly, allowing me to test a theory of the justices’ voting behavior that’s been kicking around in my head (and which requires the end of a natural court to test).