Roberts et al, meet Sotomayor.

“I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights…Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process.” Hearkening back to the pragmatists once again — “For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience” — President Obama chooses Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Souter’s replacement on the Court. [Wiki]

Naturally, conservatives are getting their opposition ducks in a row (with some help from Jeffrey Rosen’s recent dubious hit piece in TNR.) “But some Senate GOP officials privately conceded that, barring a major stumble, the judge will probably be confirmed with relative ease. ‘You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to tread very carefully,’ said John Weaver, a Republican political consultant who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for years. ‘The only way we’ll find ourselves in a political predicament is if we don’t treat her with the same respect that other nominees received.’” Yeah, good luck with that.

In any case, early word on Judge Sotomayor is that she is very far from the liberal activist of right-wing nightmare, but rather a “highly capable technocrat,” and exactly the sort of hypercompetent and moderate — perhaps to a fault — pick one would expect from this president. “‘She’s a lawyer’s lawyer,’ said Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block who participated in the call…She’s a cautious lawyer…who was a corporate lawyer herself…She reads statutes narrowly.”

So long Souter?

“At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.” Is Justice Souter retiring after this Supreme Court term? NPR seems to think so. I’d prefer it was Scalia’s time to go, of course…but oh well. “Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.” And two of those — Stevens and Ginsberg — are good bets to retire soon as well.

Judge Dread.

“‘There’s been a quiet, silent revolution going on,’ Carp said in an interview. ‘If you’re a conservative, you’re going to say, “Thank God.” If you’re a liberal, you’re going to put your hands over your head and say it’s a nightmare.’” By way of my friend Mark, CQ’s Kenneth Jost laments the Dubya judiciary.

Payne Prevention.

Conservative judicial nominee James Payne, whom Salon‘s Will Evans outed as corrupt this past January, withdraws his name from contention for the bench…or has it withdrawn. “A Senate confirmation hearing for Payne that would have been likely to highlight the ethical problems…could have proved embarrassing to the Bush administration, Oklahoma’s Republican senators James Inhofe and Tom Coburn — who have backed Payne so far — and the judge himself.“

Dubya Justice / The Way of Payne.

“The voting section is always subject to political pressure and tension. But I never thought it would come to this…I was there in the Reagan years, and this is worse.” With the help of former career officials who’ve resigned in disgust, the Post delves deeper into the partisan corruption of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division on Dubya’s watch. “The Bush administration has…initiated relatively few cases under Section 2, the main anti-discrimination provision of the Voting Rights Act, filing seven lawsuits over the past five years — including the department’s first reverse-discrimination complaint on behalf of white voters…By comparison, department records show, 14 Section 2 lawsuits were filed during the last two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency alone.“

And, in related news, Salon‘s Will Evans uncovers a crooked Dubya-appointed federal judge, James Payne of the 10th Court of Appeals. Apparently Judge Payne “issued more than 100 orders in at least 18 cases that involved corporations in which he owned stock,” which, obviously, is illegal. “‘There’s no wriggle room here,’ says professor Stephen Gillers, a scholar of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law. ‘It’s not just an ethics rule, it’s a congressional statute — a law.’” Little wonder the administration is running scared from pics of Casino Jack — they’ve already got the stink of Abramoff-style cronyism and corruption all over them.

Scalito on the march.

“What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?” He may be on the political back-burner until next month; nevertheless, Sam Alito’s nomination grows increasingly troubling, with word of another rabidly pro-life paper trail in his past which, like his conflicts of interest, he has heretofore failed to disclose.

The choices of Judge Sam.

Wise? Not hardly. It’s become even clearer since yesterday that Samuel Alito is no Sandra Day O’Connor, and that he’s all for ultra-conservative judicial activism. The Left appears ready for war this time around, but Alito’s fate probably rests with a few GOP moderates, including Specter, Collins, Snowe and Chafee. Update: Worse than Scalia?

Round 2: Miers.

In the early morning, Dubya chooses White House Counsel Harriet Miers as the next Supreme Court nominee. (Searching far and wide again, I see.) Well, let the vetting begin. On the plus side, the fundies seem perturbed, and she has some Dem donations in her past. On the other hand, she’s a rabid Bush loyalist, calling him “the most brilliant man she had ever met.” (Get out much?) Update: The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol is disappointed, depressed, and demoralized by the Miers pick, while Legal Times was already unenthused about her. Update 2: Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon are similarly nonplussed: “Can anyone really imagine that she’d be the nominee if she weren’t a woman and the president’s friend and loyal adviser? Cronyism and affirmative action: It’s a nasty mix.“

Dubya’s 2nd Round Draft Pick.

“I will pick a person who can do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.” As the Roberts nod goes to the full Senate (my thoughts on Roberts below), Dubya hints at a woman and/or minority justice for O’Connor’s seat. With these parameters in mind, Salon‘s Tim Grieve surveys the most likely choices. Among them are faces familiar — Edith Clement, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown, for example — and unfamiliar, such as Maureen Mahoney, the “female John Roberts.” (And, of course, there’s always Gonzales, although his star seems to have dimmed.)

“Hidden in Plain Sight.”

“‘I’ve long assumed that once John Roberts was confirmed for the D.C. Circuit that just like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, he was headed to the Supreme Court,’ Aron says. ‘I also knew, based on his thin public record, he would be the hardest nominee to challenge.'” Salon‘s Michael Scherer examines the reasons behind the surprisingly smooth sailing for John Roberts thus far. Recently released documents indicate he’s clearly a dyed-in-the-wool Reagan conservative, but that, however discomfiting, isn’t in and of itself enough to thwart his confirmation. Of course, the White House is still holding on to his Bush Sr.-era records, and I for one am curious to see how Roberts here conducted himself under Ken Starr’s tutelage (and during Bush v. Gore, for that matter.)