Monday, the Supreme Court, with newly appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor, begins its new term. Among the cases of interest:

• Whether police may reinterrogate a continuously imprisoned suspect about an offense for which he invoked his right to counsel three years earlier
• The applicability of Second Amendment gun rights to state and local governments
• Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment bars Florida from imprisoning juveniles for the rest of their lives without any possibility for parole.
• The validity of a federal law that allows the government to hold alleged sexual predators indefinitely in protective custody once they are deemed to be "sexually dangerous," even after they have served a full criminal sentence.
• Whether Congress has the power to ban possession and distribution of images of animal cruelty, such as pit bull fights.

[More...]

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor cleverly asks whether conservatives really are judicial minimalists (recording of the argument in Citizens United here, transcript here (pdf):

Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for Citizens United, argued for a broad ruling that would reverse two precedents allowing the government to restrict the campaign speech of all sorts of corporations notwithstanding the First Amendment. That prompted a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, her first as a Supreme Court justice. “Are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are statutory interpretations that would avoid the constitutional question?” she asked Mr. Olson.

(Emphasis supplied.) A basic tenet of Supreme Court jurisprudence is constitutional avoidance (link to Conservapedia.) Do not decide the constitutional question unless you have to. Those opposed to "judicial activism," as conservatives purport to be, would want Citizens United decided on narrow statutory grounds, rather than on sweeping constitutional grounds. But the extreme right wing Roberts Gang of 5 plow forth with their judicially activist right wing agenda. And so would extreme Republicans like Mitch McConnell, who hired Floyd Abrams to argue for judicial activism on his behalf:

The Constitutional Accountability Center has a post on what's at stake:

The case involves a film, Hillary: The Movie, that was produced by Citizens United, a conservative, non-profit corporation, to coincide with the 2008 presidential primary season. The case began as a fairly sleepy challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC’s) decision to treat the film’s production and release as corporate electioneering subject to campaign finance regulations, but was transformed by an order issued by the Supreme Court on June 29th. Here are five reasons why Citizens United is now a truly momentous case:

[More...]

The AP reports Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, age 89, has only hired one law clerk for the next term, prompting speculation he is retiring.

Usually by now, justices have hired four clerks. Retired justices are alloted one clerk.

In response to a question from The Associated Press, Stevens confirmed through a court spokeswoman Tuesday that he has hired only one clerk for the term that begins in October 2010. He is among several justices who typically have hired all four clerks for the following year by now. Information about this advance hiring is not released by the court but is regularly published by some legal blogs.

Stevens did not say whether he plans to hire his full allotment of clerks or whether he will leave the court at the conclusion of the term that begins next month. Retired justices are allowed to hire one clerk.

While some say the hiring of law clerks is not a sure-measure gauge of future plans, others say in this instance, it could be significant.

I have written a lot about the Senate's role of Advice and Consent for a President's judicial nominations. A final word of thanks to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has used debate over Sonia Sotomayor to argue that Democratic opposition to Bush administration judicial nominees reduced the deference GOP senators are now obliged to give a president's judicial picks, freeing them to oppose nominees on philosophical grounds.

(Emphasis supplied.) As I have written often, that is as it should be. Thank you Senator McConnell for making it the conventional wisdom.

Speaking for me only

The vote was 68-31. In addition to all Democrats and Independents (with the exception of Ted Kennedy, still absent due to his health), 9 Republicans also voted in favor - Voinovich, Bond, Martinez, Alexander, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Gregg and Lugar.

It is scheduled for 3 pm. You can watch on C-Span2 or online here.

According to C-Span, there are 67 committed Yes votes and 31 No votes. Ted Kennedy is listed as a committed Yes vote so perhaps he will be appearing for the vote.

You can watch it on C-Span 2 or online here.

It starts today at 10 am EST. You can watch it on C-Span2 or online here.

I believe a vote is scheduled for the end of the day tomorrow. The Sotomayor nomination should capture around 66 Aye votes - 58 Dems (assuming Kennedy and Byrd vote), 2 Independents and 6 Republicans (Graham, Lugar, Snowe, Collins, Alexander and Martinez) though I suppose Voinovich of Ohio may also vote Aye. 34 Republicans will likely vote No for the first Latina nominee to the Court.

Just saw this.

The Al Franken Decade off to a great start.

Speaking for me only

Only one Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. It was Sen. Lindsay Graham. The final vote was 13 to 6.

Judge Sotomayor will undoubtedly be confirmed when the full Senate votes.

Consistent with his deferential approach to a President's Supreme Court nominations, Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC)announced his support of the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:

Graham, in a floor speech, said he believes Sotomayor is a “mainstream” jurist who “is bound by the law.” He said he was “voting for her because I find her to be well-qualified. Elections matter and those that have served beside her for years find her to be an extraordinary woman.”

Kudos to Graham for his consistency on this issue. I disagree with him with regard to the deference due the President on judicial appointments, but at least he was not a hypocrite, like Jon Kyl.

Speaking for me only