The lead article in today’s New York Times, “President is Said to Choose Kagan as Next Justice,” describes Mr. Obama’s pick for the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. His selection of Elena Kagan, his current solicitor general, will create the highest number of women justices ever, three with Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The selection was framed as the center choice between a more liberal and a more conservative option. Unlike President Obama’s other choice, Sonia Sotomayor, Ms. Kagan has not previously served as a judge and so lacks an extensive paper trial her automatic detractors could scan for ammunition to oppose her.

The traditional battle between left and right over Supreme Court nominations will inevitably continue with this selection. President Obama was upset at a recent Court decision providing free speech rights to corporations, and his selection of Ms. Kagan, who is relatively young, will leave his imprimatur on the Court for a long time to come.

Ms. Kagan, a former Dean of Harvard Law School and the current Solicitor General, is also viewed as a persuasive force who could vie for Justice Kennedy’s swing vote on the body. Of course, there will be the usual postering among Senators during the debate for confirmation, the usual questions about abortion and women’s rights, and the usual token resistance to please the various interest groups.

Inevitably, however, unless something untoward happens, I believe she will be confirmed.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “Justices Reject Ban on Depicting Animal Cruelty,” describes a ruling by the Supreme Court declaring that videos showing dogfights between pit bulls are protected by the First Amendment. With the other recent ruling supporting the free speech rights of corporations, roundly denounced by the Obama administration, this action shows a strong First Amendment philosophy by the court.

Even though dogfighting and animal cruelty is illegal in all 50 states, the videos by Robert Stevens showed the event occurring in Jamaica. And the court applied the following rule to this situation: only if the market for the speech is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse” can it be declared unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, declined to create a new category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. The current categories lacking First Amendment protection are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct. Because of the “intrinsic” rule described above, dogfighting videos are not covered under the latter category.

The only dissenting justice in the 8-1 ruling was Samuel Alito who disagreed about the application of the intrinsic rule and felt the videos should be included.

The Humane Society called for Congress to draft new legislation to cover dogfighting videos that would pass Constitutional muster. This seems like a wise course of action.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Campaign Spending Limit.” It describes a Supreme Court ruling that overthrew two precedents to allow corporations to spend whatever and whenever they want to support a political candidate.

President Obama decried the decision as supporting oil companies and banks, and the ruling also seems to place Democrats at a disadvantage because they are not usually supported by big business, the main beneficiary of this ruling. The ruling was supported by the conservative bloc of the court with Justice Kennedy serving as the tie-breaking vote.

Previously, corporations were prevented from airing political advertisements within 30 days before a Presidential primary or 60 days before a general election. Observers had thought the court might hand down a narrow ruling instead of the encompassing proclamation in this case.

I think we’ll have to wait to see how things play out. Congress can still mandate that the source of the advertising must be revealed and make other restrictions within the scope of the ruling. The precedent may have a more shadowy effect by allowing lobbyists to threaten political advertisements rather than actually make them.

Free speech is a noble goal, but it does have its limitations. It seems the Supreme Court erred and failed to show common sensibility in this decision.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Republicans Press Judge About Bias and Activism.” It describes the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  The Republicans questioned Judge Sotomayor regarding her statement about a “wise Latina women,” her judicial philosophy and her temprament. According to the article, there was little new ground broken, and the hearings were uneventful.

It’s also worthwhile to note that aside from Senator Sessions of Alabama, most of the Republicans were extremely deferential towards the judge, an attitude the Times attributes to a desire not to alienate the increasingly powerful Hispanic voting bloc.

In my opinion, these hearings seem to be particularly uninteresting because they are largely staged. We all know what each side is going to say and the anticipated responses. It’s almost like the Judiciary Committee is just going through the motions. This may be due, in some part, to the supermajority of 60 votes now commanded by the Democrats in the Senate.

If only the Democrats would wake up and realize the possibilities of this supermajority on other issues as well. It’s like they have been cowering before the manipulation of George W. Bush for so long, they have forgotten how to lead, even on issues like a public component to national healthcare, a stand favored by the vast majority of the American people. Of course, that’s another blog post.

The fascinating inside selection process for Sonia Sotomayor was detailed in the lead article in today’s New York Times. It began even before the resignation of David Souter.

Just a few weeks after President Obama’s election, he got together with a group of people to start working on the process. The goal was to create a short list of candidates before a vacancy occurred.

The early start to the process avoided some of the major problems in previous Supreme Court nominations. Each potential candidate was thoroughly vetted. The White House had dossiers on all of them before Souter announced his decison, and shortly afterward, the White House had 60-to-70 page memos on each.

Leaders from liberal groups were summoned to the White House and warned not to float names or lobby through the press because it would be “counterproductive.”

President Obama also insisted on reading original writings from each candidate. And as a professor of constitutional law, he was thoroughly qualified to do so.

Secrecy was also crucial to the process. Meetings with Supreme Court candidates were even concealed on President Obama’s internal schedule. 

It’s interesting that Judge Sotomayor has no clear decisions on abortion. No matter what your position on this issue, that fact should decrease the polarization that this issue typically engenders.

President Obama has done it again, putting it all that cool intelligence to work and making a wise decision in his appointment for the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. The lead article, of course, in today’s New York Times, titled “Obama Chooses Hispanic Judge for Supreme Court Seat,” conveys the historic nature of his selection.

But there’s more to it than that. Sonia Sotomayor shows a clear sense of self and humility at the moment. She seems like a warm, caring compassionate person, and her life story is almost as compelling as the President.

Finishing second in her class at Princeton and her position as an editor of the Yale Law Review also demonstrate her keen intellect and work ethic, an essential combination for her appointment to the highest Court in the land.

And despite all these qualifications, we must keep in mind the historic nature of the first Hispanic judge for the Supreme Court. Millions of our fellow citizens, discriminated against by nativistic attacks by the anti-immigrants of the Republican Party, will now feel justifiable pride and a sense of inclusion in our great society.

I look forward to a smooth confirmation process in the Senate. The usual conservative suspects, Rush Limbaugh and friends, would have opposed any nomination by President Obama. But key Republican Senators seem to be falling in line, led by Senator John McCain who congratulated Ms. Sotomayor on her appointment.