Though federal Appeals Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor was on just about every short list in Washington for President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court pick, the successor to outgoing Justice David Souter wasn't the most likely of selections.  In fact, Intrade, the online political odds-making house, gave the strongest odds to US Soliciter General Elena Kagen, followed by Obama's fellow University of Chicago Law School faculty member Diane Wood, then Sotomayor, followed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  But taking into account Sotomayor's extremely high likelihood of success in the confirmation process, Obama may have made a brilliant rookie pick.

10. She's an under-represented ethnic minority.

You'll hear a lot about how Sotomayor's Hispanic heritage is among the most important factors in his confirmation process, that Republican Senators won't want to vote against a Hispanic nominee and get killed at the ballot box (again);  That's true.  It's incredibly difficult to brush off a member of a traditionally underrepresented group, and the becomes especially true when that minority is as large as the American Latino population.  But I put this reason pretty far down my list.  Sotomayor's perspective as a Latina is incredibly important- it's a viewpoint that's never been seen before on the court.  But the political hangups surrounding a nay vote on her nomination rest on far more important issues than simply race.

9.  Hardscrabble upbringing reflects Obama.

If there was one thing Republican opponents couldn't deny about Barack Obama, it's that his rise from the mixed-ethnic child of a single mother to President of the United States is the epitome of the American dream.  Sotomayor's background isn't that different.  She grew up poor, the child of Puerto Rican immigrants in the Bronx borough of New York City.  Her father- who did not attend school past the third grade- died when she was nine years old, leaving her mother to raise her and her brother alone.  She worked hard, studied harder, and ended up an incredibly accomplished professional woman.  That's a story a lot of people can relate to.

8.  She restores a modicum of gender equality to the Court.

When George W. Bush failed to appoint a woman to replace Justice Sandra Day O"Connor, he left a gaping hole in the Court.  In a country that just barely has more women than men and admits more women to law schools annually, there is absolutely no reason that the Supreme Court should be 89% male.  A vote against a qualified female is a vote against basic gender eauality, and women represent a group the GOP can't really afford to lose more in.

7.  Historical odds favor Sotomayor.

Right off the bat, more than 83% of Supreme Court nominees submitted to the Senate are ultimately confirmed.  It's an incredibly strong rebuke of the President to send a nominee back to him without a stamp of approval, and Republicans just don't have the juice right now to pull that off.  Sotomayor stands better than a 4 in 5 chance of taking her seat in that respect.  But also consider that the Senate has never rejected a woman (Harriet Myers never went before the Senate, and might have gotten confirmed anyway, thanks to a Republican majority at the time), nor has it ever rejected a minority appointment.  Plus, appointments coming within the first year of a President's term are overwhelmingly likely to sail through confirmation as the Commander in Chief attempts to strectch what he can out of his honeymoon period.  Obama still hasn't been President for five months.

6.  She was appointed by a Republican president.

Sotomayor was initially appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991.  Now, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York had a strong hand in it.  But history records the choice as Bush's, and that's something Democrats won't fail to trumpet from the Senate floor.

5.  Obama is on a roll, resistance from Republicans notwithstanding.

Barack Obama has yet to be handed any kind of legislative defeat.  He's signed into law one enormous bill after another, and the momentum has been undeniable.  There was the Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the credit card bill, stronger oversight on TARP, an American service bill, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the S-CHIP bill, and he's passed an incredibly ambitious and daunting budget.  All the way, he's faced opposition from Republicans, often with no alternative suggestion from the right.  That weighs on the GOP's credibility, and bolsters Obama's.  Stopping the ball after it's in motion is a tough thing to do.

4.  Democrats controlled the debate.

Obama made an incredibly wise tactical maneuver scheduling his announcement of Sotomayor for today, after Congress had left town.  Typically, Congressmen return to their home sidtricts during recesses to meet with constituents and hold fundraisers.  The White House kept tight-lipped about the announcement, leaking news of the press conference just three hours before the actual announcement itself.  And after Obama made his pick known, what Republican was there to offer a rebuttal from Capitol Hill?  No one.  Instead, Democrats like Chuck Schumer (who no doubt got a heads-up from the White House) held a press conference praising the choice.  Republicans, stranded at home, were forced to scramble to get onto the local radio and television news programs.  That's great, but Obama robbed them of the opportunity to criticize his choice in a nationally-televised presser picked up by all the big guns like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc. 

3.  She's qualified.  Period.

This isn't a case of Harriet Meirs.  She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was an editor of the Yale Law Review.  She spent the next five years as a prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney of New York, and then entered private practice, where she became a partnet at a major international firm.  After 7 years, she was appointed to the US District Court by George H.W. Bush,, where she began a 17-year stint on the federal bench.  From 1998 to 2007 she served as an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, and since 1999 has been a gues lecturer at Columbia Law School.  She's been around.

2.  She's ruled against abortion rights.

The knee-jerk Republican reaction is to ask how a nominee has voted on abortion issues, figuring that a liberal judge will uphold abortion rights at any time and any cost.  Sotomayor is not that nominee.  In 2002, she upheld the Bush Administration's implementation of an order forbidding foreign aid organizations receiving US funding from performing or advocating abortions.  She ruled that, as argued, the equal protection clause did not apply.  While Sotomayor is almost certainly pro-choice, she's gone on the record against it.  And that may be all she needs to show that she's got respect for the rule of law. 

1. Seven current GOP Senators voted for her.

For seven Republican Senators, it's going to be awfully tough to say that they think Sotomayor is anything but a fantastic choice.  In 1998, the following GOPers thought she had done such a great job as a federal District Court judge that she ought to be elevated to the appellate court: Bob Bennet (R-UT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dick Lugar (R-IN), and Thad Cochran (R-MS).  All seven are going to be hard-pressed to justify a "nay" vote after saying yes the first time.  At the very least, they'd have to admit to voting for her out of political expediency (maybe they had hoped for a return vote from Moynihan and other Democrats).  And no constituent likes to hear that their Senator is out trading votes.

But that's not all.  Several other stalwart Republicans who are no longer in office also backed Sotomayor: Jesse Helms (R-NC), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and Connie Mack (R-FL).  

But the GOP will make lots of noise, first, throwing mud and seeing if any sticks.

Which sort of encompasses all those listed above is that we have the votes. Especially for someone as qualified as this.

and yes, that should be useful.

As for your other reasons, I'm not so sure. You think poor, brown, and female HELPS folks get approved for positions of power? In parts of the Democratic party it does, sure, but not ALL parts of it, and we know how it affects the Republican side of the aisle.

And voting for lesser judgeships, even Appeals, is not that big of a deal and soon enough forgotten. SCOTUS picks are high, high-profile and the Repub leadership will be pulling out all the stops to get their people to fall into line.

I think she is a fine choice, perhaps not the "lion" we all want, but that'll come with Obama's second, or possible, third choice, and will be after the 2010 elections give the Senate Dems about 63/64 seats, enough to largely ignore filibuster threats from the GOP and Conservative(Nelson) Dems.

Additionally, as they say, Justices tend to get more Liberal the longer they stay at the SCOTUS.

as the only Dem voting no.

there are Hispanics, and women, in Nebraska, too.

hardly a bastion of thoughtfulness. Too much bluster and they risk a lot of blow back from a group they have had some success with. I'm actually curious how Martinez, Cornyn, Hutchinson, Kyl and McCain handle this, they all come from Hispanic heavy states. I wager most of them vote to confirm.

No way in hell McCain or Hutchinson would vote for ANY Obama pick (unless it was utterly unacceptable to Obama's own party).

The party of No, knows no logic, even the logic of self-preservation. Face it, they've dug their heels in. No cooperation on nuthin', no no-how.

the GOOPERS voting against her are just throwing red meat to the base and raising some money.... what's Nelson's motivation?

Strategic choice, easy confirmation. We just need to let the process play out and not get too worked up about the confirmation.

Hutchinson is setting herself up for a run at Gov of TX (Latinos make up 1 in 3 in TX) and can make subtle inroads with the Latino community with this vote, or should I say, she won't risk pissing them off. McCain is cranky but he is up for re-election next year, and one of the few areas he has resonated with Latinos with in immigration reform (they make up about 1 in 6 in AZ)I question if he'll risk their support at this time.