WASHINGTON (CNN) - Two state supreme court justices from neighboring states find themselves in disagreement these days - not over a legal issue,but over how they should have gotten their jobs.

The two justices - Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Pennsylvania Justice Seamus McCaffery - were both elected in statewide votes.

Moyer says having to travel across his state to fundraise can erodepublic confidence in the courts.

"Going out asking for money creates a real strain in my judicial work,and I can't promise or predict to voters how I would decide a particular
issue," said Moyer. "It conflicts with the idea that judges are and should be impartial, and not be influenced by anything, especially money."

But as Pennsylvania's newest elected high court member, McCaffery foundvisiting all of his state's 67 counties on his Harley motorcycle to campaign was a treat.

"That's the beauty of having electoral process where we need to beresponsive to the community," said the former Philadelphia cop-turned-judge.

"And I think it's important that judges should be out there. It's just as important as other elected officials."

The experiences of both men are now at the forefront of a growing national debate over selecting judges.

The push for reform has a powerful advocate in retired U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Sandra Day O'Connor. She is lending her reputation and energy - and her name - to a new project aimed at assisting state-level efforts to have judges named by merit-based selection systems, not elections.

"This initiative is a matter of great importance to our country,"O'Connor told CNN. "The amount of money poured into judicial campaigns has
skyrocketed, intensifying the need to re-examine how we choose judges in America. I believe it is our moral duty and obligation to restore the public's confidence in our judicial system."

The O'Connor Judicial Selection Initiative was created by the Denver-based Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.

The group's founder and director says the 79-year-old justice has long been a passionate defender of judicial independence.

"Justice O'Connor adds practical experience with a [federal] system that works, and she adds a perception of balance and moderation (in) that she has never been associated in the minds of the public with extremes on either side of the political ledger," said Rebecca Kourlis, a retired justice on Colorado's Supreme Court.

Kourlis senses increased momentum for change on the national level, prompted in part by an important U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June, arising from a judicial scandal in West Virginia.

In the so-called "Caperton Caper," the justices found a state judicial counterpart acted improperly when he refused to remove himself from a 2006 civil appeal, despite having received financial support during the campaign for his seat from the CEO of the key defendant.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote in favor of that company, and the high court ruled a perceived conflict of interest should have led to the judge's recusal.

"What the [high] court made clear in 'Caperton' was that judges are different, that campaign donations need to be thought of in a different way
when those donations are going to fund a judicial campaign," said Kourlis. "It put on the front burner those questions of propriety with respect to campaign donations to judges, and how that impacts people's perception of impartiality on the bench."

Nevada has a scheduled ballot initiative to make it the first state in 15 years to switch from voter-based to merit-based selection of judges.

Ohio, too, has begun rethinking is voter-based system. Chief Justice Moyer has been through four elections on the state high court. He finds many voters growing more skeptical of judges in the first place, a perception he says is fueled in part by negative ads from political and business interests with a stake in elections.

"The only way to eliminate the public distrust is to eliminate money from the process," Moyer told CNN from his Columbus chambers.

He is heading an effort that would give the governor and an independent review panel the power to select state judges. Voters could then decide a few years later whether to retain those justices. Alternately, he backs a system of public financing of judicial election campaigns.

Justice McCaffery knows his personality and personal story helped get him elected. An Irish immigrant, he used his law enforcement background to get a spot as a Philadelphia trial judge, where he once famously presided at the small "Eagles Court" underneath the old Veterans Stadium to deal with unruly football fans. The bald, burly judge with an easy grin was elected in 2007, and enjoys his work.

"I'm electable, not appointable," he told CNN during the run for his bench seat. "If I'm elevated, I am responsible to the citizens, not the
governor, not the folks who talk about merit selection," a system he calls "elitist."

The 19 states that held state supreme court elections in 2007 shattered previous campaign cycle spending records - $34.4 million in all - numbers which have increased steadily in the past decade. Nearly $20 million was spent on TV advertising in 2008 for the 15 states that held contested elections for 26 supreme court seats.

The idea of judges running for elected office may seem like a strange concept, but it is the law in 21 states that have some sort of contested system for top judges. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia - along with the federal system - appoint their judges, often under a merit selection system in which the governor gets the final say.

Many states choosing judges by merit also have accountability systems that include independent judicial performance evaluations and retention votes.

Supporters call that a transparent, unbiased tool for the public to essentially "judge the judge" on their record.

The political and financial stakes are enormous - from business groups dueling with trial lawyers over multi-billion-dollar punitive damage awards, to ideological groups sparring over abortion and gay marriage. With civil and criminal court dockets nationwide growing at a record pace, judges increasingly are taking on contentious social and business issues.

"Studies show that roughly 70 percent of the public believe judges are influenced by campaign contributions, and more than one quarter of judges agree," O'Connor told CNN. "This is alarming because the legitimacy of the judiciary rests entirely on its promise to be fair and impartial. A judge's sole constituency should be the law. If the public loses faith in that impartiality, then there is no reason to prefer the judge's interpretation of the law to the opinions of the real politicians representing the electorate."

O'Connor also noted the U.S. alone in the world elects its judges through popular elections.

Reform advocates say judicial independence only comes with public confidence in the system.

"People don't like the notion of cash in the courtroom, any whiff of any expectation that judges can be be bought is just not acceptable in our
country," said Kourlis. "People understand how important it is to have an impartial judge. From your own personal perspective, walking into a courthouse, you don't want to be asking whether that adverse party donated to that judge's campaign."

The Supreme Court will determine whether a police officer has a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - When Ontario, California, Police Sgt. Jeff Quon used his city-issued text messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages, some of a "sexually explicit" nature, did he have a right to expect those messages would be kept private?

The Supreme Court decided Monday that it will determine whether a police officer has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager.

The justices accepted a pair of appeals on this free-speech and privacy dispute, and will hear oral arguments in the spring.

At issue is how far a government employer may go to monitor the private communications of its workers when they believe that the use of such equipment is being abused.

And the court will explore whether service providers can be held liable for providing those communications without the consent of the sender.

Full story

The newest justice had the honor of issuing the Supreme Court's first ruling of the term. (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

Washington (CNN) - The newest justice had the honor of issuing the Supreme Court's first ruling of the term, and Sonia Sotomayor managed a shy smile Tuesday after reading a portion of it from the bench in the public session.

Sotomayor joined the bench in August and has heard oral argument in 35 appeals with her eight colleagues. The high court issued three other rulings Tuesday, from cases heard when the new term began in early October.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced Sotomayor's name at the start of the morning session, and she proceeded to spend about four minutes summarizing the court's unanimous conclusions.

At issue in her ruling was the right to immediately appeal a judge's pretrial order requiring disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications.

The case involved Norman Carpenter, who sued his employer, Mohawk Industries, after he was fired. Carpenter contends he complained to company officials they were hiring undocumented immigrant workers at the Georgia flooring facility. He was unaware the company was accused in a pending lawsuit to conspiring to drive down wages by knowingly hiring illegal workers. Carpenter claims one of Mohawk's lawyers pressured him to recant his claims, but he refused, and was fired under false pretenses.

In the discovery phase of his lawsuit, Carpenter sought documents and other information from his meeting with the lawyer. A federal judge said the material was normally protected by attorney-client privilege– but that Mohawk had waived that privilege through statements and other disclosures in the other undocumented workers case. That decision allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

Sotomayor spoke for a 9-0 court when concluding the federal judge's order releasing the documents to Carpenter could not be immediately appealed to a higher court. She said prior Supreme Court rulings have affirmed the idea that appeals should be deferred until final judgment by a trial court.

"In our estimation," she wrote "post-judgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of litigants and assure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege. Appellate courts can remedy the improper disclosure of privileged material in the same way they remedy a host of other erroneous evidentiary rulings: by vacating an adverse judgment and remanding for a new trial in which the protected material and its fruits are excluded from evidence."

The case drew some interest from civil liberty groups after the Obama administration filed a brief supporting Carpenter. In the last five pages of its "friend-of-the-court" brief, Justice Department lawyers argued in part for an expansive view of executive power on the "state secrets privilege."

That was not a direct issue in the Mohawk case, but the federal government thought enough parallels existed to reinforce its belief the state secrets privilege is grounded in a constitutional guarantee.

Such a view was strongly promoted by the conservative Bush administration, particularly in cases involving the ongoing war on terror, but liberals expressed disappointment that the current White House chose to echo the views of its predecessors.

The state secrets privilege allows the government at the evidentiary stage of a civil case to exclude what it deems sensitive information that might endanger national security. Such information might be of a military or
intelligence-gathering nature, and courts generally show deference to the views of the executive branch in such matters.

The privilege has been used to block lawsuits from going forward over the government's alleged domestic surveillance of communications between those suspected of terrorist involvement, and the overseas detention of accused terrorists. A range of legal and advocacy groups have criticized the government for what they call abuse of power and an unchecked executive.

The issue was not raised during October's oral arguments in the Mohawk case, and Sotomayor decided not to address the controversy in her ruling.

The case is Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter (08-678).

Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to re-examine an ongoing dispute over public release of photos apparently depicting abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign soldiers in U.S. custody.

President Obama signed legislation late last month to keep the disputed material under wraps. That executive action apparently prompted the justices to delay any consideration of the larger legal issues.

In a brief order Monday, the high court instructed the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to re-examine its decision earlier this year that the photos be disclosed. The photos - more than three dozen images of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners - were gathered as part of a military investigation into allegations that detainees held in Afghanistan and Iraq were tortured and physically abused.

The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the photos. The Bush administration denied that request, and the ACLU filed suit.

Full story

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court has postponed deciding whether the Obama administration can block public release of photos apparently depicting abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign soldiers in U.S. custody.

The Obama administration told the justices late last week of an apparent agreement with Congress on a law preventing disclosure of the material. That could render the legal issues moot.

President Barack Obama had initially favored the release, which had been opposed by the Bush administration, but changed his mind after intense urging against it by military leaders.

That led the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sought access to the photos under the Freedom of Information Act, to file a lawsuit seeking disclosure.

The ACLU said the administration's about-face "makes a mockery" of Obama's campaign promise of greater transparency and accountability, and damages efforts to hold accountable those responsible for abusing prisoners.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September 2008 the photos must be released. The president later said doing so "would pose an unacceptable risk of danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Newest Justice Sonia Sotomayor served on that appeals court until August, but was not involved in this ruling, which could have led to the release of hundreds of offensive images of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.

The Senate in May approved the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, which would limit the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. The House adopted a similar provision this month. Conferees from both chambers on Wednesday then reached a compromise to keep the photos under wraps.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan - the administration's top lawyer before the Supreme Court - told the justices in a legal filing last week that if Congress passes the disclosure amendment, "it now appears likely the secretary of defense will have legal authority to exempt the photographs at issue in this lawsuit from disclosure under FOIA."

The ACLU quickly responded, saying the legal issues at stake should be addressed now. The pending congressional action "does not supply any reason for delay," argued Jameel Jaffer, head of the group's National Security Project.

In court documents filed last spring, Gen. David Petraeus - the top U.S. commander in the region that includes Iraq and Afghanistan - argued public access would have a "destabilizing effect" on Pakistan and other U.S. partners in the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"Newly released photos depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Afghanistan and Iraq would negatively affect the ongoing
efforts by Pakistan to counter its internal extremist threat," wrote Petraeus, the chief of U.S. Central Command.

U.S. allies in the region already "struggle with their populations' perceptions that they are merely instruments of the U.S. government and do not have their citizens' best interests at heart," and releasing the images "would likely deal a particularly hard blow" to American efforts in those countries, he stated.

Forty-four photos are covered in the ACLU request for release, but others could be released under the earlier appeals court ruling.

The case is ACLU v. Department of Defense (09-160).

A judge ruled that the Mojave Cross must be covered until a First Amendment issue can be resolved.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court offered conflicting concerns Wednesday over a cross, erected as a war memorial, that sits on national parkland in the Mojave Desert and whether it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Conservative members of the bench suggested that Congress acted properly when it tried to transfer land around the Mojave Memorial Cross to veterans groups, an effort to eliminate any Establishment Clause violation. A federal appeals panel had blocked that land swap.

"Isn't that a sensible interpretation" of a federal court injunction banning the display on government property, Justice Samuel Alito asked.

But Justice Stephen Breyer was adamant that the government had not acted in good faith. "You are violating this injunction" that ordered removal of the cross, he told the government's lawyer.

The swing vote - as he is in many hot-button issues - may be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who questioned attorneys on both sides but did not indicate how he was leaning.

Full story

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Chief Justice John Roberts attend Red Mass in 2005.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The beautifully ornate Catholic church in the nation's capital has seen its share of history and controversy.

In 1963, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle was the site of John F. Kennedy's funeral. After the service, on the steps outside, the slain president's young son famously saluted his father's memory.

But the church is also the site of an annual Mass that has drawn criticism for what many see as an unhealthy mix of politics, the law and religion.

Washington's annual Red Mass, which celebrates the legal profession, will be held this year on Sunday, October 4 - the day before the Supreme Court begins its new term. Several justices traditionally attend, along with congressional leaders, diplomats, cabinet secretaries and other dignitaries.

Past presidents have also attended, though there is no word yet on whether President Obama will appear.

Full story

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Chief Justice John Roberts attend Red Mass in 2005.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The beautifully ornate Catholic church in the nation's capital has seen its share of history and controversy.

In 1963, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle was the site of John F. Kennedy's funeral. After the service, on the steps outside, the slain president's young son famously saluted his father's memory.

But the church is also the site of an annual Mass that has drawn criticism for what many see as an unhealthy mix of politics, the law and religion.

Full story

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Setting the stage for a dramatic battle over gun rights, the Supreme Court Wednesday accepted an appeal challenging the ability of state and local governments to enforce strict limits on handguns and other weapons.

The high court returned from its summer recess, meeting in private to consider thousands of pending appeals that have piled up the past three months. The Second Amendment case from Chicago was the most anticipated of the petitions, and oral arguments will be held sometime early next year. Nine other cases were also accepted for review.

At issue is whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question has remained unanswered for decades, and gives the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs.

The justices last year affirmed an individual right to possess handguns, tossing out restrictive laws in Washington, D.C.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one, aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws or can they be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The Supreme Court has told us one of two important things, and that is that there is an individual right to bear arms, now we are poised to find out whether that applies to state and local regulation," said Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Washington appellate attorney and co-founder of scotusblog.com. "That's really where the rubber hits the road because there are all kinds of state rules about when you can have and carry a gun."

The community activist in the Chicago case, Otis McDonald lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He says his work helping improve his communutiy has subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers and other criminals. But his application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

He was among several citizens who appealed the ordinance. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago - composed of Republican appointees - ruled in June for the city, concluding the Constitution and past high court precedent was vague on state versus individual fundamental powers.

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook, who has a conservative track record on that bench. Figuring out the limits of an individual right is "for the justices rather than the court of appeals," he said.

The justices have not yet taken action on a separate weapons case from New York.

In that case a Long Island man is appealing a 35-year-old state law banning a wide array of weapons, including chukka sticks - or nunchuks - composed of two sticks joined by chain or rope. They are staples of martial arts movies.

James Maloney has sought to keep them for practice, training and possible self-defense. He was arrested in 2000 for possession of a chukka stick in his home.

Maloney runs a one-man law firm and says he has long been an aficionado and historian of East Asian cultures.

The newest Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was part of a three-judge panel that rejected his lawsuit in January.

"It is settled law," the unsigned opinion concluded, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

The panel also noted the state's interest in restricting ownership of these weapons, which the judges said had been used by muggers and street gangs, and can be considered "highly dangerous." Sotomayor has not indicated whether she will recuse herself from consideration of the high court appeal.

In a separate 2004 ruling (U.S. v. Sanchez Villar) that rejected a challenge to New York state's pistol licensing law, Sotomayor and her fellow appeals court judges concluded in a footnote, "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

The Supreme Court in June 2008 rejected a sweeping handgun ban in the nation's capital, offering at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. On a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority of justices disagreed with arguments that the District of Columbia government had broad authority to enact what it called "reasonable" weapons restrictions in order to reduce violent crime. The city has since eased, but not eliminated, much of the previous restrictions.

"We hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Chicago and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have enacted such sweeping firearm bans. Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

But Scalia in the Washington case did not address the question now before the high court over state and local restrictions. And he cautioned the right to possess guns is not unlimited, referring to bans on gun ownership by the mentally ill and convicted felons, the assault rifle ban, and limitations on guns near schools.

"The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote.

Fourty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press - among other rights - as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court has repeatedly refused to extend to states the 5th Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of adult Americans in June 2008 - the month the Washington ruling was issued - found 67-percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns.

Thirty-percent said it only provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The case is McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

(CNN) - Justice Ginsburg was released from Washington Hospital Center this morning and plans to be at work at the Court this afternoon, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said.

The campaign finance case before the court stems from a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court heard new arguments Wednesday in a dramatic case that started with a movie attacking Hillary Clinton - but that could have far-reaching implications for U.S. elections.

"If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton, wait till you see the movie," said an ad last year for "Hillary: The Movie," a scorching attack on the woman then running for president.

Citizens United, the conservative group behind the film, promoted it as featuring 40 interviews - a "cast to end all casts"– and promised that if "you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here! 'Hillary: The Movie' is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!"

Few Americans ever saw the ad; a federal court ruled that it broke the law on campaign advertising.

Full story

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was welcomed to the Supreme Court by her new colleagues in a brief special ceremony Tuesday in the ornate courtroom.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Justice Sonia Sotomayor was welcomed to the Supreme Court by her new colleagues in a brief special ceremony Tuesday in the ornate courtroom.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were among those who attended the investiture of the 111th justice, where the court accepted her commission to serve on the high court.

During the five-minute ceremony, a beaming Sotomayor formally joined the eight other justices on the bench. The court has returned early from its summer recess to hear arguments in an appeal Wednesday dealing with campaign finance reform. It will be the 55-year-old justice's first case.

Among those who attended were members of Congress and the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who formally introduced Sotomayor to those gathered.

Sotomayor took the judicial oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts and was then escorted to the far end of the bench and her new seat.

Roberts concluded the ceremony by wishing Sotomayor "a long and happy career in our common calling."

Most of the other justices showed little emotion, but Justice Bader Ginsburg smiled widely throughout the entire ceremony. Until Sotomayor,
Ginsburg had been the only female on the court and had openly called for more gender diversity on that bench. All of Obama's finalists for the high court vacancy were women.

Tuesday's pageantry was mostly for show, since Sotomayor was already confirmed last month by the Senate and officially sworn in August 8 by the chief justice, allowing her to begin her work immediately. She was a federal appeals court judge in New York when Obama nominated her to fill the vacancy left by the retired Justice David Souter.

Souter attended the ceremonies, sitting in a special visitors gallery next to Biden.

Sotomayor wore a white lace collar around her judicial robes, and appeared nervous entering the courtroom. She nodded when Obama and Biden arrived.

Roberts later escorted Sotomayor down the exterior steps of the court for a photo op with the media. The courtroom investiture was closed to camera coverage.

The campaign finance case before the court stems from a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Money and politics are often equated as the fuel and engine of American democracy, but thanks to the Supreme Court, century-old government speed bumps on the campaign speech superhighway may soon be a thing of the past.

Those are the monumental stakes when the justices return early from its summer recess Wednesday to re-hear a case which could radically alter the election calculus for corporations, unions, advocacy groups, and individuals seeking a voice in the crowded national political debate.

The court will hold a rare special session, which also marks the debut of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At issue is whether prior rulings limiting corporate spending on federal elections should be overturned. The justices could decide to erase the subtle but important distinction between corporate donors - which are subject to regulation - and individual donors, who largely are not.

Full story

(CNN) - Sonia Sotomayor, who rose from humble roots in a Bronx, New York, housing project to a high-powered legal career, was sworn in Saturday as the 111th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

With friends and family looking on, the 55-year-old jurist took the judicial oath in the court's wood-paneled East Conference Room, pledging to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me."

It was the first time such a ceremony was televised.

Chief Justice John Roberts administered the 62-word oath required of all federal judges. In a private ceremony just moments before, Sotomayor took a separate, constitutional oath across the hall. Both oaths are necessary for her to assume her new duties.

Full story

WASHINGTON (CNN) – With Sonia Sotomayor soon to fulfill her long-held dream to sit on the Supreme Court, she will have the prestige of joining the highest court in the land, lifetime job security, and a public forum as the first Hispanic on that bench.

Her formal swear-in will be Saturday morning at the high court, with Chief Justice John Roberts administering the judicial oath.

The 55-year-old judge now has the opportunity to become a influential force among her new colleagues, a legal pioneer who could help shape the law and its effect on society in any number of ways. But such a legacy will not come easily and it certainly will not come quickly. The internal dynamics of a body built on tradition and stability have long discouraged swift and sweeping forces that are regularly felt in the other branches of government, and society at large.

After her Thursday confirmation by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the junior justice, someone with the least seniority but no less authority than her eight benchmates. She brings with her a bit of history, and is sure to be the focus of public attention and political scrutiny.

"It's a step forward for the country. Having someone who's in a permanent lifetime appointment at the highest levels of the government who has this background, both economically and ethnically, is a big deal, it's a moment," said Thomas Goldstein, co-founder of ScotusBlog (at scotusblog.com) who has argued before the justices as a private attorney.

"The idea that a Democratic president did this and embraced them in this way will not be forgotten," he added.

After her swearing in, which will be attended by a small group of family and friends, Sotomayor will quickly set up shop in her high court chambers. She will have a staff of aides and secretaries, as well as four law clerks to help her jump into the caseload.

The urgency may be especially acute for her. The high court has scheduled an oral argument for an important campaign finance reform case for September 9, in the middle of its traditional summer recess, and almost a month before the justices normally begin their new term. She will have to cram in order to hear the case with her colleagues– no grace period or expanded learning curve.

Justice Stephen Breyer has said it took him a few years on the high court before he felt truly comfortable in the job, and he had already served as an appeals judge for 14 years before his elevation. It is a sentiment echoed by other justices on the high court - where the caseload, the pace of meeting deadlines, and the sheer enormity of the issues facing the court can seem initially overwhelming.

Her colleagues are sure to warmly welcome their newest member, but she will soon find herself on her own. A myth of the court is that the justices operate as a unified bunch. The reality is that they are like nine little kingdoms, free to rule - on the cases before them and in their own chambers - as they see fit. Their work entails lots of reading, researching, and writing - most of it alone in front of a computer, maybe a writing pad, even typewriter.

No wonder the seeming glamour of sitting on the Supreme Court often gives way to a sense of isolation and loneliness for new justices. "When you put on the black robe, the experience is sobering," the late Justice Lewis Powell once remarked. "It makes you more thoughtful."

Powell said the biggest surprise when he joined the high court was how the justices communicated about the cases. Memos, mostly formal in tone and presentation, remain the norm. Phone calls from one justice to another are relatively rare; personal visits to chambers even more unusual. E-mails are not embraced, even in the digital age.

But such interaction is key. After oral arguments on a case, the court votes on it, a justice is assigned at conference to write a majority opinion, another to write a dissent. The goal is to craft a majority ruling that will command the support of all the colleagues on a particular side, since that would create a unified front and make it easier to establish lasting
precedent guiding future courts. That's where personal relationships matter.

Individual justices monitor what their colleagues are doing, collaborating to varying degrees on the language and scope of opinions, negotiating and engaging in a give-and-take. Sandra Day O'Connor in particular, before her retirement in 2006, was known inside the court for her backstage persuasiveness, while building a national persona as the first female justice.

"The justices learn about each other's views on the law and the Constitution, their strengths, their personalities," said Edward Lazarus, who wrote "Closed Chambers," an inside look at the court.

"But that takes time. Justices Breyer and O'Connor became close colleagues on the bench because they discovered a similar approach to deciding cases, but that developed slowly over several years. Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Antonin) Scalia are very close personally - they have similar intellectual and musical interests - and you can't help but think that has helped bridge some disagreements in some cases, despite their deep differences on the law."

Developing and nurturing that trust among differing personalities is not easy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once described Supreme Court deliberations as "nine scorpions in a bottle," fiercely protective in carving out their own agendas and power bases.

By all accounts, the current court as a group gets along very well personally. They like each other, and each can appreciate the diverse, often tough road each took to get to where they are. They all know how exclusive is the club to which they have gained entry, how random and unpredictable was their nomination.

Yet this remains a profoundly divided court ideologically. A shaky conservative majority - roughly four liberals and five conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often a swing vote - has produced a simmering tension inside the marble walls of the court. As a presumed member of the progressive faction, Sotomayor could find herself on the losing end of many a fight over hot-button issues in the near future, relegating her to writing dissents.

She will operate in the shadow of Justice John Paul Stevens - at 89, the oldest member of the court and the undisputed leader of his liberal colleagues. That authority is built on his nearly 40 years of seniority, his quiet skills as a tactician, and his sharp writing prowess. Many liberal legal activists hope Sotomayor eventually follows the O'Connor model in crafting a power base inside and outside the court.

As a group, the justices have wide experience. All served as federal appeals court judges, so they know well the intricacies of interpreting constitutional and legislative precedent. "They are well-prepared, active, informed, engaged, with tough questioning (of lawyers) from the bench," said David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and high court expert.

But the current court has by no means become a predictable group. One vote can tip the delicate ideological balance. Of the 79 full opinions issued last term, 23 were 5-4 votes, or about 29 percent. Most involved major issues such as workplace discrimination, broadcast indecency and DNA testing. Kennedy's views often proved decisive, and his influence remains undimmed.

Sotomayor will quickly discover the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has not shied from taking on tough, timely cases. The fall 2009 docket includes appeals on religious displays on public land, Miranda rights, life sentences for underage criminals, and international child abductions.

This judicial confidence, said Garrow, gives "this court no second thoughts that it knows better than anyone else, especially the Congress, what is right."

Sotomayor will leave behind her family and friends in her native New York. She is not married, and observers say her work as a judge consumes much of her life. Colleagues say she has managed to find time for herself and pursue interests off the bench, but she has admitted that has not been an easy balance to maintain.

Lazarus, a former law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, remembered his former boss "carved out for himself a distinctly solitary existence. From 8 to 9 every morning, Blackmun would breakfast with us clerks in the court cafeteria," he remembered. "But as 9 o'clock approached, the justice's attitude and demeanor changed radically. As he shifted into work mode, Blackmun became unapproachable, a man consumed by a mantle of professional duty that fairly seemed to crush him."

While Blackmun was known by his colleagues for a prickly personality, his sense of struggling to live up to the responsibilities of the job rings familiar.

Sotomayor will bring a unique life experience - personally and professionally - to the job. She comes to it at a time of significant political and social change. The justice will have just one vote, and one voice. Whether she will thrive in the long run at her new home will depend to a large extent on her intellect, work ethic, and interpersonal skills. But forces
outside her control - namely the future ideological makeup of the court and the unforeseen hot-button issues that will confront her - will ultimately shape the legacy she will leave.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Two key Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Friday, a further sign the party's conservative base is uniting against President Barack Obama's first high court pick.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah - the former chairman of the committee - and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas - head of the party's Senate campaign committee - announced on the Senate floor their intention to vote against the 55-year-old federal appeals court judge.

Hatch's decision came as somewhat of a surprise. The veteran Republican has voted for every high court nominee in his 32-year Senate career - including President Bill Clinton's two liberal choices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Hatch had praised Sotomayor's "credentials and experience" and the fact she would be the first Hispanic justice. But despite the nominee's compelling life story, Hatch said that controversial off-the-bench comments by Sotomayor troubled him.

"I reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, have found that I cannot support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court," Hatch said in a written statement.

"In truth, I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee that all senators could support. I believe it would have done a great deal for our great country. Although Judge Sotomayor has a compelling life story and dedication to public service, her statements and record were too much at odds with the principles about the judiciary in which I deeply believe."

Cornyn candidly admitted his opposition to Sotoamayor could carry political risks in his home state, where one-third of the electorate is Hispanic.

"Voting to confirm a judge - this judge or any judge - despite doubts would certainly be the politically expedient thing to do, but I don't believe it would be the right thing to do," he said on the Senate floor.

"Many of her public statements reflected a surprisingly radical view of the law," he said.

He argued that the "stakes are simply too high for me to confirm someone who could address all these issues from a liberal, activist perspective."

Seven other Republicans have previously said they would vote against Sotomayor. Five mostly moderate GOP lawmakers announced their intention to back her. A vote is scheduled Tuesday in the Judiciary Committee, followed by an expected final floor vote a week later. There is little doubt about the outcome, and Republican Party leaders have said no filibuster is planned.

Conservative groups have been pushing Republican senators to rally hard against Sotomayor. The National Rifle Association stressed the intensity of its opposition to her nomination on Thursday, warning senators that their votes will be considered in its future candidate evaluations.

Among those supporting Sotomayor is conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, whose folksy questioning of the nominee during last week's confirmation hearings attracted wide attention. His decision brought a rebuke from the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN), which slammed Graham's support "based upon his apparent willful blindness to her record, both on the bench and off, of indulging her own ethnic and gender biases, personal political views, and liberal agenda in the name of 'law.'"

JCN's counsel, Wendy Long, dismissed Graham's "cynical, pandering comments during the Judiciary Committee hearings, which were clearly aimed at drawing attention to himself rather than illuminating the role of the court in our constitutional republic."

Some Republican moderates have privately expressed concern that attacking Sotomayor could hurt the party's efforts to attract more Hispanics and women, especially since her confirmation seems assured.

Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments were cited by Cornyn and others as reason for opposing her. The Texas Republican said Sotomayor was less than forthcoming when explaining her remarks in a 2001 speech.

Sotomayor told a group of Hispanic law students that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She has echoed the sentiment in related talks she has given over the years.

Cornyn said the remarks contrasted sharply with her pledge during her confirmation hearings to rule on cases without personal bias.

"Who is the real Judge Sonia Sotomayor?" he asked.

–CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

The NRA on Thursday reinforced its opposition to the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The National Rifle Association reinforced its opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, warning senators Thursday their votes will be considered in the NRA's future candidate evaluations.

The NRA announced last week that it viewed Sotomayor as having a "hostile view" of gun rights under the Constitution.

Since the NRA's announcement last week, five Republicans have already pledged their votes for Sotomayor, including conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and key member of the Judiciary Committee.

The nominee herself was on Capitol Hill, meeting with conservative senators. Seven Republicans have already announced they would vote against her, but that is not expected to slow what is predicted to be easy confirmation to the nation's highest court.

President Obama's first pick to the Supreme Court has attracted intense lobbying and outreach efforts from a range of advocacy groups. The NRA decision came as little surprise, with a statement by the group strongly questioning her commitment to the rule of law.

"We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land," said Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the NRA's top leaders, in a letter to the Senate. "Given the importance of this issue, the vote on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluation."

The issue of gun rights has become a timely issue, with senators Wednesday rejecting a bill that would allow a person with a proper permit to carry concealed weapons from state to state.

Sotomayor did receive strong support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called her "well qualified" to sit on the high court.

"Through several years of experience as a law firm partner representing business interests, Judge Sotomayor has spent time considering the litigation environment from our point of view," said Thomas J. Donohue, the business lobby's president. "With her unique experience as both a trial and appellate judge, Judge Sotomayor has seen first hand the tremendous burdens that our legal system places on businesses."

The Chamber's Litigation Center has long been active in fighting decisions by judges and courts it considers harmful to economic growth and small businesses. While generally having a conservative business philosophy, the group has endorsed every member of the Supreme Court over the past two decades, including liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Sotomayor had private meetings planned with conservative senators John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev. None of the three lawmaker has announced whether they would support her when the full Senate votes, scheduled for early next month.

Other courtesy calls with lawmakers may be scheduled in coming days, but the White House and Senate Democrats are quietly confident the 55-year-old federal appeals court judge will be confirmed.

The Judiciary Committee will vote Tuesday on whether to pass her nomination on to the full Senate.

Sen. Lindsey Graham announced Wednesday that he will vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A key Republican senator announced Wednesday he plans to vote for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, adding further momentum to an easy confirmation for President Obama's first high court pick.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's decision bucks the views of most of his conservative GOP colleagues. Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Thad Cochran of Mississippi preceded Graham on the Senate floor to oppose the 55-year-old federal appeals court judge.

Graham called Sotomayor "extremely well-qualified" with an extensive legal and judicial record, but criticized some of her views expressed on and of the bench. He lamented "the politicization of the judiciary" that he said has hurt public respect for the courts and the legislature itself. Three other moderate Republicans have previously announced they would vote to confirm Sotomayor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote next Tuesday whether to confirm her, followed days later by a full Senate vote. Confirmation is expected, and GOP leaders have said they would not filibuster the nominee.

Stare decisis
Latin for "let the decision stand," it simply means respect for judicial precedent. Every court nominee will tell senators of their fidelity to stare decisis - but of course, when they reach the bench they can rule as they please. Critics on both sides accuse judges of wavering on their respect for precedent, depending on whether it suits their views on hot-button issues.

Writ or petition for certiorari
Latin for "jurisdiction," these are the most common type of appeals filed with the Supreme Court, asking the justices for discretionary review. Justices only accept about 1 percent of the cases presented to them, so senators may ask the nominee about her views about which cases the high court should accept. There's a lot of debate in legal circles whether the high court is accepting too few cases for review.

Legislative intent
The term is self-explanatory, as judges are asked often to interpret what Congress meant when it passed a law. With Democrats in control of the Congress and a shaky conservative majority on the high court, expect more legal challenges in the federal courts in coming years over federal laws in a range of issues: health care, national security, and the environment. There's been a long-running debate in the courts over whether judges should rely simply on the language of the law or whether they should dig deeper and gauge intent from committee hearings, floor speeches, or similar laws.

Standard of congruency and proportionality
A folo to legislative intent, Sen. Arlen Specter loves this topic and raises it at every hearing for judicial nominees. The high court has used this standard to set boundaries on congressional power. Some judges want Congress to deal with issues that are "congruent and" and "proportional" to the problem. Others seek a more deferential approach. It's a somewhat squishy standard, and as Specter told Sotomayor Monday, "We senators would like to know what the standards are, so we know what to do when we undertake legislation."

Federalism
The ongoing tug-of-war over state versus federal power. What areas of law should be left to the states and when can Congress use its authority to override or complement that local power. The Constitution created a new form of government– national in scope with direct power over its citizens, but preserves for the states as sovereign units power over their own affairs and citizens. With high court approval, the federal government has taken on broad powers, including some that states complain infringe on their authority. Gun control especially is a contentious issue when it comes to states rights.

Sovereign immunity
The power of the government to block lawsuits against it and certain officials. The United States cannot be sued in federal court unless Congress expressly authorizes it. But such immunity can be waived in certain personal injury claims against government workers or contractors.

Executive immunity
This protects lower federal officials for "reasonable" actions taken in good faith in performance of their duties. But actions in excess of their authority could leave them vulnerable to certain damages. Many Bush officials have been sued by a range of advocacy groups for their actions in the areas of national security and energy reform.

Circuit split
Disagreements among the 13 federal appeals courts - called circuits - that often are the reason the high court agrees to accept an appeal. The circuits are mainly regional - the Fourth Circuit, for example, covers Maryland,. Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas - but also include DC and a special "Federal Circuit" for some types of appeals dealing with certain federal agencies. The high court is the only court that can resolve circuit splits. The justices in about two-thirds of the cases they accept for review will overturn - or reverse - a lower court ruling.

Sui Generis
Latin for "of its own kind" or unique. Sotomayor used the phrase when discussing Bush v. Gore, the controversial 200 Supreme Court ruling that essentially swung the presidential election to George W. Bush. "The question for me, as I look at that sui generis situation - it's only happened once from that discussion," she said. The judge declined to discuss further what she though of the court's reasoning behind the decision.

CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears looks at the impact Sonia Sotomayor would have on the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - If Sonia Sotomayor fulfills her long-held dream to sit on the Supreme Court, she would have the prestige of joining the highest court in the land, lifetime job security, and a public forum as the first Hispanic on that bench.

The 55-year-old judge would also have the opportunity to become a influential force among her colleagues, a legal pioneer who could help shape the law and its effect on society in any number of ways. But such a legacy would not come easily and it certainly would not come quickly. The internal dynamics of a body built on tradition and stability have long discouraged swift and sweeping forces that are regularly felt in the other branches of government, and society at large.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor would become the junior justice, someone with the least seniority but no less authority than her eight benchmates. She would bring with her a bit of history, along with the public attention and political scrutiny that would follow.

"It's a step forward for the country. Having someone who's in a permanent lifetime appointment at the highest levels of the government who has this background, both economically and ethnically, is a big deal, it's a moment," said Thomas Goldstein, co-founder of scotusblog.com whose has argued before the justices as a private attorney. "The idea that a Democratic president did this and embraced them in this way will not be forgotten."

After her swearing in, Sotomayor would quickly set up shop in her high court chambers. She would have a staff of aides and secretaries in place, as well as four law clerks to help her jump immediately into the caseload.

The urgency may be especially acute for her. The high court has scheduled an oral argument for an important campaign finance reform case for September 9, in the middle of its traditional summer recess, and almost a month before the justices normally begin their new term. If Sotomayor is confirmed by senators in time, she may have to cram in order to hear the case with her colleagues - no grace period or expanded learning curve.

Justice Stephen Breyer has said it took him a few years on the high court before he felt truly comfortable in the job, and he had already served as an appeals judge for 14 years before his elevation. It is a sentiment echoed by other justices - where the caseload, the pace of meeting deadlines, and the sheer enormity of the issues facing the court can seem initially overwhelming.

Her colleagues would warmly welcome their newest member, but she would soon find herself on her own. A myth of the court is that the justices operate as a unified bunch. The reality is that they are like nine little kingdoms, free to rule - on the cases before them and in their own chambers - as they see fit. Their work entails lots of reading, researching, and writing - most of it alone in front of a computer, maybe a writing pad, even typewriter.

No wonder the seeming glamour of sitting on the Supreme Court often gives way to a sense of isolation and loneliness for new justices. "When you put on the black robe, the experience is sobering," the late Justice Lewis Powell once remarked. "It makes you more thoughtful."

Powell said the biggest surprise when he joined the high court was how the justices communicated about the cases. Memos, mostly formal in tone and presentation, remain the norm. Phone calls from one justice to another are relatively rare, personal visits to chambers even more unusual. E-mails are not embraced, even in the digital age.

But such interaction is key. After oral arguments the court votes on a particular case, a justice is assigned at conference to write an opinion, another to write a dissent. The goal is to craft a majority ruling that would command the support of all the colleagues on a particular side, since it would create a unified front and make it easier to establish lasting precedent guiding future courts. That's where personal relationships matter.

Individual justices monitor what their colleagues are doing, collaborating to varying degrees on the language and scope of opinions, negotiating and engaging in a give-and-take. Sandra Day O'Connor in particular, before her retirement in 2006, was known inside the court for her backstage persuasiveness, while building a national persona as the first female justice.

"The justices learn about each other's views on the law and the Constitution, their strengths, their personalities," said Edward Lazarus, who wrote "Closed Chambers," an inside look at the court.

"But that takes time. Justices Breyer and O'Connor became close colleagues on the bench because they discovered a similar approach to deciding cases, but that developed slowly over several years. Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Antonin) Scalia are very close personally - they have similar intellectual and musical interests - and you can't help but think that has helped bridge some disagreements in some cases, despite their deep differences on the law."

Developing and nurturing that trust among differing personalities is not easy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once described Supreme Court deliberations as "nine scorpions in a bottle," fiercely protective in carving out their own agendas and power bases.

By all accounts, the current court as a group gets along very well personally. They like each other, and each can appreciate the diverse, often tough road each took to get to where they are. They all know how exclusive is the club to which they have gained entry, how random and unpredictable was their nomination.

Yet this remains a profoundly divided court ideologically. A shaky conservative majority - roughly four liberals and five conservatives, with Justice Kennedy often a swing vote - has produced a simmering tension inside the marble walls of the court. As a presumed member of the progressive faction, Sotomayor could find herself on the losing end of many a fight over hot-button issues in the near future, relegating her to writing dissents.

She would operate in the shadow of Justice John Paul Stevens - at 89, the oldest member of the court and the undisputed leader of his liberal colleagues. That authority is built on his nearly 40 years of seniority, his quiet skills as a tactician, and his sharp writing prowess. Many liberal legal activists hope Sotomayor eventually follows the O'Connor model in crafting a power base inside and outside the court.

As a group, the justices have wide experience. All served as federal appeals court judges, so they know well the intricacies of interpreting constitutional and legislative precedent. "They are well-prepared, active, informed, engaged, with tough questioning (of lawyers) from the bench," said David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and high court expert.

But the current court has by no means become a predictable group. One vote can tip the delicate ideological balance. Of the 79 full opinions issued last term, 23 were 5-4 votes, or about 29 percent. Most involved major issues such as workplace discrimination, broadcast indecency and DNA testing. Kennedy's views often proved decisive, and his influence remains undimmed.

Sotomayor would quickly discover the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has not shied from taking on tough, timely cases. The fall 2009 docket includes appeals on religious displays on public land, Miranda rights, life sentences for underage criminals, and international child abductions.

This judicial confidence, said Garrow, gives "this court no second thoughts that it knows better than anyone else, especially the Congress, what is right."

Sotomayor would leave behind her family and friends in her native New York. She is not married, and observers say her work as a judge consumes much of her life. Colleagues say she has managed to find time for herself and pursue interests off the bench, but she has admitted that has not been an easy balance to maintain.

Lazarus, a former law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, remembered his former boss "carved out for himself a distinctly solitary existence. From 8 to 9 every morning, Blackmun would breakfast with us clerks in the court cafeteria," he remembered. "But as 9 o'clock approached, the justice's attitude and demeanor changed radically. As he shifted into work mode, Blackmun became unapproachable, a man consumed by a mantle of professional duty that fairly seemed to crush him."

While Blackmun was known by his colleagues for a prickly personality, his sense of struggling to live up to the responsibilities of the job rings familiar.

Sotomayor would bring a unique life experience - personally and professionally - to the job. She would come to it at a time of significant political and social change. The justice would have just one vote, and one voice. Whether she would thrive in the long run at her future home would depend to a large extent on her intellect, work ethic, and interpersonal skills. But forces outside her control - namely the future ideological makeup of the court and the unforeseen hot-button issues that would confront her - would ultimately shape the legacy she would leave.

Sonia Sotomayor spends her days in a small office next to the West Wing of the White House.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Judge Sonia Sotomayor's world these days is a tiny, plain office in the Eisenhower Office Building next door to the West Wing of the White House.

There she prepares for next week's confirmation hearings to become the 111th person to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. While a group of mostly young lawyers meet regularly with her, sources close to the judge say much of her time is spent alone, reading her past cases and speeches, taking notes - the monotonous, grinding work every high court nominee must go through to endure the intense scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Away from her family, friends and colleagues in New York and the comfort zone of her judicial chambers - the federal appeals court judge has felt overwhelmed at times by the media attention and intense preparation, say sources close to her. But they say she remains focused and surprisingly upbeat about the unpredictable public stage she is about to take.

"She has always possessed this quiet confidence in herself, which really never crosses into over-confidence," said one longtime friend who asked not to be identified. "Sonia is proud of her record as a judge, proud of her upbringing, and proud of herself. She'll do well" in the hearings.

Democrats are confident as well, predicting the Bronx native will be ultimately confirmed. The hearings are expected to last no more than a week, with time for an opening statement from the nominee, and perhaps two days or more of questioning from senators. No vote by the full Senate - the last step in confirmation - has been scheduled, but President Obama has said he wants Sotomayor on the high court by the time lawmakers recess in early August.

The Bronx-born judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has also met privately and separately with more than 70 senators, informal sessions where topics can range from serious discussions about judicial philosophy to chitchats about family and hobbies.

"It always helps to be nice, to have that winning smile. The more you can do these courtesy calls, the better it is. People get to know you before you enter the inner sanctum of the Supreme Court," said Ken Duberstein, who helped shepherd four high court nominees through the confirmation process in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. "Remember, if they're confirmed that's it. That's a lifetime appointment and these senators can do nothing about it."

Those who have survived the process say it is not much fun. Several current and past justices have noted the seemingly endless prep work, where every past case, every speech, every aspect of one's professional life needs to be reviewed, since one does not know what senators will ask. Some have privately called it an enormously draining experience - physically and mentally.

"So she's got to hit the books," said Thomas Goldstein, a leading Washington appellate attorney and founder of scotusblog.com. "They can ask you about any part of the law. And she's got to be ready for that and be able to sound intelligent answering those questions."

Some judges have likened the hearings to inquisitions, but one nominees can use to their advantage.

Sotomayor, like those before her, is undergoing intense mock confirmation hearings, private prep sessions where government and private lawyers pepper her with hypothethicals. Aides have studied the records of GOP senators on the committee and have offered possible questions that might be asked. Friendly Democratic senators on the committee work quietly with the administration to devise friendly lines of questioning. White House officials - past and present - have been careful to note they do not tell the nominee what to say, but will often advise them about how to frame an answer, or caution about saying too much.

"She has to maintain her judicial independence in a very political process," said Goldstein. "So it's a delicate dance and it involves an army of people."

Appearance matters too, as well as a good story to tell. Sources involved in the confirmation process say Sotomayor will spend much of her opening statement talking about her biography: the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, and the sacrifices her mother in particular made for her children. She will talk about living for a time in a Bronx housing project, about her Ivy League education, her work as a private attorney and a volunteer for a number of legal and charitable causes.

When the questioning starts, anything can happen.

"Everybody doesn't want to be asked one question," said Duberstein. "What's the one question - I always advise a nominee this - don't tell me, but prepare for an answer, because that question inevitably will be asked."

But if a nominee is asked about a hot-button issue like abortion or the death penalty, there is always the so-called "Ginsburg Rule" to fall back on. That was the moniker given when Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointedly and repeatedly refused to give specifics answers on sensitive topics during her Senate scrutiny. Lawmakers of both political stripes then - and now - did not object too strenuously.

A typical Ginsburg answer: "I must avoid giving an advisory opinion on any specific scenario. Because, as clear as it may seem to you, that scenario might come before me," she said. "I must avoid responding to hypotheticals, because they may prove not to be so hypothetical."

It has since become an unenforceable tradition, that subsequent judicial nominees have invoked.

That has many court watchers convinced the Sotomayor hearings will be a non-event, since Democrats now have a filibuster-proof majority. Even some Republican activists say privately there is nothing now in her known judicial and personal record to doom the nomination. But she will be hit with questions about her views on affirmative action, gun rights, and whether her Latina heritage would unfairly affect her judicial rulings.

"The trouble with Supreme Court nominations these days in confirmations, they take on all the attributes of political campaigns," said Duberstein, "from nasty attack ads to the expenditures of obscene amounts of money" by outside partisan groups. "That's unfortunate, but it's real and it's been going on 20 something years."

Sotomayor is taking all this in stride, colleagues say, somewhat anxious but undeterred. For solace, the judge talks daily with her mother, whom she calls the most important person in her life.

She took time out of her cram sessions June 25 to briefly celebrate her 55th birthday. Members of White House Counsel's Office gave her a framed, signed picture of her with President Obama and Vice President Biden the day her nomination was announced only a month earlier. A person close to her said she now feels like she has been reliving her entire life since then. In a way, she
has.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been given the American Bar Association's highest rating for "professional qualification," a political boost less than a week before her confirmation hearings begin in the Senate.

An ABA committee that reviewed her record concluded unanimously Tuesday that she is "well qualified" to sit on the high court. The nation's largest association of attorneys has been evaluating nominees to the federal bench for five decades.

Sotomayor was last evaluated by the ABA in 1998 when she was nominated for the appeals court seat she now occupies. She was also rated "well-qualified," but the vote then was not unanimous.

Her confirmation hearings for the high court begin Monday, and Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, applauded the ABA evaluation, saying it "should eliminate the doubts of naysayers who have questioned Judge Sotomayor's disposition on the bench."

The 55-year-old judge from the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit would replace the retired Justice David Souter.

The peer-review process by the ABA focuses only on a nominee's "professional qualifications and does not consider a nominee's philosophy or ideology," according to the group. It says their "impartial evaluations" focus on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.

Past administration have quietly worked with the ABA to provide the identity of proposed nominees before they were publicly nominated. No other group has such advance access, but the ABA's role is unofficial.

The Bush administration had refused to consider or accept the ABA evaluations, saying the organization had given lower ratings for some conservative nominees, and that the ABA had publicly-held liberal positions on social and political matters. That complaint had been echoed by Reagan and Bush 41 officials.

The Standing Committee continued to rate Bush judicial nominees, but only after the president had made the choices public.

Justice Clarence Thomas was given a "qualified" rating - the middle of three standards - when he was being considered for the Supreme Court in 1991. "Not qualified" is the lowest rating possible.

George W. Bush's nominees - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito - received unanimous "well-qualfied" ratings. Harriet Mires withdrew her 2005 high court nomination before the ABA could release its evaluation.

A letter from Obama's White House Counsel Greg Craig to Leahy Tuesday indicated the ABA had again gained its prior privileged access to the administration's nominee for evaluation.

Justice Souter said goodbye to his colleagues Monday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Retiring Justice David Souter said goodbye to his U.S. Supreme Court colleagues Monday, telling them in a brief statement he read from the bench that they had "touched me more than I can say."

The 69-year-old justice said he is looking forward to his retirement in New Hampshire, but would retain fond memories of "the finest moments in my life."

The court is now in recess until early September and awaiting the possible confirmation of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Souter.

Nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Souter announced May 1 that he would step down from the high court after 19 years.

Near the end of the court's public session, Chief Justice John Roberts read a letter from his benchmates to Souter, noting a "profound sense of loss" over his retirement.

"We deeply value the times we have shared in judicial service," said Roberts, who then briefly quoted poet Robert Frost. "We understand your desire to trade white marble for White Mountains [of New Hampshire], and return to your land 'of easy wind and downy flake.' "

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also signed the letter.

After Roberts spoke, Souter announced, "I too have a statement to read from the bench," in a deadpan voice that brought laughter to the courtroom.

The friendship of his colleagues "has held together despite the pull of the most passionate dissent," he said.

"You quoted the poet, and I will, too, in words that set out the ideal of the life engaged, " ... where love and need are one. ... ," Souter said.

"We have agreed or contend with each other over those things that matter to decent people in a civil society. For nineteen terms, I have lived that life with you, all of us sharing our own best years with one another, working side by side as fellow servants and friends."

His personal remarks brought wide smiles from the other justices, but no tears. The low-key, private Souter had wished for no elaborate ceremony or celebration, preferring the short, eloquent power of words to convey his appreciation.

Souter is expected to depart this week for his home in rural Weare, New Hampshire. He has no specific plans in retirement, but has indicated he may occasionally sit as a senior judge on federal appeals court cases, which the law allows for retired justices.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory from the Supreme Court over their free speech rights.

The justices Monday rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials.

The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality," through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Blew Up the Troops" and "AIDS Cures Fags."

A lower court had granted an injunction blocking enforcement of the law until it could be challenged.

Phelps, his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The married Army Airborne Ranger died while on patrol in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee military vehicle. He was 21, and in addition to his wife, Myers leaves behind a daughter. He was later buried at Leavenworth National Cemetery in Kansas.

In response to that protest, Missouri lawmakers passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law", criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession.

Phelps-Roper then went to federal court to ask for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the statute until its constitutionality could be reviewed. A federal appeals court eventually agreed. That court did not address the broader First Amendment claims, but noted the law was overly intrusive, since it "restricts expressive activity not just within or on the premises of a cemetery of a church, but also on traditional public for a such as the adjacent public streets and sidewalks."

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services," as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased. But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting those from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.

The justices were asked to address how far states can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting. Various jurisdictions across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the church protesters.

According to a legal brief it filed with the high court, church members believe it is their duty to protest and picket at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."

Missouri officials said the appeals court improperly balanced the free speech rights of both sides in favor of the church.

"Mourners cannot avoid a message that targets funerals without forgoing their right to partake in funeral or burial services, so are appropriately viewed as a captive audience" that is simply unable to shut out the offensive message, said state attorneys.

The case is Nixon (Missouri governor) v. Phelps-Roper (08-1244). It will be argued sometime after October.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow a lawsuit filed by former CIA operative Valerie Plame against onetime Bush administration officials to continue.

The justices offered no explanation for deciding not to hear the case brought by Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

The two accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of leaking Plame's identity to reporters in 2003, endangering her life as covert operative and violating her constitutional rights.

A federal appeals court had dismissed the lawsuit, saying the allegations do not fall under protections provided by the Privacy Act.

The identity leak led to an obstruction of justice conviction for onetime Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. A jury found he lied to investigators about his role in the Plame matter. No charges were ever brought against anyone for actually leaking Plame's identity.

The case is Wilson v. Libby (08-1043).

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a major voting rights case.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court compromised Monday in a major voting rights case, finding a powerful enforcement tool in the landmark Voting Rights Act was being applied too broadly.

The decision avoided the larger issue of whether the federal government should continue to have broad oversight to ensure local areas are free of voter discrimination.

The justices by a unanimous vote allowed states and local communities more power to challenge the "preclearance" provision of the 1965 law that provides continuing federal control over election practices in 16 states, based
on past discrimination against minority voters.

Other states are not covered by the provision even if they, too, might discriminate against minority voters.

Full story

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a group of lawyers and judges that she was 'cheered' at the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – While most sitting Supreme Court justices refuse to comment at all about current and future nominees to that bench, one member says she can't wait to welcome Sonia Sotomayor to that exclusive club.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the only women on the nine-member court - told a group of lawyers and judges this past weekend she was "cheered" at the nomination of Sotomayor.

Ginsburg said the 54-year-old federal appeals court judge brings "a wealth of experience in the law and in life. I am glad to no longer be the lone woman on the court, and look forward to a new colleague well-equipped to handle the challenges our work presents." Her remarks were made at a semi-private conference in upstate New York.

The justice has made no secret of her desire to see greater gender diversity on her court. She has lamented the departure of her friend and colleague Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006.

She told USA Today just weeks before Justice David Souter announced his retirement that more women should join her. "Women belong in all places where decision are being made," she said. "I don't say (the split) should be 50-50. It could be 60 percent men, 40 percent women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception."

Sotomayor has drawn controversy with her remarks at a 2001 speech: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She has echoed the sentiment in related talks she has given over the years.

But Ginsburg noted weeks before Sotomayor was tapped for the high court that she and O'Connor had made similar observations in the past.

"You know the line that Sandra and I keep repeating… that 'at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment'?" she told USA Today. "But there are perceptions that we have because we are women. It's a subtle influence. We can be sensitive to things that are said in draft opinions that (male justices) are not aware can be offensive."

Ginsburg used the word "same" to describe the outcome, Sotomayor used the word "better," a phrase she has told senators privately she now regrets making.

The justice noted gender differences are "seldom in the outcome." But then, she said, "it is sometimes in the outcome."

Ginsburg expressed frustration in that interview with how her male colleagues view her role, and how they view certain cases. She said in closed door conferences where all the justices gather to decide cases and pending appeals, her views occasionally are ignored. "When I will say something– and I don't think I'm a confused speaker– and it isn't until somebody else says it that everyone will focus on the point."

The same thing can happen in the public setting of oral arguments, the 76-year-old justice said. A case from April dealt with whether school officials abused their discretion by conducing a strip search on a 13-year-old female student who was suspected of carrying ibuprofen medicine on her, in violation of the school's anti-drug policy.

In arguments, she asked a lawyer for the school, "After Redding [the student] was searched and nothing was found, she was put in a chair outside the vice principal's office for over two hours, and her mother wasn't called. What was the reason for… putting her in that humiliating situation?"

Her colleague Justice Stephen Breyer had noted, "I'm trying to work out why is this a major thing to, say, strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym," Breyer said. "How bad is this, underclothes? That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm asking because I don't know."

Ginsburg countered the girl was told by female staffers "to shake (her) bra out, to shake, shake, stretch the top of (her) pants."

In another case this term, the court ruled time off given women decades ago for pregnancy leave cannot be counted when deciding pension eligibility. Ginsburg dissented strongly, noting, "Certain attitudes about pregnancy and childbirth throughout human history, have sustained pervasive, often law-sanctioned, restrictions on a woman's place among paid workers and active citizens."

The appeal had parallels to a similar workplace discrimination claim involving Lily Ledbetter. The former tire company manager alleged she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work about two decades, but did not find out about the discrimination until she was about to retire. The high court in 2007 ruled against her, saying existing federal law did not allow such lawsuits to be filed so late. Most workers had 180 days to file a claim after the first discriminatory pay decision.

But President Barack Obama, in the first bill he signed when taking office in January, made law the Lily Ledbetter Act. It nullified the high court decision, and said every new paycheck received over the years based on a discriminatory act - regardless of when the first discrimination occurred - would extend the statute of limitations 180 days.

Ginsburg told reporter Joan Biskupic that oral arguments in the 2009 pregnancy case were, "just for me, Ledbetter repeated."

She is still recovering from surgery and post-operation chemotherapy following an early diagnosis in January for pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg has had no outward signs of complications, and has kept up with her busy schedule, both on and off the bench. She has told friends and colleagues privately she is doing well, and plans to be back on the bench for the start of the fall term.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, pictured here with Sen. Russ Feingold, is defending her membership in an all-women's club.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - An all-women's club that counts Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor among its members does not "invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex," she told senators.

The remarks came in a letter - along with a supplemental filing of documents and speeches - Sotomayor gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.

The confirmation hearings begin July 13.

Sotomayor has been reviewing her record with the help of White House lawyers. She was also meeting with six senators Tuesday, courtesy visits with the lawmakers who will decide whether she will become the nation's 111th justice.

The New York federal appeals judge has provided thousands of pages of material to the committee, but some Republican senators had asked for more information, including her participation in the Belizean Grove.

The New York-based professional women's organization describes itself as helping "women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment."

About 115 women are in the group, according to its Web site.

"The Belizean Grove is a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors," a statement on its Web site said. "Who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same."

Its leaders said it was created as a counterpart to the all-male social club the Bohemian Grove, which also has an influential network of leaders.

Sotomayor told senators her group is not purposely exclusive.

"To the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership. It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee," she wrote in her letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She added that men participate in the group's activities, including trips, hosting events and talks.

Sotomayor said that in her opinion, her membership did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, which says judges should not join organizations that discriminate based on sex, religion, race or nationality.

Sources indicated Sotomayor was recommended to the Belizean Grove by Mari Carmen Aponte, a corporate director and former top official at the Puerto Rico
Federal Affairs Administration in Washington.

The only female member of the high court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, belongs to the International Women's Forum, which has an exclusive membership. Former justice Sandra Day O'Connor also participated in similar women's only groups, an issue that was raised during her 1981 confirmation hearings.

Among the Belizean Grove's members are Marion Blakely, former chairwoman of the Federal Aviation Administration; and Edie Weiner, leading futurist consultant and best-selling author.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor admitted years ago she was a "product of affirmative action" when she was admitted to prestigious universities, but defended the contributions she offered as a Hispanic woman to classroom and workplace diversity.

The statements were part of newly-released videos of speeches and panels dating from the mid 1980s that the 54-year-old federal judge provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings to the high court beginning July 13.

The remarks offer often candid insights into the New York native's views on the law, growing up poor in a Bronx housing project, juggling a career and a social life, and her 1980s divorce.

In an early 1990s panel with two other female judges, Sotomayor talked about her educational background and how it helped her in her job as a federal trial judge in Manhattan.

"I am a product of affirmative action," she said. "I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."

She said by using "traditional numbers" from test scores, "it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted."

The female panel members politely objected to her characterizations of how she overcame such obstacles, pointing out she graduated from law school with honors and was on the prestigious law review. Sotomayor countered that was sign test scores alone do not offer the full measure of a person's capability, which she said can be the result often of "cultural biases."

In a 1986 interview with ABC News profiling young female professionals, Sotomayor said she constantly had to deal with subtle forms of discrimination, particularly when it came to public perceptions.

"I found in my experiences that it's not that men are consciously discriminating against promoting woman, but I do believe as people we have self images about what's good," she said. "What's quote-unquote a 'good' lawyer, doctor, or whatever the profession is. And if you're a male who grew up professionally in a male-dominated profession then your image of what a good lawyer is a male image."

Years later on the federal bench, Sotomayor said she encountered similar treatment from older white men particularly, who seemed to speak longer to her than other lawyers. She said the impression she got was that was because she was a woman and a minority.

Sotomayor has been criticized by some conservatives for her remarks on diversity, and her 2001 comment that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In the legal panel she rejected suggestions that minorities should accept "selection by merit alone."

"It is critical that we promote diversity," she added, by giving women and more minorities more opportunities in the law and the judiciary.

"Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means, and in any context, whether it's judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system," she said. "I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench."

As a judge, she offered a variety of thoughts on how a judge should act on the bench.

"I have to unhook myself from my emotional responses and try to stay within my unemotional objective persona," she told a group of Hispanic lawyers in 2000.

She said in 1994 such an attitude can be hard to maintain, when as a trial judge she had to deal with some defendants and their families. "I watch those mothers cry and I can't help but feel their pain. Does that translate into a passion or compassion that affects my judgment? No, but it makes me much more important for me to be careful when I exercise my judgment.

In another panel, she noted that she sometimes spoke to some defendants and their families in Spanish in civil cases, to keep them informed of what she was doing. She said she made sure to translate what she was saying into English.

In several events she said the life of a lawyer was rarely glamorous. In a 1986 interview she admitted her divorce was caused in part by her commitment to her career, and that her subsequent social life had suffered as a result.

And as she grew into her thirties, she lamented her earlier expectations had to that point had not been fully realized. "I'm very happy with where Ii am at this point in my life but I think my expectations were greater in 76," when she graduated from Princeton. "I mean I really expected to turn the world on fire."

Perhaps a Supreme Court nomination in her fifties will give her the personal and professional satisfaction she sought those many years ago.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Obama administration is turning to the Supreme Court as it seeks to block public release of photos apparently depicting abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign soldiers in U.S. custody.

Justice Department lawyers late Thursday told a federal appeals court in New York - the same one on which high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sits - to hold off a ruling ordering release of the material, saying they plan to ask the justices to hear their case.

The government said it would proceed "absent intervening legislation" from Congress.

The "motion to recall" comes after President Barack Obama ordered government lawyers earlier this month to object to the court-ordered release of photos depicting the mistreatment of prisoners held in Iraq and Afghanistan, reversing an earlier White House decision. The Pentagon had been set to release hundreds of photos in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU - which had filed the initial lawsuit for disclosure - has criticized the administration's about-face, saying it "makes a mockery" of Obama's campaign promise of greater transparency and accountability, and damages efforts to hold accountable those responsible for abusing prisoners.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last September the photos must be released. The president now says doing so "would pose an unacceptable risk of danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq." Sotomayor has served on that court since 1998, but was not involved in that particular appeal.

The Senate last week voted for the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act, which would limit the reach of the Freedom of Information Act in this instance. The House could adopt a similar provision next month, as part of an omnibus spending bill.

The government has until June 9 to file its initial appeal with the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan - herself a finalist for the upcoming high court vacancy - told the New York-based appeals court that if Congress passes the disclosure amendment, Defense Secretary Robert Gates could "preclude release under (the Freedom of Information Act ) of the photographs at issue in this case."

In court documents filed earlier this week Gen. David Petraeus - the top U.S. commander in the region - argued public access would have a "destabilizing effect" on Pakistan and other U.S. partners in the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"Newly released photos depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Afghanistan and Iraq would negatively affect the ongoing efforts by Pakistan to counter its internal extremist threat," wrote Petraeus, the chief of U.S. Central Command.

U.S. allies in the region already "struggle with their populations' perceptions that they are merely instruments of the U.S. government and do not have their citizens' best interests at heart," and releasing the images "would likely deal a particularly hard blow" to American efforts in those countries, he stated.

He predicted a likely result of the photos' release would be "civil unrest via spontaneous demonstrations in Pakistan's largest cities."

Forty-four photos are covered in the ACLU request for release, but others could be released under the earlier appeals court ruling.

The justices would be under time pressure to decide whether to accept the government's appeal for review, before the court recesses for the summer in late June. They would not return until late September, when Sotomayor would join them if confirmed.

The case is ACLU v. Department of Defense (06-3140).

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech that a judge's gender and ethnicity does, and should, influence his or her decision-making on the bench.

Sotomayor made the comments on October 26, 2001, at a University of California-Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court.

"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she said at the event, sponsored by the law school. "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," she added. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

A university media affairs representative confirmed the comments to CNN.

President Obama announced Tuesday his intention to nominate Sotomayor to the high court. She would become the first Hispanic and third female justice in Supreme Court history.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Hispanic groups want history to be made with a Latino or Latina justice when President Obama makes his selection to fill the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy.

Women's rights groups hope Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not remain the only female on the high court bench.

Some progressives, including some civil rights groups, privately would like to see the first African-American president choose a nominee of color.

Other constituencies - Asian-Americans, gay and lesbian groups, religious leaders and the legal academic community - also have their "wish lists."

The call from many on the left for diversity on the high court has energized much of the early speculation over whom the president will pick. Legal and political experts, including liberal groups themselves, say a female nominee is a pretty good bet.

Full story

Supreme Court confirmations entail a rare convergence of the highest levels of all three branches of government.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court triggers a rare convergence of the highest levels of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

The President nominates a candidate, the Senate holds confirmation hearings and ultimately votes, and then the Chief Justice traditionally swears in the newest member of the nine-person panel.

Constitutional requirements, long-standing tradition, as well as a heavy mix of partisan politics, speculation, and public theater mark the process.

The White House

The process begins when a justice leaves the bench. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for the president alone to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy.

And unlike federal district and appeals courts, where candidates often emerge from strong home-state input by Congressional members, Supreme Court slots are managed and vetted exclusively by presidential aides and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

Among those who worked in the OLC screening potential candidates was the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, back in 1969.

In charge is the White House Counsel's office, which has traditionally kept a ready "short list" of possible replacements. In its early stages, these closely held lists have typically been informal, unranked, and the individuals on them have rarely been notified they are even on it. The Obama team is currently working off such a list as it narrow the field of candidates.

Once a vacancy occurs, staff begin formally researching a list of candidates: analyzing past judicial experience and rulings; their speeches and writings; personal history; often even speaking with friends and colleagues over personality traits and interests.

Names are added, and taken off the list. The goal is to develop a profile pointing out strengths and weaknesses, benefits and obstacles of the top-tier candidates.

When David Souter - whose Supreme Court seat he will soon vacate - was being considered in 1990, his home state U.S. senator Warren Rudman reportedly told President Bush, "I can assure you that he has no skeletons in his closet."

Timing is important. "Part of it is the paper trail," says David Yalof, author of "Selecting Justices" and a University of Connecticut law professor. "The earlier the name gets out, the earlier the president can frame the choice to his benefit. It puts the Senate opposition on the defensive since they won't have time to rally their side against a particular choice."

That was true when liberal Justice William Brennan resigned unexpectedly in July 1990. Just three days later, President George H.W. Bush nominated Souter, a little known federal appeals judge from New Hampshire.

His lack of a ready paper trail made his confirmation relatively easy, and he has staked out generally liberal positions on the bench. Conservatives have since complained the Bush White House should have taken more time probing Souter before nominating him.

President Reagan also wasted little time when Justice Lewis Powell retired from the bench in June 1987. Less than a week later, outspoken federal appeals judge Robert Bork was tapped. But Bork's conservative record was extensive, and controversial. The Senate rejected him in October, and it was four months before Reagan's second, more moderate choice, Anthony Kennedy, took his place on the Court.

By contrast, President Clinton took five weeks to decide before nominating Stephen Breyer, after Justice Harry Blackmun announced his resignation. But Breyer, backed by a Democratic-controlled Senate, had little trouble during confirmation.

Presidents and their top staff traditionally meet with the top remaining candidates in person, better to judge their personality and temperament. Few presidents would admit to any strict "litmus test" or requirement on a specific legal or political point that a nominee must pass before being chosen.

In her 2003 book, "The Majesty of the Law," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor relates how she found out she was a candidate: a week after Justice Potter Stewart announced his June 1981 retirement, O'Connor got a call from Attorney General William French Smith.

"The metaphorical lightning bolt suddenly seemed as if it might head in my direction," she writes, "and I was about as astonished, though slightly less frightened, as if I had seen a real bolt of lightning making its way straight for me."

She secretly left her Arizona home to meet in person with President Reagan and other officials, and 12 days after that first phone call, Reagan called to offer her the nomination. "I said I would be honored if he did," said O'Connor, who retired in 2005.

The Congress

After the nomination is announced, it is sent in writing to the Senate for consideration, which ultimately will vote on the candidate. The Constitution, in its customary brevity, gives the Senate "advice and consent" power over federal court candidates. Senate leaders, including those on the Judiciary Committee, are typically informed about which candidates are being considered by the White House. The House of Representatives plays no formal role in the nomination process.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings into the candidate, but it was not always so. As O'Connor recalled in a 2003 CNN interview, "For more than half of the history of the Court, the Senate committees never asked the judicial nominees any questions at all. And it wasn't until about the time Justice Brandeis was nominated [in 1916] that the Judiciary Committee in the Senate asked him some questions. And then began the process of actually holding hearings, public hearings on it, in which the nominee was going to be in attendance and respond to questions."

Confirmation hearings, however, were closed to the public until 1929, in an effort to "promote candor," according to the Senate Historian. A total of 148 presidential nominations to the Supreme Court have been sent to the Senate, which rejected 28 of them. All but six of those rejections occurred before the 20th century.

Various individuals and groups are given a chance in open hearings to voice their support or opposition. Then the nominee is brought out to answer a variety of questions. He or she can be asked about specific rulings, or any aspect of their private and professional lives deemed appropriate. Senators often press nominees for their personal and legal views on a variety of hot-button issues, from abortion to affirmative action. The questions typically revolve around a previous Court ruling, such as whether the Miranda warnings, giving criminal suspects the right to remain silent, should be overturned. If the candidate comes prepared, he or she can usually often avoid controversy with reassuring but non-specific words– affirming their judicial independence and their desire to review judicial cases on their strict legal merits, without prejudice or preconceptions.

Colleagues of Souter say during his confirmation hearings, he privately vowed not to discuss how he would rule in future cases, and refused to take a "litmus test" on any issue. He did not have to worry. Souter was considered a master of addressing tough questions by not really answering them, to the open displeasure of a few lawmakers. On whether he would oppose a women's right to an abortion, Souter said, "I have not got any agenda on what should be done with Roe v. Wade, if that case were brought before me. I will listen to both sides of that case. I have not made up my mind. And I do not go on the Court saying I must go one way or I must go another way."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg however in her 1993 confirmation, openly voiced her support for abortion rights. Only three senators wound up voting against her.

The nominee is often assigned a Senate sponsor, someone who can help maneuver through the procedural and personal workings of the legislative process. The senator can serve as a liaison between the nominee, the White

House and the other lawmakers whose votes will ultimately decide everything. Sponsors help prepare nominees for the kinds of questioning he or she will encounter, and informally counts votes, anticipating any problems.

Seven of the last eight Court nominees averaged only about a week being quizzed by the Judiciary panel. The exception was Clarence Thomas. His sponsor was the respected Republican moderate John Danforth, who was called on to defend Thomas' resumé and reputation. His nomination was nearly derailed after Anita Hill, a former colleague of Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came forward to accuse him of sexual harassment. Days of contentious hearings followed, televised live across the nation.

Some senators have privately said it could take up to two months or more to prepare for hearings on the next nominee.

Regardless of how the Judiciary Committee votes, the full Senate is given a chance to vote up or down on the nominee. But Republicans have at their disposal a relatively new tactic, the threat of a filibuster.

President Bush overcame Democratic filibuster threats in 2003 to name two stalled nominees to the federal appeals court: Charles Pickering of Mississippi and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. The president was roundly criticized by the Senate opposition.

President Eisenhower used recess appointments to put three of his nominees immediately on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justices William Brennan and Potter Stewart were later confirmed easily, and the move was not viewed as a partisan political maneuver.

Outside Groups

The American Bar Association has for the past half century evaluated candidates for the federal judiciary, including those nominated to the Supreme Court. A special panel gives ratings of "well qualified," "qualified," and "not qualified." "Professional competence, judicial temperament, and integrity" are among the criteria. These evaluations are provided to the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds confirmation hearings for federal judicial candidates.. These evaluations are not binding, and have been given varying amounts of sway when choosing and considering nominees. In 2001, the Bush Administration announced it would not provide names of judicial candidates to the ABA before their nomination. But the group continued its evaluation process.

Other outside interest groups play a role in the confirmation process– directly and indirectly. Many of these groups are invited to testify during confirmation hearings, lending a partisan flair. During the 1991 hearings for Clarence Thomas, the Republican Black Caucus, Concerned Women for America, and the Professional Bail Agents Association were among those testifying on his behalf. The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Americans for Democratic Action, and the National Black Women's Health Project spoke out against him.

Interest groups have also been readying their own background checks of potential candidates. "We think the American people deserve a serious debate, there are serious questions, we think they deserve serious answers," said Gary Marx of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network. "We are going to engage them [liberals] in that debate and we are going to be using technology to do that, we are going to be using older media techniques like TV and radio, and we are going to make sure that we do that."

Media ads, direct mail and phone solicitations, protests and marches have accompanied some of the more contentious hearings.

The stakes, all agree are enormous.

"It's impossible to overstate the importance of a Supreme Court appointment because of the justices' power, they decide things like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, the meaning of all the laws involving the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, presidential power, wiretapping," said Thomas Goldstein, a leading Washington appellate attorney and co-founder of scotusblog.com. "The list goes on and on and a lot of the cases are decided by 5-4 votes where a single justice makes all the difference in the outcome."

The Final Step

In the end, a successful nominee has one more piece of business: the official swearing in at the Supreme Court building by the Chief Justice. The President, attorney general, solicitor general, selected members of Congress, and the other justices by tradition attend.

The oath goes: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Justices serve as long as they desire, or as the Constitution phrases it, allowing them to "hold their Offices during good Behavior."

A number of potential high court nominees are being vetted by the White House to replace David Souter.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The White House is quietly expanding its list of Hispanic candidates for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, sources close to the selection process tell CNN.

Colorado-based federal District Judge Christine Arguello is among those being vetted by a small senior-level group of White House officials. She told a Colorado newspaper this week she was recently contacted by administration staff and agreed to have her personal and professional records examined in connection with the high court seat being vacated by Justice David Souter.

It was unclear how much serious consideration the 53-year-old former law professor and private attorney is being given, but administration officials say they are considering a diverse group of people for the seat, including judges, politicians and academics.

About a half dozen candidates are believed to be on the short list, sources say, and President Barack Obama this week has already met privately with at least one of them - Chicago-based federal Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood.

Arguello, a native of Buena Vista, Colorado, has been on the federal bench only since October, named by President George W. Bush in his final months in office. She had strong bipartisan support from her home state senators, Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat who is now interior secretary.

Arguello was a deputy to Salazar when he was the state's attorney general, and sources say Salazar personally pushed the White House to have her considered for the high court.

Salazar also is being considered for the Souter seat, but sources say he is not among the top names on the unofficial list.

Hispanic and other groups met privately with House officials last week to discuss the high court nomination, and were told aggressive public outreach on behalf of certain candidates would not be necessary, sources said. Several prominent leaders of the community have quietly urged the White House in recent weeks to expand its list of Hispanic judges and lawmakers.

"We have a wide array of experienced Latino and Latina attorneys, professionals, judges, who are ready to serve," said Estuardo Rodriguez, co-founder of Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary Coalition. "It is our responsibility as well to make sure that we are presenting these names to the administration for consideration across the board."

Officials quietly confirmed last week another surprise name was under serious consideration, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, the only Democrat and only Hispanic the seven-member state bench.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is thought to be one of the top-tier candidates for the high court job. Sources say she has not yet met with the president, but is expected to do so in coming days. The 54-year-old judge is of Puerto Rican descent.

Sources say Obama has long been committed to creating a diverse pool of candidates for federal court vacancies, but also conceded the White House sees political advantages by ensuring several Hispanic candidates receive greater public exposure.

In other developments, Gov. Deval Patrick is no longer a contender for the high court seat, sources said. He has told supporters recently he remains committed to serving out his current term in Massachusetts. He is an old friend of Obama, and both attended Harvard Law School.

Some Democrats and White House aides have been quietly promoting a former Bush administration official for the high court seat. James Comey was deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005 and was an outspoken opponent of the administration's domestic wiretap and surveillance program. That won him praise from some liberal and civil liberties groups.

Comey, 48, has no judicial experience but some officials like his law-and-order credentials and his willingness to take tough stands on important issues. He is now a corporate lawyer at defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sources concede that as a father of five young children, he may be unwilling to leave his lucrative position so soon to return to a government salary.

There has been no word on when Obama would be prepared to announce his selection, but officials say it will not be before next week.

President Obama met today with a potential Supreme Court nominee.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A federal appeals court judge from Chicago has met privately with the president to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, a source close to the selection process tells CNN.

Diane Wood, who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was in town Wednesday to attend an annual conference on judicial independence at Georgetown Law Center. When questioned by a reporter, she refused to discuss whether she was to sit down with the president.

"I'm not answering anything on that," she told CNN. The 58-year-old judge is not on the official program of speakers at the conference, sponsored by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but she was in the audience for a morning session.

Another leading candidate for the vacancy to be created by Justice David's Souter's pending retirement is Solicitor General Elena Kagan. She gave opening remarks at the one-day session, talking about the importance of her role representing the federal government before the the Supreme Court. Souter later addressed the gathering with a call for greater citizen understanding and appreciation for the role courts play in society.

Sources say Wood is among the leading candidates to become the nation's 111th justice, along with Kagan and New York-based federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor, among others.

Wood, who also teaches part time at the University of Chicago, abruptly canceled her Tuesday evening civil procedure class without explanation, a source said.

Among leading non-judicial candidates being considered is Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Sources close to the selection process said she, too, has met privately with the president, when she was in town earlier this week to participate in a White House announcement on fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

Considered one of the sharpest minds on the Chicago, Illinois-based appeals court, Wood has known Obama from his days as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago. They have remained casual, but not close, friends since then. She will turn 59 in July and is among the oldest candidates being given serious scrutiny for the high court.

The White House has given no official indication of when Obama will make his choice, but sources say an announcement is expected by month's end.

A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. may some detainees indefinitely.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The president retains the power to hold indefinitely and without charges some accused terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military detention camp, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision by District Judge John Bates said those prisoners the United States deems responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or those who are or were al Qaeda or Taliban members can be detained. But he limited the Obama administration's power to imprison those who it says "support" terror or enemy forces.

The decision comes as the White House and Congress face a showdown over what to do with hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners when the facility at the U.S. naval base in Cuba is closed, a move Obama has promised will occur before February. Many lawmakers opposed housing the prisoners in the United States.

"The president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks," wrote Bates in an opinion issued late Tuesday.

"The president also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces," the Washington-based judge said.

Among the top-level prisoners in custody at the Guantanamo Bay facility is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Office of Administration does not need to make it's records public.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A unit of the White House that was accused of misplacing perhaps millions of office e-mail's does not have to make its records public, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision was a victory for the Bush administration, which sought to shield its internal communications.

The three-judge panel here concluded the Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) over disclosure of its documents because "it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the President and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial and independent authority."

The latest opinion stems from a ongoing lawsuit by private groups over allegedly missing electronic messages, and allegations the White House failed to properly monitor its internal communications among staff.

The issue has been a thorny legal and political one for former Bush officials, who in the administration's final days in January were transferring more than 300 million e-mail messages and 25,000 boxes of documents to the National Archives.

Those officials acknowledged in court papers they had discovered about 14-million emails that were previously unaccounted for, and hundreds of thousands more that were later recovered on backup tapes.

The time period in question includes the start of the Iraq War, as well as the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative. She is the wife of former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who publicly criticized the administration's justification for invading Iraq. The couple sued, claiming White House officials retaliated for Wilson's public stance by revealing her identity to reporters.

A new email system was installed during President Bush's first term, but the hardware did not initially preserve the records for archiving, a problem officials said they did not discover until 2005. Officials revealed they had found about 3,500 pages of documents concerning problems with the internal e-mail system.

The White House had initially agreed to turn over the documents but asked that the scope and timetable be changed, arguing officials could not produce the material within the deadlines of the FOIA. The main plaintiff, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) then sued, accusing Bush officials of trying to stall. They also said the Executive Branch had granted hundreds of similar FOIA requests for years.

A federal district court judge ruled against the private group last June. The appeals judges in Tuesday's decisions were all named by Republican presidents: Judges David Sentelle, Thomas Griffith, and Raymond Randolph.

The Obama administration was not involved in this case but has backed the previous occupants of the White House in a separate lawsuit to recover any missing electronic messages.

CREW and other groups now have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Administration (08-5188).

Hispanic groups are courting President Obama to name the first Hispanic judge to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - When it comes to its membership, the history of the Supreme Court's 220 years falls short of many historic firsts: All but two of the 110 justices over the centuries have been men; all but two have been white.

Now, many in the Hispanic community say it is long past due one of their own should sit on the most prestigious bench. They may soon get the chance.

President Barack Obama is just days, perhaps, from naming his choice to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Justice David Souter, and sources close to the selection process say he is seriously considering several Hispanic candidates.

"Latinos are running out of patience" said Ruben Navarrette, a syndicated columnist and CNN.com contributor. " For 20 years I've been hearing the drumbeat from Latinos ... waiting for a Latino on the Supreme Court."

The Hispanic vote was key to Obama's November victory, and now that part of his diverse coalition sees a golden opportunity.

"We're getting calls and e-mails from people all over the country," said Estuardo Rodriguez, co-founder of Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary Coalition. "That sentiment goes all the way from the extreme that it has to be - has to be - a Latino or Latina justice, to those that say yes, we want a Latino or Latina justice, but if it doesn't happen, perhaps next time. So it runs the gamut.

"But I think for the most part it is people on that other extreme who are really excited and really do feel that this is the time to do it."

The coalition was among several mostly liberal advocacy groups that met privately last week with White House officials. Sources say the strategy from the Obama team was to calm any anxiety among progressives over who the president would nominate.

"These groups were urged to kind of hold their fire, not make public demands on the choice, not engage the right just yet," said one source. "They were told: Trust us."

Competing coalitions say they would abide - to a point.

"We do understand that the administration has asked to keep the door open on some of the discussions, and how important it is to keep in touch for the support that we can give any nominee," Rodriguez said. "Our concern from the very beginning has been that the nominee, regardless of ethnicity, is that it is someone who can represent the interests of all Americans, and specifically as it relates to the civil rights challenges we face today."

Leading Hispanic groups have been careful not to create the perception they are demanding a Latino or Latina be nominated, nor that they are seeking direct political payback for their election support.

"Hispanic advocacy groups are actually very sophisticated about this," said Thomas Goldstein, an appellate attorney and co-founder of scotusblog.com. "They are aware of the prospect they may push the White House too far. They haven't laid it all on the line and demanded an appointment. They haven't claimed a right to an appointment. But they do think it is very important to impress on the White House how tremendously important this historic moment is."

The White House has publicly discouraged advocacy groups in general from "lobbying" over the Supreme Court, saying such efforts would not be helpful to their cause.

Perhaps the most talked-about candidate of all the possibles is Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge with the 2nd Circuit in New York. She has been mentioned as a front-runner by sources close to Obama for months, and was scheduled to meet soon in person with Obama to discuss the vacancy.

The 54-year-old New York native is of Puerto Rican descent. Her personal story is compelling. Her father died when she was a child, and her mother raised young Sonia and her brother while working as a nurse. They lived in a Bronx public housing project. Given a foundation in the importance of education, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton and later Yale Law School. She was named to the federal bench first by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 as a trial judge, then elevated to the appeals court by President Bill Clinton.

Her prominence in discussions about the Supreme Court seat has led to a good deal of public attention, both favorable and not. Friends and colleagues praise the judge's life story and impeccable legal credentials. But she has suffered through recent stinging criticism in the media and blogs from both the left and right over perceived - some defenders say invented - concerns about her temperament and intellect.

Some Hispanic groups expressed concern after a skit last week on "The Late Show with David Letterman" compared Sotomayor with a noisy Spanish-speaking judge on a popular TV courtroom show that settles petty legal disputes.

"Clearly she has some controversy around her," said Gary Marx of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network. "She has even been attacked from the left for some areas considering her temperament, and how she treated people from the bench."

Sotomayor was cited for ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who brought suit for "reverse" discrimination after being denied promotions. The city had tossed out results of the tests after too few African-Americans and other minorities qualified for open captain and lieutenant positions. The Supreme Court took up the case and will likely issue a ruling next month.

A new Judicial Confirmation Network online video criticizes her decision. "Every American understands the sacrifices firefighters make," said the ad. "But in Sotomayor's court, the content of your character is not as important as the color of your skin."

Many Hispanic leaders say if Obama believes Sotomayor is the best candidate, he should choose her, regardless of the political consequences. "There is always going to be another argument" against choosing a Hispanic, Navarrette said. "Just as there were argument against Sandra Day O'Connor," who was named the first woman justice in 1981.

"Barack Obama simply has to bite the bullet, pick the best person and weather the storm."

Other leading Hispanic candidates include Los Angeles-based federal appeals Judge Kim Wardlaw; California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno; federal District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago; and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority in the United States, now making up nearly one in six residents.

If the current vacancy is not filled by a Latino, or a Latina, then what? Some White House officials believe the president may get at least two more appointments.

"Hispanic groups are being very vocal right now," said Goldstein, "but they have told the White House privately that they are at the very least concerned that at some point during President Obama's presidency they do get an appointment, even if it's not this one."

That worries some people, who say naming the nation's first Hispanic justice now would bring immediate and long-term social and political benefits.

"We (Hispanics) are submersed in the American culture, but the only way you know that is if you're exposed to them," Navarrette said. "And this a good opportunity. What are we supposed to wait, another 10 to 15 years? Is there a guarantee the longer we wait the ignorance is somehow going to get diminished? It's only going to get diminished when someone breaks that barrier."

The Supreme Court rejected appeals by two California counties which are refusing to accommodate Preposition 213, which legalized medical marijuana use in the state.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court sidestepped Monday the politically explosive debate over whether federal drug laws trump the use of so-called legalized "medical marijuana."

The decision leaves unclear how local districts must comply if a state law, passed by referendum, allowing the limited use of medical marijuana conflicts with the federal government's tough anti-narcotic stance.

The justices Monday rejected appeals from two California counties, which have balked at accommodating Proposition 213, which legalized cannabis for pain-suffering patients with a prescription.

At issue is whether the federal Controlled Substances Act - which prohibits pot possession for any purpose - supersedes state medical laws, when it comes to enforcement and liability for local districts. A California appeals court found federal oversight was limited since it was designed "to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

If the Supreme Court ever decides to tackle the issue, observers believe the justices will likely insist the Obama administration weigh in with its views of the state-federal tug-of-war.

California is one of 13 states legalizing pot to be grown, distributed, sold and taken for personal "medicinal" use. Users include former television host Montel Williams, who has multiple sclerosis.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties refused to issue identification cards for such patients, prompting a lawsuit from individuals and marijuana advocacy groups. The ACLU is representating the lead plaintiff, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Many ill Californians who use it say marijuana can help provide relief in the treatment of cancer, AIDS, chronic pain, glaucoma, and arthritis, among other ailments. It is most commonly smoked for such purposes.

The voluntary use of identification cards was designed to ensure certified patients and their doctors were not arbitrarily arrested for pot possession or distribution. The state Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act require counties to provide applications for those who request the cards.

The federalism conflict has been tying up courts for years, and those on both sides of the issue have urged the high court to issue definitive ruling on the overall constitutionality of state medical marijuana laws.

The Supreme Court has previously said federal narcotics laws do not conflict with state autonomy, but that drug enforcement agents retain the power to arrest those who sell or use marijuana, even for state-sanctioned medical use.

After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began raids that same year against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

"I need to use cannabis every two hours," Raich, a mother from Oakland, told CNN four years ago. "If I don't medicate every two hours, I become debilitated."

Shortly aftreward, 6-3 high court majority rejected an appeal from Raich, saying the federal government can prohibit the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

The court's ruling turned on the long-standing issue of the federal government's power to regulate trade, illegal or otherwise. "The case," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens, "comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the [federal anti-drug] Act's findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana," federal power held sway in such cases.

Stevens also noted patients could pursue an appeal on individual due process claims, which were not an issue before the Court then. "But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," he added.

A federal appeals court two years ago rejected Raich's latest appeal on her due process rights, noting "Although changes in state law reveal a clear trend towards the protection of medical marijuana use, we hold that the asserted right has not yet gained the traction on a national scale to be deemed fundamental."

The same San Francisco-based court last month upheld a 10-year mandatory minimum federal sentence for Bryan Epis, convicted of drug conspiracy. He said he was growing 458 marijuana plants for legal use by himself and fellow patients. Prosecutors said he was a simple drug dealer looking to profit from illegal narcotics.

The current high court cases are San Diego County v. San Diego NORML (08-887); San Bernardino County v. California (08-897).

Justice Souter has announced that he is retiring from the Supreme Court and President Obama is searching for a replacement.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The search for a Supreme Court nominee has been trimmed to about half a dozen candidates by top White House officials, and a decision by President Obama will likely be announced by month's end, two sources close to the selection process tell CNN.

Among the finalists are federal appeals court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan. The sources, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak by the White House, say women make up all but one of the top candidates currently being given serious scrutiny.

Also on the list, a source said, was California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno. The 60-year-old Los Angeles native was not among the early favorites mentioned by legal analysts and the media. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had hinted some of the names being considered would fly under the he political radar. He had been a federal trial judge before his 2001 appointment to California's top court.

A new round of vetting their records is underway by a small group of top staff led by the White House Counsel's office. Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser David Axelrod are also extensively involved.

Sources say some administration officials are pushing for an announcement before the Memorial Day weekend, when Congress goes on recess for a week. A bipartisan group of senators met in private with Obama Wednesday about the upcoming vacancy.

"My impression was he [Obama] doesn't want to let it take too long," Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee told reporters after the meeting.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the committee, which will hold confirmation hearings, refused to offer a timetable for consideration of the nominee. He said that will depend on how soon a choice is named. White House Press Gibbs said the president is hopeful hearings and a vote by the full Senate will be completed by the monthlong August recess. Leahy said he expected the next justice to be ready when the high court returns to work in late September.

Several names on the short list have no judicial experience, say sources, including Kagan. Others with political experience on the short list include Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Sen. Claire McKaskill (D-Missouri) was also receiving serious consideration in recent weeks, said sources.

Leading candidates from the federal bench that have been vetted are appeals court judges Merrick Garland from Washington, Ann Claire Williams from Chicago, and Kim Wardlaw from Los Angeles. Sources say the list of finalists may expand depending on face-to-face meetings Obama will have with the current top-tier candidates. The White House has given no public indication whether those personal meetings have concluded. Gibbs has hinted a surprise or two may be on the current working list.

The nominee would replace Justice David Souter who announced he will step down after 19 years on the bench, when the high court term recesses for the summer in late June.

Three of the finalists have mentioned for months as leading contenders for a vacant Supreme Court, long before Obama took office.

Sotomayor - The 54-year-old judge on the 2nd Circuit U-S Court of Appeals would be the first Hispanic justice. She was named a district court judge by President Bush in 1992, then elevated to her current seat by President Clinton. Supporters say that– along with what they call her moderate-liberal views– would give her some bipartisan backing in the Senate. But she has suffered through recent stinging criticism in the media and blogs by those on both the left and right, over perceived concerns about her temperament and intellect. Some Hispanic groups expressed concern after a skit last week on "The Late Show with David Letterman" compared Sotomayor with a noisy Spanish-speaking judge on a popular TV courtroom show that settles petty legal disputes.

Kagan - As the administration's top lawyer when arguing before the Supreme Court, her recent confirmation hearing was a breeze, with leading conservative lawyers voicing their support. She has been touted for her consensus-building skills when recently leading Harvard Law School. Just 49, she has no judicial experience, which some insiders say can be viewed as both a political asset or liability. Sources say Kagan's profile has risen somewhat among White House officials looking at the pros and cons she would bring. Some conservative legal activists privately believe she would be more "reasonable" in her views on executive power than other contenders.

Wood - Considered one of the sharpest minds on the Chicago-based appeals court, she also teaches part time at the University of Chicago, where Wood met former fellow instructor Obama. They have remained casual, but not close friends, since then. At 59, she is among the oldest candidates being given serious scrutiny for the high court.

Sources say the age of the nominee will be a key selection criteria, since justices have lifetime appointments and the longer they serve the greater the potential legacy for the president. "It isn't the main criteria, but certainly the president is looking for a justice who will be an intellectual force on the court for many years to come," said one source close to the selection process.

Obama has told colleagues privately he has great respect for the records of federal appeals judges like David Tatel, Diana Motz, Jose Cabranes, and Amalya Kearse, as well as constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, but is aware all are at least 65. President Bush's two successful 2005 choices– Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito– are still in their fifties.

The search for a new Supreme Court justice is moving ahead quickly at the White House.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The search for a new Supreme Court justice is moving ahead quickly at the White House with senior staff ready to begin paring down a list of finalists to less than half a dozen candidates, two sources with knowledge of the selection process tell CNN.

President Obama could begin meeting with some of the potential nominees as early as this weekend, said the sources, who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs indicated earlier this week those meetings had not yet begun.

Since the candidates would have already had pre-screening interviews with staff led by the White House Counsel's Office, the Obama meetings would most likely not be a grilling about constitutional philosophy, but rather friendly chats, the sources said.

Unlike many past presidents, Obama is already closely involved in the selection process, given his background as a constitutional law professor, the sources said. Vice President Joe Biden is also playing a key role, given his long service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold the nomination hearings.

After face-to-face meetings, Obama would offer his initial thoughts and may seek for more information, or possibly ask to speak with more candidates. Sources close to the process, said the president will also likely reach outside his inner circle and members of Congress, to get the views of independent legal types. One such person mentioned is Charles Ogletree, a longtime respected professor at Harvard Law School, and a mentor to Obama.

While some administration officials hope for an announcement by Memorial Day, sources tell CNN that a small, senior group of White House officials are taking a careful, meticulous approach, looking closely at each candidate's qualifications.

As far who is on the short list, the sources said the Obama vetting team is aware of recent heavy public pushback against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, considered by many to be a leading candidate. Conservative groups Monday highlighted on-camera remarks from 2005 where the 54-year-old federal appeals court judge said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Then laughing, she said, "I know, I know, this is on tape."

Conservative blogs have cast the remarks as revealing Sotomayor's support for "judicial activism" or legislating from the bench.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor and writer for The New Republic, titled his piece this week, "The Case Against Sotomayor," quoting anonymous sources who know her as questioning her smarts and temperament.

Three names mentioned by sources as getting serious attention are U.S. Appeals Court Judges Diane Wood and Ann Claire Williams; and U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo. Each of these judges are Chicago-based, viewed by many as relatively moderate liberals, and whose judicial outlook Obama may find appealing. Also Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is being looked at closely as a candidate outside of the judicial class.

Legal sources continue to say women top the list. "There is a deep diverse bench of highly qualified women candidates, so to speak," said one source. But those sources caution a range of candidates are being considered– male and female.

On the political side, some conservative advocacy groups are quietly urging GOP senators to focus less on abortion and more on same-sex marriage and homosexual rights as the issue to highlight in confirmation hearings. Many conservative activists believe with recent news about several states pushing to give greater rights to homosexual couples, the issue could have greater short-term gain to rally their base.

Several factors are being considered in a Supreme Court candidate, White House officials say, including diversity, experience, and age.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Barack Obama has begun reaching out to senators who will play a key role in the confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee, who the White House hopes will be seated before the court starts its next session.

The president is aware of a "fairly tight timeline" to nominate a candidate in time for the Senate to hold hearings and vote, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday. The next session will begin in
early October.

Obama got his first opportunity to have an impact on the nation's highest court when Justice David Souter announced Friday he will leave the bench after
19 years.

The president wants to have a nominee in place and "get something done before Congress gets out of town in August," Gibbs said. That would mean the Senate would vote on the nominee shortly after the August recess ends around Labor Day, if not before, he said. He later clarified his remarks, saying that by late July "this process has to be a decent ways down the field."

But the White House was offering no predictions on when a candidate will be named.

"The process has begun - and began some time ago - to go through prospective and potential candidates, to begin to review the history and the background and their experience," Gibbs said. "But I don't have a specific timeline." No candidates have yet been interviewed by Obama, he said.

Obama called Sens. Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter of the Judiciary Committee, which will review the nominee's record and hold confirmation hearings. Hatch, a Republican, warned the White House on Sunday about selecting a "judicial activist" to the high court. Specter, a moderate, last week switched to the Democratic Party.

Several factors are being considered in a Supreme Court candidate, White House officials say, including diversity, experience, and age.

"You always assume, rightly so, that whomever you choose is going to have a significant impact on the court for quite some time," said Gibbs. "This is one of nine. And I think you have to assume that whomever you pick is somebody that you believe will have great weight on the court for a long time to come."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito - President George W. Bush's 2005 picks - are both still in their 50s. Justice Clarence Thomas, named by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, turns 61 in June. The other justices besides Souter are all in their 70s or 80s.

But Gibbs emphasized again the main qualities Obama will be looking for: "Somebody that understands the rule of law, somebody that has a record of excellence and integrity, somebody who also understands how these opinions affect everyday lives, and will exercise some common sense."

The Supreme Court has ordered a Pennsylvania federal appeals court to take another look at the case between CBS and the FCC.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The case of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national television - and subsequent fines against CBS - will be re-examined at the order of the Supreme Court.

The justices' Monday sent the case back to a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that had thrown out a $550,000 government fine against the broadcast network and its affiliates for airing the incident during halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl. The pop singer's breast was briefly exposed during a performance with singer Justin Timberlake.

After viewer complaints and national media attention, the Federal Communications Commission said the Jackson incident was obscene. In addition to CBS Inc., 20 of its affiliates also were fined.

Congress quickly reacted at the time to the visual shocker by increasing the limit on indecency fines tenfold, up to $325,000 per violation per network. And it said each local affiliate that aired such incidents also could be punished by the same amount.

But the federal appeals court concluded the communications commission had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously."

The Supreme Court's action marks the second time in recent days that it has dealt with cases involving broadcast standards. Last week, the justices narrowly upheld the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to punish networks for airing profanity.

The government clampdown on obscene images and words began in 2003. Enforcement of the law, as well as fines and sanctions for the incidents, have been put on hold while the cases are being argued.

The television networks say their scripted shows no longer air nudity, racy images or expletives, even after 10 p.m., when some potentially vulgar words are permitted.

They worry, however, about unplanned, often spontaneous indecent or profane incident at live events, such as awards shows and sporting events.

Company officials say such programs are often on a five-second delay, and censors are on hand to bleep any offensive language. But some indecent words can slip through, they admit, and they want to be protected from heavy government fines.

Critics call that laughable. "This past summer, CBS edited into a show that had to go through multiple reviews, by multiple people in the organization, the F-word," said Tim Winter, who heads the Parents Television Council, and is supporting the Federal Communications Commission's efforts. His group advocates "responsible" programming, and warns parents about questionable program content. The show in question was "Big Brother 10," a taped series.

The Jackson incident was not on a five-second delay.

In the case involving profane language, the high court concluded 5-4 that the communications commission has the authority to sanction broadcast TV networks that air isolated incidents of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives."

But the justices in that case refused to decide whether the commission's policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It ruled only on their enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a federal appeals court.

The "wardrobe malfunction" case is FCC v. CBS Corp. (08-653).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only female high court justice. Women likely will be high on the Souter successor list.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A process begun months ago among White House lawyers to quietly compile a list of possible Supreme Court picks has accelerated with word Justice David Souter plans to step down form the bench later this year.

The nominee would give President Obama an immediate opportunity to place his stamp on the nation's highest court, and perhaps to begin cementing his legacy with a lifetime appointment to that bench.

Legal sources say Obama's legal team will begin refocusing what had been an aggressive effort to fill federal vacancies on lower federal court seats. Now their attention will be directed into a search for Souter's replacement.

Administration officials have been working closely with key senators and Democratic legal advisers on possible choices.

"The [Obama] White House and the Justice Department certainly have people there already thinking about the issues, compiling lists, starting to vet the backgrounds of those candidates," said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal expert and a legal adviser during the Obama transition.

Full story

Justice Souter plans to tell his colleagues about his retirement on Friday, a source tells CNN.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to inform his colleagues Friday of his intention to retire from the bench, a legal source said.

Souter is expected to discuss his decision during a weekly closed-door meeting.

Souter wanted to notify his associates in private before making a public announcement, the source said.

There was no immediate indication of when Souter officially would inform the White House.

Full story

Conservatives say Supreme Court Justice David Souter, nominated by a Republican, was a dissapointment.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - David who? was the initial reaction of Americans to a little-known judge from New Hampshire named in 1990 to sit on the nation's highest court. Even the nominee didn't know what to think when President George H.W. Bush called him with the news, telling supporters, "I was in a state of virtual shock."

David Hackett Souter had only been on a federal appeals court bench for a few months when he was tapped to replace liberal lion William Brennan, a choice many Republicans hoped would move the high court rightward and reshape American law.

"I think that is good news for all of us who are committed to the Constitution of the United States," said President Bush. "He'll be a superb justice for the Supreme Court."

In reality, Souter was in many ways a typical, old-fashioned Yankee Republican - a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak. Whether he became more liberal in his views after joining the Supreme Court, as many conservatives believe, may depend on your politics.

"Justice Souter will never escape the label of having been an enormous disappointment, a traitor to the right," said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington appellate attorney and founder of Scotusblog.com. "It instead created the opportunity to entrench a series of more liberal rulings. So he became the right's greatest failure and we will forever hear the mantra 'No More Souters' from conservatives."

Colleagues dismiss suggestions that liberal colleagues on the bench helped move Souter to the left.

Full story

Related: Souter to retire, source says

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A source close to Supreme Court Justice David Souter has confirmed to CNN he plans to retire from the court after the term recesses in late June. A court spokesperson said tonight the justice would have no comment on the report.

The 5-4 vote was a victory for Bush-era officials who pushed fines and sanctions when racy images and language reached the airwaves.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on broadcast TV networks that air isolated cases of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives."

The 5-4 vote was a victory for Bush-era officials who pushed fines and sanctions when racy images and language reached the airwaves.

Controversial words have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks in the past six years - dating back to when the Federal Communications Commission began considering a stronger, no-tolerance policy.

"It suffices the new policy is permissible under the statute, there are good reasons for it, and the agency believes it to be better," said Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the conservative majority.

The high court, however, refused to decide whether the commission's policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It ruled only on the agency's enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a federal appeals court.

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox were parties in the case. A federal appeals court in New York had ruled in their favor, calling the commission's policy "arbitrary and capricious."

The commission then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking restoration of its power to penalize the networks airing "indecent" speech, even if it is broadcast only one time, and even if it does not describe a specific sex act.

The high court agreed to some extent. "Even when used as an expletive, the F-word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning," wrote Scalia.

Such language is heard with greater, albeit varying, frequency on cable television, the Internet, and satellite radio, which do not use public airwaves. But the federal government is charged with responding to viewer complaints when "indecent" language reaches broadcast television and radio, which is subject to greater regulation. That is especially relevant during daytime and early evening hours, when larger numbers of families and younger viewers may be watching.

The communications commission formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal.

The changes became known as the "Golden Globes Rule," for singer Bono's 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase "really, really, f-ing brilliant."

The commission specifically cited celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie for potty-mouth language in the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired on Fox. Richie, in an apparent scripted moment said, "Have you ever tried to get cow s–t out of a Prada purse? It's not so f-ing simple."

The complaint against ABC involved "NYPD Blue," a now-canceled scripted police drama, and the CBS' complaint involved "The Early Show," a news and interview program.

Enforcement of the law had been put on hold while the case was being argued.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said "customs of speech" made the Federal Communications Commission's position unworkable.

"As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent," he wrote. "But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency."

The Supreme Court first ventured into the broadcast speech debate in 1978, when it ruled as indecent a monologue by comedian George Carlin on society's taboo surrounding "seven dirty words." The bit had received some radio airplay. Stevens, 89, was the author of that opinion.

Time Warner - the parent company of CNN - filed an amicus brief supporting the networks fined by the communications commission. The company is part owner of the CW broadcast network, and operates several cable networks.

The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations (07-582).

The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by four British men formerly held at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dismissed again Friday by a federal appeals court.

The three-judge panel agreed with assertions made by both the Bush and Obama administration that the men were not entitled to relief in federal courts because the prisoners were foreigners held outside the United States.

The men claim they were physically abused, tortured and denied their religious freedom rights.

At issue is what rights non-citizens have to contest in U.S. courts their treatment by the U.S. military during a time of war.

The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision last year denying the British prisoners' claims. The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

But in their 11-page ruling, the three appeals court judges reiterated their view that U.S. officials could not be held responsible for any mistreatment because "there was no authority for - and ample authority against - plaintiffs' asserted rights at the time of the alleged misconduct."

The four British Muslim prisoners claim they were held and interrogated "under appalling conditions" in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo. They claim beatings, painful shackling and humiliating treatment over their Muslim faith, such as interrupted prayers and being forced to shave their beards.

They sued Pentagon officials and officers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but their claims have been repeatedly rejected. The men said the Pentagon officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - authorized and carried out the mistreatment. The military denies the claims.

The appeals court said the U.S. officials should not be held responsible for lawsuits over their conduct, in part because the four prisoners have since been released from custody. "We do not require government employees to anticipate future developments in constitutional law," said the three judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Republican presidents.

"At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights," the court said.

The Obama administration filed a brief in the case supporting the Pentagon officials, saying that holding such officials liable for developments in the future could affect their ability to make appropriate policy decisions.

The attorneys for Shaqif Rasul, one of the four former prisoners, had successfully argued an earlier, separate case that reached the Supreme Court in 2004, the year Rasul was freed and returned to England.

In that case, the justices said the detainees had a basic right to challenge their confinement in federal court.

"The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens," the high court said in its 6-3 ruling. That right was reaffirmed in a ruling last June involving another Guantanamo prisoner, Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene.

Federal courts in Washington have since been flooded by a variety of appeals from current and former Guantanamo prisoners.

The case ruled on Friday is Rasul v. Myers (06-5209).

Recent cast has Supreme Court justices deciding when race considerations are proper to ensure a diverse workplace.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority expressed varying degrees of concern Wednesday over a civil rights case brought by 20 firefighters, most of them white, who claim reverse discrimination in promotions.

The suit was filed in response to New Haven, Connecticut, officials' decision to throw out results of promotional exams that they said left too few minorities qualified.

At issue is whether the city intentionally discriminated, in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The high court is being asked to decide whether there is a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere where an African-American occupies the White House.

As is true in many hot-button social issues, Wednesday's arguments fell along familiar ideological lines, with most justices expressing clear views on when race considerations are proper to ensure a diverse workplace.

Full story