FLORIDA: Mike Huckabee is reportedly set to endorse Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist in the Republican Senate primary.

ILLINOIS: The Burris story continues… The Chicago Tribune: "Beleaguered U.S. Sen. Roland Burris added another layer Wednesday to the evolving story of his appointment, saying he was only trying to 'placate' then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother to keep his Senate prospects alive knowing no campaign money would ever change hands. The latest detail came as Burris spent the opening of a two-day Downstate tour offering his explanation of what was on covert recordings made by federal agents investigating Blagojevich in November. Burris said the transcript shows that he was not involved in "pay to play" because he told Robert Blagojevich, the former governor's brother, that if he donated and got the Senate appointment, 'that means I bought it.'"

Video: Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., joins "Hardball" on the phone to discuss FBI wiretaps that reveal Burris talked with Rod Blagojevich's brother about the possibility of throwing a fundraiser for the former Illinois governor at the same time he was lobbying for the vacant Senate seat.

"But the transcript also shows Burris discussing various ways that he might join in fundraising events hosted by others or contribute money through Burris' law partner and current lawyer, Timothy Wright. On Wednesday, Burris said those discussions were an attempt to deceive Robert Blagojevich to keep himself in the mix for a Senate appointment and that no donations were ever forthcoming."  
 
PENNSYLVANIA: Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak "intends" to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic primary. In a note to potential fundraisers, Sestak also sets a date of June 30th (an FEC quarterly deadline) as an important one for the credibility of his campaign. 
 
The Washington Post's Cillizza adds, "Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak is planning to run against Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010 but those familiar with his thinking caution no announcement is imminent and that he could well change his mind on the race."

"In a Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group poll obtained by Roll Call, Specter led Sestak, 56 percent to 16 percent, among a sample self-identified Democratic primary voters in the Keystone State surveyed during the first week in May."

From NBC's Mark Murray

According to Hotline On Call, newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter is going to join President Obama at tonight's fundraiser in Los Angeles.

"Specter will join Pres. Obama at the Beverly Hilton in LA for a DNC fundraiser... It marks his first outing with Obama -- and with Jennifer Hudson, we should note. The Academy Award winner will sing at the event. As will Earth, Wind and Fire."

From NBC's Mark Murray and Carroll Ann Mears

On his radio program today, Rush Limbaugh tried to dismiss GOP fears about alienating Latino voters if they oppose Sonia Sotomayor.

When Clarence Thomas was nominated, Limbaugh asked, did the Democrats worry about angering the black vote when the opposed him?

Well, it seems they did. Back in 1991, when Thomas was confirmed -- by a 52-48 vote -- Democrats controlled the Senate, and 10 of them voted for Thomas. And eight of those Dems hailed from the South, where there are plenty of African-American voters:
Boren (OK)
Breaux (LA)
Fowler (GA)
Nunn (GA)
Hollings (SC)
Johnston (LA)
Robb (VA)
Shelby (AL)

Without those southern Democratic votes, Thomas wouldn't have won confirmation. 

From NBC's Harry Enten

Appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) continues to be locked in a tight fight for re-election in 2010 -- and new polling shows she's have a difficult time with Republican former Gov. George Pataki.

National Republicans are hoping that Pataki will run, but he has given no indication he will seek the seat.

According to a the latest Siena College poll, Gillibrand and Pataki are tied 43%-43%, which is basically unchanged from last month's 41%-41%. More troubling for Gillibrand is that 39% of voters prefer to vote for somebody else, while only 27% say they would vote to re-elect her.

She continues to suffer from a lack of name recognition with 46% of New York voters having no opinion of the junior senator. Of the voters that do hold an opinion of her, 33% view her favorably, while 21% view her unfavorably.

Pataki is experiencing his highest approval ratings since March of 2006. New Yorkers view him favorably by a 53%-36% margin.

"The election is well over a year away, and with the Democratic field for Sen. Gillibrand becoming clearer by the day, focus on the general election increases," Steven Greenberg, the poll's spokesman, said in a release. "Republican Pataki has won statewide in a state with an overwhelming Democratic enrollment advantage three times. Currently he's polling support from one-third of Democrats, and it seems it would be a nail biter if he decides to challenge Gillibrand."

Sen. Charles Schumer appears to be a lock for re-election in 2010 with 61% of voters saying they want to re-elect him. 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, we mentioned that a liberal group is airing a pro-Sotomayor TV ad. Well, here comes an anti-Sotomayor ad, courtesy of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

[Youtube:xXiJ5AlSM2Q]

Per a source familiar with this ad, it is currently not airing on TV -- instead, it's running on Web sites and has been emailed to conservative activists across the nation. The source adds that the Judicial Confirmation Network is assessing whether to go with a national buy.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

Longtime Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) continues to trail former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons, but he has made up some ground in the past two months, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll on the likely 2010 Senate race match up.

Simmons leads 45%-39%, down from his 50%-34% lead April 2. Dodd's movement, though, is because of improvement among Democrats, which express support for him by a 67%-16% margin -- up from 58%-38% in April.

Dodd still, though, has a low ceiling, so far. And a majority of Connecticut voters disapprove of his job, 53%-38%, which is only a slight improvement from April when 58% disapproved and 33% approved.

"Sen. Christopher Dodd's numbers are getting better, but they are still lousy," Quinnipiac Poll Director Douglas Schwartz said in a release. "He still has high negatives: About half of the voters don't trust Dodd and disapprove of the job he is doing. And he is still behind Simmons in a general election matchup. But Dodd is an exceptionally skilled politician, and he has plenty of time. He is lucky to get this early warning more than a year before the election."

Even Joe Lieberman continues to have a higher -- albeit split (46%-44%) -- approval than the Banking Committee chairman.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** To fight or retreat? While Washington gears up for a Supreme Court fight, do remember this: Sonia Sotomayor wouldn't change the court's ideological make up. After all, swapping a reliably liberal vote in Souter for an apparently liberal vote in Sotomayor is a wash. Perhaps realizing that -- as well as looking at the polls and the selection's historic nature -- Republican senators were very measured with their statements yesterday. Their response was essentially the same: Sotomayor deserves a fair hearing where they can scrutinize her record. In fact, Mitch McConnell's office this morning sent an email to reporters hitting President Obama on job creation, not Sotomayor. That may be the most telling response. But the reaction coming from the conservative base is MUCH different. The National Republican Trust PAC, for instance, called Sotomayor a "radical nominee," adding: "Republican senators should strongly oppose her nomination. The NRT PAC and their constituents will hold them accountable if they do not." Also, Rush said she was a "reverse racist," and Mitt Romney called her nomination "troubling." This divide between the base and the senatorial establishment presents a potential quandary for Republicans: The GOP base wants a fight, while their elected officials want to hold off -- for now.

Video: TODAY's Natalie Morales talks to NBC's Chuck Todd about how Republicans and Democrats are responding to President Obama's Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor.

*** A 2012 litmus test? Also remember that John Roberts and Samuel Alito became Democratic presidential primary litmus tests -- explaining why anyone with White House ambitions (Obama, Hillary Clinton) voted against them. The Sotomayor vote for Republicans thinking about 2012 might play out similarly. If you are wondering who is pondering a presidential run in 2012 among GOP senators, our guess is that the "no" vote roll call will be a good starting place.

*** Roll out the barrel, we'll have a barrel of fun: For Supreme Court nominations, Rollout Day is always important. And -- to borrow a metaphor from Sotomayor's favorite sport -- yesterday was a homerun for the Obama White House. In fact, it was as good as the Roberts rollout. A misty-eyed mom? Check. Multiple references to Sotomayor's humble background? Check. Adding that she saved Major League Baseball? Check. The only thing that seemed to be missing was the apple pie. Also, the Democratic responses yesterday were measured, as were the GOP ones (it probably helped that Obama waited until Congress was on recess to unveil his pick). In short, with 60 Senate Democratic votes in reach, Sotomayor's odds of being confirmed are extraordinarily high. Then again, as we learned with Tom Daschle's HHS nomination, nothing is ever a sure thing in American politics.

Video: President Obama announces federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

*** Avoiding the culture wars: Here's another thing that caught our eye about Sotomayor, courtesy of the New York Times: "Judge Sotomayor ... has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security." So even with his SCOTUS pick, Obama has found a way to downplay or avoid direct debates on hot-button cultural issues – although race and affirmative action will certainly be topics surrounding the Sotomayor selection. Still, it's striking that Sotomayor has avoided dealing with any cases on abortion or guns or gay marriage. And as we have pointed out before, the president has gone out of his way to avoid gun issues (see credit card bill), gay issues (see Prop. 8 in California) abortion (his flip-flop on that abortion legislation), and immigration (he simply wants to enforce the laws on the books first). Somewhere, Heath Shuler is thanking Rahm…

*** Let the TV ads begin! One day after Sotomayor's nomination, the liberal-leaning Coalition for Constitutional Values (made up of the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) announced that it will begin airing a six-figure TV ad on national network and cable news praising the Sotomayor pick. The spot highlights her qualifications and her personal story. Dems seem to be borrowing a page from the GOP playbook. Remember how quickly Republican legal groups had ads up praising Roberts and Alito?

Video: Karl Rove Tuesday questioned the intellect of Sonia Sotomayor.

*** What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? At 2:00 pm ET today, in Las Vegas, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tour a solar photovoltaic array (translation: a solar farm) at Nellis Air Force. And then 40 minutes later, the president will deliver comments marking the 100th day since his stimulus package became law. By the way, the likely reason the White House changed today's event from a town hall to just straight remarks is so Obama could avoid questions about his comment about Vegas in February, when he said that U.S. companies receiving bailout money shouldn't be taking trips to Las Vegas on taxpayers' dimes. Locals are still mad about that Vegas remark (though we believe that 99% of America agrees with it), and we bet he tries to fix that today.

*** Obama and Prop. 8: Later this evening, Obama travels to Los Angeles, where he attends another fundraiser -- this time for the DNC. Just askin', but with Obama in California, is he going to comment on yesterday's Prop. 8 ruling?

Video: NBC's Pete Williams reports on the Calif. Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8.

*** Another em-Burris-ing revelation: Remember Roland Burris? Well, last night, his office announced that he is embarking today on a two-day swing through downstate Illinois. But he's got much bigger things to worry about. As the papers are reporting, he's ON TAPE saying that he'd be willing to throw a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich, and discusses trying to do it at his law firm under someone else's name so that he's not implicated if the news ever gets out.

*** Elsewhere today: Vice President Biden delivers the commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy at 10:00 am ET… Secretary of State Clinton lunches with Egypt's foreign minister and intelligence chief… And National Security Adviser Jim Jones speaks at 5:30 pm ET before the Atlantic Council; it's his first speech on the administration's approach to national security.

Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 6 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 13 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 160 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 524 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

The New York Times' analysis: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence. If they are not always a pleasure to read, they are usually models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles. Judge Sotomayor ... has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not."

Video: Psycho Talk:Law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University shares his view of Judge Sotomayor's past legal judgments with Countdown's Keith Olbermann.

"But they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language. Judge Sotomayor's decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes. All of which makes her remarkably cursory treatment last year of an employment discrimination case brought by firefighters in New Haven so baffling. The unsigned decision by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges, which affirmed the dismissal of the claims from 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, contained a single paragraph of reasoning."

The Wall Street Journal: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor has built a record on such issues as civil rights and employment law that puts her within the mainstream of Democratic judicial appointees."

At his fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last night, Obama "touted his newly announced Supreme Court nominee … calling her a 'brilliant individual' with both sterling credentials and an admirable personal journey," the Las Vegas Review-Journal writes. "The mention of Sotomayor drew a standing cheer. 'I know that Harry Reid and others in the Senate will make sure that she is confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice,' Obama said. 'I know that because Harry has just as improbable a story, and so do I. That's what politics should be about: remembering that for a whole lot of folks, life isn't easy.'"

The Boston Globe: "[T]he Sotomayor storyline almost immediately split in two directions -- a heartwarming narrative of Horatio Alger proportions to her defenders, and a cautionary tale of liberal judicial activism to her critics. While the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to confirm her, Sotomayor's life and record nonetheless are certain to be hotly debated in the weeks to come."

What does the Republican Party do? The Washington Post: "An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after consecutive electoral setbacks. But sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward."

The Los Angeles Times adds, "Rush Limbaugh called her a 'reverse racist.' The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network said she carried a 'personal political agenda' and should be blocked from the Supreme Court. But beyond such heated criticism, commonplace in partisan court battles, the nomination Tuesday of Sonia Sotomayor to the high court brought a surprisingly muted response from the Republican senators who will actually vote on it."

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez fired off this warning shot to Republicans, per Roll Call: "'The Republicans are looking at ways they can make inroads in the Latino community ... they need to be very cautious and careful' about lobbing harsh attacks on Sotomayor, Velázquez said Tuesday."

Not surprisingly, the New York Times' editorial page is a fan of the pick. "Based on what we know now, the Senate should confirm her so she can join the court when it begins its new term in October."

And not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal's isn't. "As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor's Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record."

The Washington Post's editorial page: "Senators are right to closely scrutinize Judge Sotomayor's philosophy and qualifications. She has produced a rich record of opinions as an appeals court judge for the Judiciary Committee to discuss. Senators also should remember that Mr. Obama, like any president, is entitled to deference in choosing a justice."

The New York Daily News' cover: "Pride of The Bronx" with an accompanying eight-page "special report." 
 
The New York Post's cover: "Suprema" over a photo of Sotomayor. 

The Boston Globe's Canellos raises this point: "The Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a candidate more likely than some on President Obama's short list to arouse Republican opposition, could complicate the president's task on another major agenda item -- healthcare."

And New York sports-writer-turned-occasional-political-columnist Mike Lupica throws cold water on the assertion that Sotomayor saved baseball. "There is a difference between saving a season -- and a union -- and saving a sport," Lupica writes, adding, "Sotomayor, succeeding where even President Clinton had failed, absolutely ended a work stoppage that had lasted a total of 233 days. She saved the sorry leaders of the Major League Baseball Players Association, a union still under the arrogant impression at the time that it ought to run baseball… The President doesn't need to pad [her resume] with hyperbole. We get enough of that in sports. We have enough instant legends already." He argues the sport didn't really begin to change until revenue sharing and the luxury tax were implemented."

The Las Vegas Review-Journal previews Obama's event today in Las Vegas. "The president is scheduled to hold an event touting the effects of the federal stimulus package this morning at Nellis Air Force Base, where he also will tour a solar energy installation."

The Las Vegas Sun, meanwhile, notes that Obama didn't mention the controversy surrounding his remarks back in February that companies receiving taxpayer help shouldn't take trips to Vegas on the public's dime. "President Barack Obama's speech at a Harry Reid fundraiser Tuesday night made no reference whatsoever to the remarks that sent Vegas boosters -- and Mayor Oscar Goodman in particular -- into a fury a few months ago… Local tourism officials and elected leaders, led by Goodman, said that the comments, regardless of context, created the perception among the public that the city was off limits. Notably, they have offered little to no evidence that declining business is related to the president's comments."

They're not the only ones who are unhappy… "Some California Democrats are upset with President Obama for skipping past the state's Central Valley, devastated by foreclosures and high unemployment, as he heads to a $3 million Hollywood fundraiser Wednesday night," The Hill writes. "'He's not showing us any empathy,' said Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), who endorsed Obama over then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the Democratic primary last May. 'He told us he would visit the heartland of California. He's coming again and he's not doing so.'"

"Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is pressing for new answers about funding for a counter-narcotics center that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has supported for more than two decades," The Hill writes. "Coburn sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder late last week reiterating charges that the center in Johnstown, Pa., previously known as the National Defense Intelligence Center (NDIC) is a duplicative boondoggle and asking for the explanation behind a recently proposed name change." 
 
We missed this yesterday, but it's worth reviving... Norm Ornstein calls for a five-day work week for Congress: "Five sustained days would mean more time for debate and less opportunity to use endgames or time pressures to threaten filibusters or to use other delaying tactics successfully. It would also mean more predictability in scheduling, where now it is often unclear when evening votes will be held, or if sessions will be extended at the last minute. If I could wave a magic wand, I would also provide a much more generous housing allowance for lawmakers and even take over one of the House annex office buildings, convert it to apartments and/or condominiums, and rent them at cost to Members who bring their families to town. Right now, though, I would settle happily for the simple schedule change."

Ron Paul may try and play kingmaker of sorts in the 2010 elections. With his grassroots army ready to hit the ground, "Paul is expected to set up a campaign he'll call 'Ten in '10,'" Roll Call reports. "While he may personally endorse any number of candidates during the course of the cycle -- and in a few races, he already has --  he'll invite candidates for all offices to seek special attention and assistance from his PAC."

ILLINOIS: Here's the transcript of the wiretap between Sen. Roland Burris and Rob Blagojevich, the ousted former Illinois governor's brother. Burris is on tape suggesting he might arrange a fundraiser for Blagojevich before the end of the year, discusses trying to do it through his law firm under someone else's name so that he's not implicated if it ever gets out and  explicitly expresses interest in replacing Obama as senator.
 
"In the months before his appointment to the Senate, Roland Burris (D-Ill.) promised to issue a $1,500 check to then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign, a conversation captured on FBI wiretaps according to an attorney for the Illinois Senator," Roll Call writes.

NEVADA: The Las Vegas Review-Journal covers Obama's Las Vegas fundraiser last night for Harry Reid. "At a sold-out fundraiser that was also a concert extravaganza, Obama was back in campaign mode as he had been in Nevada so many times before the election. The president told the crowd of about 4,000 at the Caesars Palace Colosseum that Reid will need the grass-roots energy Obama rode to victory for his re-election next year… Organizers said the star-studded fundraiser, which featured a lineup of entertainers including Bette Midler, Sheryl Crow, Rita Rudner and Clint Holmes, was expected to raise nearly $2 million for Reid and the Nevada Democratic Party."

The Las Vegas Sun: "'In the last few years Harry has done an extraordinary job as leader of the U.S. Senate, and that's not easy,' Obama remarked in his 20-minute speech. 'Harry has consistently fought on those issues that matter, not just to Democrats but to middle-class families ... He makes decisions and chooses battles based on the values he was raised with in Searchlight, Nev.'"

"'That's why we need to keep Harry Reid exactly where he belongs,' Obama said. 'That's why you are here tonight. I know you'll be at the polls next November, making those phone calls and knocking on those doors, so Harry Reid can continue his service to this great state. That's why I'm here tonight. I can't bring the change I promised all by myself.'"

NEW YORK: Rep. Anthony Weiner pens an op-ed in the New York Times about why he's not running for mayor.

VIRGINIA: The Washington Post profiles Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Moran. "For 13 years, Moran was the go-to guy, the water carrier for the Democrats, the minority party in the Virginia House of Delegates. If a Republican got up to insult then-Gov. Mark Warner or Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Moran, in an increasing crescendo, was the one who jumped to the microphone in protest. If a Republican signaled a willingness to negotiate, Moran was often the one called in to hammer out a deal, once at a diner over beers with the details spelled out on a bar napkin. Moran was the one who knew which delegate needed what and how to knit together the unruly votes to pass legislation, including a landmark increase in education spending in 2004."

More: "And now, after all those years of hard work, with a hotly contested three-way Democratic primary less than two weeks away, Brian Moran is finding that a whole bunch of voters still don't have any idea who he is."

From msnbc.com's Tom Curry
When was the last time a Democratic president nominated a justice who turned out to be real letdown for his supporters? It was almost 50 years ago, and that answer reveals a lot about Supreme Court politics.

It's easy to find examples on the Republican side, especially in the past few decades. During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, conservatives bemoaned the fact that many of the Republican presidents' appointees to the high court turned out be liberals, at least on issues such as gay rights, the death penalty and abortion.

To find the last Democratic nominee to disappoint liberals you have to go back almost 50 years to Byron White, placed on the high court by his friend President John Kennedy in 1962. White turned out to be conservative, at least on abortion and gay rights.

Why the disparity between so many conservative Supreme Court letdowns but few liberal ones?

For that answer and more, continue reading.

From NBC's Harry Enten
The other news this afternoon, "The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law," the L.A. Times writes. 
 
Gay rights activists have already signaled they might bring their own ballot initiative next year to overturn Prop 8. It passed with 52% last November, and recent polls suggest that a re-vote could be just as close.
 
Interestingly, the sole dissenter in the 6-1 decision was Carlos Moreno, who had been identified as being on Obama's Supreme Court short list.

From NBC's Athena Jones
President Obama ended weeks of speculation today when he named Sonia Sotomayor, an Ivy League-educated judge currently serving on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, as his pick for the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor, who would become the court's first Hispanic justice and only its third woman, would replace retiring Justice David Souter. Obama -- himself a historic first -- made the announcement before an audience that included Sotomayor's mother, brother, and other family members.

Calling the nomination of Supreme Court justices among the most serious and consequential responsibilities the Constitution grants a president, Obama said he had made his decision after consulting members of Congress from both parties, constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations, and bar associations.

He told the audience he wanted a judge with a "rigorous intellect" and mastery of the law who would not legislate from the bench, saying he wanted someone who understood that "a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand."

Obama said it was also important that any justice he nominate have the kind of diversity of experience that would give them an understanding of the real world impact of their decisions. In the weeks leading up to his pick and during the presidential campaign, the president often spoke of these traits as vital to any nominee -- often using the word "empathy." Today, he quoted Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to illustrate what he saw as a quality he believed to be essential.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience," Obama quoted the justice as saying. "Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live and that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court."

Obama called Sotomayor -- who grew up in a tough South Bronx public housing project, graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University and edited the Yale Law Journal while a law student there -- an "inspiring woman" with an "invaluable" breadth of perspective. She has worked as a prosecutor and a corporate lawyer and the president noted that she would be replacing Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge.

"Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed," Obama said.

A big-time sports fan himself, Obama jokingly mentioned Sotomayor's love for the Yankees and her decision to issue an injunction that helped end a baseball strike in 1994-1995.

The president noted that Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and was elevated to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, and said he hoped the Senate would "act in a bipartisan fashion as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor twice before."

The White House hopes to get Sotomayor through the confirmation process in time to take her seat before the next Supreme Court session begins in October. Some observers have suggested Republicans could have a hard time opposing the nation's first Hispanic nominee -- a line of reasoning that could be seen as diminishing Sotomayor's qualifications and reducing her to a token.

Sotomayor's parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during World War II. Her father died when she was nine, and her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother, Juan. Sotomayor thanked her family -- especially her mother -- and friends during her brief remarks and said her life experience would inform her decisions on the bench.

"This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear," she said. "It has helped me to understand, respect, and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench. I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government."

Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser David Axelrod were also on hand for the much-anticipated announcement.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Given some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric during the immigration debate of 2006-2007 (which, as it turns out, didn't help the GOP with Hispanics), and given last year's presidential contest (when Obama bested McCain 2-1 among this group), we posed this question earlier today: Would Republicans dare vote against the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee?

That question prompted one reader to criticize First Read for "threatening Republicans with the race card if they oppose Judge Sotomayor."

On the other hand, conservative Jonah Goldberg argued on National Review Online that while opposing Sotomayor isn't anti-Hispanic, "one advantage for Obama in picking the most left-leaning Hispanic possible/confirmable is that it actually allows the Democrats to -- once again -- cast Republicans as anti-Hispanic."

One of our goals at First Read is to generate political discussions. So we have two questions: First, do Republicans walk a political tightrope in opposing Sotomayor? And two, is this a legitimate question to raise? 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Larry Klayman, the founder of conservative groups Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, is praising -- in a qualified way -- the Sotomayor pick, calling the selection "a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama."

While I would have liked to see a more conservative libertarian type on the high court, President Obama's selection of New York federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayer, was a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama. Having initially been appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, soon to be justice Sotomayer has previously pledged to follow the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench, and her career as a federal court judge suggests, as a whole, that this is the way she will administer to the law. It is also great to have a highly qualified Latina on the bench. The Latin culture, with its emphasis on family and family values, will be a welcome addition, as an understanding of real life relationships is important for any jurist. And, as the largest minority in the United States, its time that Latins can take pride that they too are now part of the legal system. On behalf of Freedom Watch and the American people, we wish Justice Sotomayer much success.

From NBC's Chris Donovan
Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (who along with Judiciary chair Pat Leahy will be guests on Meet the Press this weekend) on Sonia Sotomayor:

"The president's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today is an important step in a constitutional process that includes the advice and consent of the Senate. I congratulate Ms. Sotomayor on her nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee's role is to act on behalf of the American people to carefully scrutinize Ms. Sotomayor's qualifications, experience, and record. We will engage in a fair and thorough examination of Ms. Sotomayor's previous judicial opinions, speeches, and academic writings to determine if she has demonstrated the characteristics that great judges share: integrity, impartiality, legal expertise, and a deep and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

"Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views. President Obama has stated his desire to have a full court seated at the start of its next term, a reasonable goal toward which the Judiciary Committee should responsibly and diligently move. But we must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process. Adequate preparation will take time. I will insist that, consistent with recent confirmation processes, every senator be accorded the opportunity to prepare, ask questions, and receive full and complete answers.

"I look forward to the coming months as we move forward with this process. As I told the president this morning, I will do all I can to ensure that Ms. Sotomayor receives a fair hearing before the Committee. I firmly believe that the American people deserve a full and thoughtful debate about the proper role of a judge in the American legal system, an issue that will be central to our review of Ms. Sotomayor's record."

From NBC's Harry Enten and Mark Murray
Lawyers, who have appeared before Sonia Sotomayor, have given her mixed reviews, according to anonymous comments from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary:

Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability.
"She is very good. She is bright."
"She is a good judge."
"She is very smart."
"She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough."
"She is very intelligent."
"She is a good judge, but not quite as smart as she thinks she is."
"She has a very good commonsense approach to the law."
"She looks at the practical issues."
"She is good. She is an exceptional judge overall."
"She is smart. She is not an as intellectual as some."
"It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. I'd say she is in the bottom of this court--but, the competition is pretty stiff."
"She is one of the few civil rights lawyers to be appointed to the court. Sometimes I think she is at war with herself. In her heart I think she still thinks from the bottom up. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. If you don't give it, she will rule against you."
"I am not too impressed with her. She is bright, but she doesn't always get the facts."

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed.
"She is a terror on the bench."
"She is very outspoken."
"She can be difficult."
"She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."
"She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."
"She abuses lawyers."
"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."
"She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack for making an argument she does not like."

Lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well prepared at oral argument.
"She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared."
"She participates actively in oral argument. She is extremely hard working and always prepared."
"She dominates oral argument. She will cut you off and cross examine you."
"She is active in oral argument. There are times when she asks questions to hear herself talk."
"She can be a bit of a bully. She is an active questioner."
"She asks questions to see you squirm. She is very active in oral argument. She takes over in oral argument, sometimes at the expense of her colleagues."
"She can be very aggressive in her questioning."
"She can get harsh in oral argument."
"She can become exasperated in oral argument. You can see the impatience."
"You need to be on top of it with her on your panel."
   
Most lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor is liberal.
"She is liberal."
"She is broadly inclined in a more liberal direction, but is very careful to follow precedent."
"She tends to be liberal."
"She is on the more liberal side of things."
"She is quite liberal."
"She is not necessarily pro-government.''
"She is not a government pushover. She is fair."
"She is trying to move to the right."
"She has no discernible leaning."
   
Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions.
"Her opinions are O.K, by and large."
"She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions."
"Her writing is good."
"Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued."
"She writes well."
"She is a very good writer."
"Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent."

From NBC's Ken Strickland
While it's unclear exactly when Sonia Sotomayor will have her Senate confirmation hearing, Senate Republicans are already sending the message that they will not be rushed through the process, opening the the possibility that she may not confirmed before the Supreme Court opens in October. 

In his written statement today, Republican Judiciary Committee member Jon Kyl stressed the need for Republicans to have plenty of time to review Sotomayor's record. Kyl cited examples from past Supreme Court confirmations under a Republican-controlled Senate where the then-Democratic minority was afforded "ample time" to review the nominee.

He says the entire process for each of the two most recent nominee took between two and three months to complete.

"I would expect that Senate Democrats will afford the minority the same courtesy as we move forward with this process," said Kyl, who is also the No. 2 Republican in Senate leadership.

Referencing the confirmation of nominee John Roberts in 2005, Kyl said, "Senate Republicans afforded the minority ample time to adequately examine his background and qualifications before he received a confirmation vote 73 days later."

Regarding the process for Samuel Alito later that year, "The minority was afforded 93 days before he received a confirmation vote on January 31, 2006."

The Alito scenario would put the final confirmation some time in late August, but the Senate traditionally takes the bulk of that month off for its summer recess.

From NBC's Chris Donovan and Mark Murray
When the Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the 2nd Circuit back in 1998, 29 Republicans voted AGAINST her -- including current Sens. Grassley, Hutchison, Kyl, McCain, McConnell, and Sessions (the latter of whom is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee).

But 23 Republicans also voted FOR her -- including current Sens. Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe, and Specter (the latter of whom is now a Democrat).

From NBC's Pete Williams, Ken Strickland, and Mark Murray
Well, we're off... Not surprisingly, conservative groups have issued tough statements on Sonia Sotomayor. Said Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network: "Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

Meanwhile, GOP senators aren't as aggressive, but they raise a common theme: that they'll scrutinize Sotomayor's record. Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences. Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a 'rubber stamp.' Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications."

Added Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn: "Now that President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court, it is time for the Senate to perform its Constitutional duty of advice and consent. Because Judge Sotomayor would serve for life if she is confirmed, it is essential that the Senate conducts this process thoroughly and the President has assured me that we will have ample time to give Ms. Sotomayor's record a full and fair review."

And here's Lamar Alexander: "It is the Senate's responsibility to give the president's Supreme Court nominee both respectful and rigorous scrutiny. The nominee should neither be pre-confirmed nor pre-judged."

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell

Sources familiar with the process say President Obama called Sonia Sotomayor last night at 9:00 pm, and called the other potential picks after that.

Obama then called congressional leaders this morning.

Obama met with Sotomayor last Thursday -- she was at White House for seven hours and went undiscovered.

Aides say the president was "blown away by her -- her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge."

Aides say she has more federal judicial experience than anyone on Supreme Court in 100 years.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** It's Sotomayor: At 10:15 am ET from the White House's East Room, President Obama will again make history by nominating the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit. The big question: Will she survive the confirmation process? Some Senate Democrats worry she'll be a heavier lift than others he could have nominated (like Diane Wood or Elena Kagan). But consider these points: One, it's clear Sotomayor -- whom the president knew the least about when this process began -- blew Obama away when he interviewed her on Thursday. In fact, White House officials believe that once Senate Democrats get to know her, they'll be as blown away as the president was, and she'll be confirmed easily. Two, would Republicans dare vote against the first Hispanic, especially after their rhetoric during the immigration debate of 2006-2007 clearly hurt them with this important voting bloc? And three, don't ignore the politics surrounding this pick. As we've mentioned before, Latino groups have been grumbling somewhat about their representation (or lack thereof) in the Obama administration, as well as the fact that immigration reform doesn't appear to be on the White House's front-burner. But this pick buys Obama A LOT of time with Hispanics -- a demographic he won last year, 67%-31% -- on immigration and other issues. Is it a coincidence that Obama this week heads out West to Nevada and California, two states with large Latino populations?

Video: President Obama announces federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

*** Sotomayor's bio: Here's the bio we ran on Sotomayor earlier this month: She currently serves on the Second Circuit in New York and was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton. BUT she was appointed to her first federal court appointment by President George H.W. Bush… She checks lots of boxes: Woman. Hispanic. Empathy… While working for the famed Robert Morgenthau in the New York District Attorney's office in the early 1980s, she described herself as a "liberal."… Also has drawn criticism for saying in 2005: "All of the legal defense funds out there they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is-- court of appeals is where policy is made." She tried to backtrack, but conservatives are already rallying to defeat her based on this. Other bio information: Child of parents born in Puerto Rico... Grew up speaking mostly Spanish... Raised in a public housing project in The South Bronx in the shadow of Yankee Stadium... Father died when she was 9... A diehard Yankees fan, she's credited as the judge who saved baseball, issuing an injunction that led the eventual settlement of the 1990s-era Major League Baseball strike... Described by the New York Times in the early 1980s as an incessant smoker… Divorced from Kevin Edward Noonan in 1983 after seven-year marriage (no children). She left the NY District Attorney's office a year later and went into private practice... Graduated summa cum laude in 1976 from Princeton after winning a scholarship to the school... Earned her law degree from Yale in 1979, where she edited the Law Review.

*** Another crisis for Obama: In addition to Sotomayor, the other big political news has been North Korea's nuclear test, as well as its firing of two short-range missiles. What do you do about a country whose leadership is so unstable it doesn't respond to normal diplomatic overtures or threats? It's an enigma wrapped in a riddle. The Washington Post's editorial page says the time for reacting is gone. "It's time, at last, to break this pattern and call Mr. Kim's bluff. That doesn't mean threats of U.S military action or a blanket refusal to talk with the regime; those tactics have been tried and have failed as well. Instead, Mr. Obama should simply decline to treat North Korea as a crisis, or even as a matter of urgency." Of course, others like Council of Foreign Relations head Richard Haas believe it's time to ratchet things up more and get with Japan and South Korea and outline a "red line" for a military response. Key now is China and Russia, which have both amped up their rhetoric against North Korea more than they did during the Bush and Clinton years. But rhetoric is always the easy part…

*** Viva Las Vegas? After 4:00 pm ET today, Obama heads to Nevada, where he will attend a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's up for re-election next year, at Caesar's Palace at 10:55 pm ET. Awaiting the president is a Republican governor who's still angry at Obama's months-old remark that TARP recipients shouldn't be going on travel junkets to Las Vegas. "I am not interested in a handshake and a hello from President Obama," Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) said, per Nevada political expert Jon Ralston. "I am interested in an apology and plan to undo the damage the President did. Working families are suffering because of the president's remarks. The president should retract his reckless statement about Las Vegas and make a public statement supporting business and tourist travel to Las Vegas and other destinations in the State of Nevada." Of course, note that Gibbons might be trying to create a distraction here, given his own political troubles in the state. Attention reporters: Be sure not to over-report Reid's political troubles -- they are minor compared with Gibbons'. However, the prospect of two Reids (Harry and son Rory) leading the Dem ticket should trouble some Dems. After all, dynasties on the same ballot in the same state can turn off voters. Just ask Mike Huckabee when he and his wife were on the statewide ticket together in 2002. Mike won fairly handily; Janet got clobbered.

*** Another political story to watch out West: The California Supreme Court is set to decide today whether Proposition 8, the state ballot measure banning gay marriage that passed last fall, is constitutional. "Today's ruling decides whether voters had the right, when 52% of them approved Proposition 8 … to amend the state Constitution to solidify the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman," the San Francisco Chronicle writes. "If the justices uphold Prop. 8, they will also decide whether to dissolve the marriages of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before the Nov. 4 election." Per the L.A. Times, "most legal experts expect the court to uphold Proposition 8 but continue to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples wed before the November election."

*** Report card time: Tomorrow is Day 100 since Obama's signing of the $787 billion stimulus package. The president will be coming out with a 100-day report card of sorts, as will each impacted cabinet department. Of course, North Korea and the Sotomayor pick will loom over the president's trip out West…

*** Firing up the base: On Friday, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe fired off a note to Obama's email list, telling the 10 million-plus members that they'll be kicking off the grassroots support for health care on June 6. "On June 6th, in thousands of homes across the country, we'll gather to launch our grassroots campaign for health care," he said in the email. "We'll watch a special message from the President. We'll build the teams and draw up the plans for winning health care reform the same way we won the election: Building support one block, one neighbor, one conversation at a time. And we'll put those plans into action." The question is whether this grassroots mobilization will be more effective than the previous ones for the stimulus and Obama's budget, which didn't seem to fire up the base. Then again, both the stimulus and budget did pass Congress.

Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 7 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 161 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 525 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

"One day after a surprise nuclear test drew angry and widespread condemnation, North Korea continued its defiance of the international community on Tuesday by test-firing two more short-range missiles, a South Korean government official said," the New York Times reports.

The Washington Post: "Although Monday's detonation did not appear to be a significant technical advance over Pyongyang's first underground test three years ago, it has triggered a faster and more negative response from other countries, including China and Russia, North Korea's historical allies. The missile firings are adding to the tension." 

The Washington Times wonders whether these latest tests are part of Kim Jong Il's attempts at building a legacy before he steps down.

The Boston Globe calls North Korea's nuclear test "its most defiant move since President Obama took office" and that it "presents a direct challenge to the new US administration's more conciliatory approach to ending North Korea's nuclear program."

The Washington Post's editorial: Don't respond.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Bob Gates has said that "American public support for the Afghan war will dissipate in less than a year unless the Obama administration achieves 'a perceptible shift in momentum,'" per the Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Gates said the momentum in Afghanistan is with the Taliban, who are inflicting heavy U.S. casualties and hold de facto control of swaths of the country."

More: "The defense chief has been moving aggressively to salvage the war in Afghanistan, signing off on the deployments of 21,000 American military personnel and recently taking the unprecedented step of firing the four-star general who commanded all U.S. forces there. Mr. Gates, speaking in his cabin on an Air Force plane, said the administration is rapidly running out of time to turn around the war."