Obama's Judicial Philosophy Analyzed: Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media has this post analyzing the potential results of Obama's judicial appointments based on his comments to the media on specific issues. Rubin is quick to point out that Obama claims his background as a constitutional law professor qualified him to select Supreme Court Justices, but also states "Obama[] conceives the role of the courts as roving advocates of the poor and disadvantaged who will look, not to the text and meaning of the Constitution, but to their own ethics and values — presumably very left-leaning ones — to override statutes, executive branch actions, and the American people themselves." Rubin then goes on to suggest: "Given that, one wonders if confirmation hearings for Obama judicial appointees should skip over questions of the law and focus on the appointees’ religious and ethical views, their childhood experiences, and even their record of charitable giving. How else will we know whether they are “sympathetic enough”?"

Today's Humphries Decision Demonstrates Move Toward Majority Opinions: Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy posted today on the change in tenor of U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. Kerr notes that while 2006-2007 was marked with 5-4 decisions and biting dissents. However, 2007-2008 has had far more "lopsided victories", and note today's Humphries decision as an example.