Analysis from Stuart Taylor Jr.

Video: Taylor Looks Back On Hearings

Before & After: David Souter And Sonia Sotomayor

Q&A: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Q&A: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Q&A: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

Q&A: Sen. Jeffrey Sessions, R-Ala.

Q&A: Former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo.

Reporting From The Hearings

Making The Grade: Experts Evaluate Hearing Performances

Sotomayor's Princeton Awakening

Book Excerpt: Advice & Consent by Lee Epstein and Joseph A. Segal

Book Excerpt: The Next Justice by Christopher Eisgruber

Sotomayor In Context: A Moderately Liberal Nominee

Sotomayor In Context: The Court's Conservative Bent

Sotomayor In Context: How Long A Ride?

Sotomayor In Context: Federal Bench Experience

Sotomayor In Context: Unprecedented Input From Interest Groups

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in with the Judicial Oath in the East Conference room of the Supreme Court this morning by Chief Justice John Roberts as her mother Celina holds the Bible and her brother Juan Luis looks on.

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Wednesday, only 27 percent of Republicans said the Senate should confirm Sotomayor while 58 percent opposed the nomination. And just 22.5 percent of Senate Republicans eventually voted to confirm her.

How bipartisan was the vote? A closer look at which senators voted yes or no reveals that most who are seeking re-election or election to another office voted against Sotomayor's nomination.

Of the GOP senators standing for re-election next year, all 12 voted against Sotomayor. Sens. Robert Bennett of Utah and John McCain of Arizona are facing primary challenges from conservative rivals. Although they have no declared challengers, Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and David Vitter of Louisiana may wish to preemptively discourage any potential primary opponents.

Of the seven Republicans likely to retire between now and 2010, four voted yes -- Sens. Christopher (Kit) Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mel Martínez of Florida and George Voinovich of Ohio. Voting no were retiring Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Brownback and Hutchison intend to run for governor in their respective states.

In other words, four of the nine GOP senators who voted yes will be retiring in 2010.

Asked after Sotomayor's confirmation Thursday if he felt his argument caught on with GOP colleagues, who voted 31-9 against Sotomayor's confirmation, McConnell said he was pleased with the way his caucus approached the vote.

"This was an issue upon which every senator tries establishing their own criteria for judging a nominee. And it's kind of shifted over the years from a period during which qualifications alone -- where'd you go to school, how long have you practiced and that sort of thing -- was viewed by the vast majority senators as the standard," McConnell said. "It led to nominees becoming something of a political football."

"I am proud of how the Republican conference handled this nomination respectfully, thoughtfully. I think we restored to some degree the reputation of the Senate in dealing with nominees, which had been significantly damaged, in my view, by the treatment of some of our nominees by the other side. Hopefully we'll continue to achieve a level of civility and respect in dealing with nominees in the future."

• USA Today rounds up jubilant reaction from Hispanics, including this moment: "At the moment of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, Carmen Garcia cried, hard."

• "Now comes the hard part," the New York Times reports in an analysis. "The volume and difficulty of the work, and the task of fitting into a storied institution populated by strong and idiosyncratic personalities, has unnerved even judges with distinguished records on lower courts, fancy credentials and ample self-confidence."

• Sotomayor's "background will probably affect her thinking and influence her decisions in ways that were hardly mentioned in the Senate fight," the Los Angeles Times reports as it outlines ways in which Sotomayor brings a unique perspective to the court. For example, "she will be the only justice whose first language is not English. She has had diabetes since childhood -- a medical condition classified as a disability under federal law. She was raised in a Bronx housing project where drugs were more common than Ivy League college success. And the 111th justice is a divorced woman with no children."

• NationalJournal.com compares Sotomayor to her predecessor, David Souter, and asks: "Is there any chance these two tight-lipped jurists could share a propensity for disappointing their supporters?"

Commentary

• The Washington Post cheers Sotomayor's confirmation but is left wondering "what kind of justice" she will be "now that the burdens of precedent are no longer absolute."

• The Wall Street Journal commends Republicans for a confirmation process that "was conducted respectfully and with a cool-tempered focus on her Constitutional philosophy," though it "can't help but contrast her treatment with the way Democrats smeared and filibustered appellate-court nominee Miguel Estrada in 2001."

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., during the Sotomayor hearings. (Credit: Karen Bleier, AFP/Getty Images)

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., was simply in the right spot at the right time. The most junior member of the Senate presided over the historic roll call vote of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation Thursday because it was part of his regular rotation, which happens to be on Thursdays, said a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"It was an honor," Franken said soon after the vote. "It was definitely an honor." Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that "he did a great job."

This was only the freshman's second time presiding over the chamber, according to Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh. While new senators get some run-throughs on the procedures, he did get plenty of help from the floor staff.

Franken lucked out on presiding over a historic vote -- both in substance but also in protocol. Apart from a few late-arrivers, all senators were seated at their desks as the roll call began, a rare occurrence that only happens for a handful of votes, including impeachment, high court nominations and other notable nominations such as that of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of State.

So, what did Franken preside over his very first time? It was a debate on the highway trust fund extension, exactly one week ago.

President Obama called Sonia Sotomayor's rise to the Supreme Court an "American journey" that shows the country is "breaking yet another barrier." He spoke to the media from the Diplomatic Reception Room following the confirmation vote, which he described as affirmation that Sotomayor has what it takes to serve as justice. Asked by a reporter whether he's happy with 68 "yea" votes, Obama answered: "I'm very happy."

His complete remarks are after the jump.

The Senate had barely finished its roll call vote on Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation before reporters started asking about President Obama's next nominee to the Supreme Court. When Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy was asked during a press conference whether he would advise Obama to nominate anyone he wants since Republicans have signaled they will vote against anyone he picks, the Vermont Democrat slammed his fists down on the podium in response.

"I would advise the president do exactly -- exactly -- what he did this time: Pick the most qualified person possible and nominate them," Leahy said in a press conference just minutes after the Senate voted 68-31 to confirm Sotomayor. "That's what he did, and that's what he will do with another vacancy." Leahy was accompanied by nine of his Democratic colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The White House was a bit more restrained in its response. In the daily briefing today ahead of the vote, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that he didn't "have any news to report on what happens if there is another vacancy."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island was one of the few Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee whom liberal legal scholars said embraced a more progressive judicial philosophy during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings (subscription). NationalJournal.com's Amy Harder spoke with Whitehouse this morning about the larger battle between conservatives and liberals over the judiciary. Edited excerpts follow.

NJ: Why do you think it is important to embrace a philosophy that counters what the Republicans have put forth?

Whitehouse: I think the backdrop to the Sotomayor confirmation is a larger struggle over the direction and control of the American judiciary. Part of why this interests me is that I've been watching it for years. The Republicans have done this in relatively plain view. They've very clearly made it their express purpose to find and groom conservative judges and put them on the court for the -- again -- often express purpose of influencing decisions and changing the direction of the American judiciary. So, the sort of manipulative hand of the Republican Party in judicial nominations is almost uncontested at this point. They would phrase it in a different way but they'd admit that they're doing that.

That then takes you back to the contest over the Framing. And, I think that on that, they're just plain wrong and it's harmful to the judiciary and harmful to American democracy to let that theory [originalism], which is in many respects a cover story for the strategic plan to influence and ultimately control the judiciary, to gain headway. It's wrong both as history and as justice.

NJ: How do you think Democrats and Sotomayor herself did in countering the philosophy Republicans have embraced and laid out to the American people?

Whitehouse: I don't think that she did. Her job was to present herself as a mainstream judge and to avoid controversy. And, I think she was very successful at achieving those goals, which left it to others to make the larger point.

NJ: And, by others, do you mean...

Whitehouse: Us.

NJ: Did you and your Democratic colleagues do that?

Whitehouse: I think we did OK. We had two jobs to do. One was to try to help confirm Judge Sotomayor. And there's a tendency in support of that purpose to try to sort of lower the temperature in the proceedings, avoid disagreement and just get her through. The second is to try to make the larger point or rebut the Republican judicial theory that supports their efforts to appoint and control the judiciary. They're a little bit in conflict with each other.

Before David Souter's confirmation hearings in the summer of 1990, he so worried conservatives that White House Chief of Staff John Sununu had to mount a last-minute campaign assuring them that the New Hampshire judge would be a reliable vote for the right. During his testimony, Souter frustrated Republican Sen. Charles Grassley by telling him that "courts must accept their own responsibility for making a just society."

Sonia Sotomayor hasn't rattled liberals in quite the same way, but she, like Souter, didn't spend much time at the confirmation hearings defending her nominating party's judicial philosophy. Is there any chance these two tight-lipped jurists could share a propensity for disappointing their supporters?

Probably not, legal scholars say. What Sotomayor said during her confirmation "would not disable or disqualify her from taking a bolder position or a more progressive position if and when she becomes a justice," said Robert O'Neil, who clerked for Justice William Brennan and is founding director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia.

Read the complete story and view the latest in our ongoing political caricature series.

The Senate voted 68-31 to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court this afternoon, clearing the way for her to become the nation's first Hispanic justice. Nine Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus -- save ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts -- in voting yes.

Sotomayor will be sworn in on Saturday.

The newest member of the Senate, Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota, presided. Leading up to the largely anticlimactic vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., took to the floor to reiterate all the talking points they have been emphasizing for the past 73 days -- since Sotomayor's nomination on May 26. Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wrapped up the vote with closing remarks.

Our sister blog, Hotline On Call, has tallied up some notable numbers of this week's full floor debate. A total of 54 senators spoke. Of those lawmakers, 30 were Democrats, 22 were Republicans and two were independents who caucus with the Democrats. More than twice as many senators spoke in favor of President Obama's nominee as spoke in opposition.

Overall, senators spent 18 hours this week debating the nomination. Sessions took to the floor the most, speaking six separate times.

Begich had been targeted by conservative interest groups as a potentially vulnerable red state Democrat, and fellow Alaskan Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said he has likely been facing the same pressure from his constituents as she has on the issue.

Begich, who was elected last year, is known as being pro-gun. His "yea" vote is another sign of the National Rifle Association's diminished influence over this nomination, even after it announced its intent to score the vote.

The White House may tout this as a "bipartisan" victory, but conservative interest groups also see it as a victory for them. Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, said the goal was to break 30 no votes, and that's just what happened Wednesday night when Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced her intent to oppose Sotomayor -- the last Republican to do so.

In his remarks today, Voinovich continued a pattern among Republicans: denouncing the ideological considerations that Barack Obama cited in voting against George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees as a senator, yet still expressing support for Sotomayor. "If I applied President Obama's standard, I would not be voting for Judge Sotomayor, his nominee," Voinovich said. "The president was wrong. His standard makes the whole nominations process an exercise in partisan politics."

Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a Democrat up for re-election in a conservative state, also announced this morning that she intends to vote yes. In her speech, Lincoln said that she has "heard from a number of Arkansans, including those in our legal community, who have expressed strong support for Judge Sotomayor, emphasizing her unique background, impressive resume and solid judicial record." Conservative interest groups saw Lincoln as potentially vulnerable on Second Amendment issues, but that didn't seem to resonate with her: She didn't mention the issue once in her speech.

The final vote could be 68-31 if all remaining Democrats vote yes (except the ailing Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts). Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who has been ill, is expected to attend, said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The office of Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who has been hospitalized with a broken leg, said she will be voting today.

"Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal conclusion interpreting the Constitution," she asserted at another point.

"I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution," she said at a third point.

But there was much less than meets to eye to Sotomayor's apparently categorical assertions. They seemed to say that she would never engage in what has become the five more liberal justices' practice of relying in part on foreign and international law to interpret the Constitution. But it's clear when one reads all the way through her various, somewhat muddled statements on the subject that she would do just that.

The key to the apparent contradiction is Sotomayor's redefinition of the word "use." It calls to mind Bill Clinton's classic word game: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Sotomayor's statements that she would not "use" foreign law in constitutional interpretation turn out to mean only that she would not use it "in the sense of relying on decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent" (emphasis added), as she specified in her post-testimony, off-camera answers to senators' written questions.

That's a little bit like a baseball pitcher vowing not to "use" knuckleballs to win a game, when all he means is that he won't rely exclusively on knuckleballs, but rather will throw some fastballs and curveballs too.