In reading about (soon-to-be) Justice Sonia Sotomayor, both before and since Obama announced his pick, I keep thinking that a key aspect of her vita remains mostly overlooked.   Obviously, her life story and "liberal cred" make for appealing fodder for fly-by reporting and press bloviation.  But moving away from the sexy, potentially controversial aspects of her bio, I wonder if Obama was moved to select Sotomayor in part for her history with business/financial law.  Thinking about the kind of cases likely to come before the Supreme Court in the next decade or two, it seems obvious to me that questions involving the application of law to the financial sector will become increasingly common.   The realities of a recession are prompting a new approach to regulation in the financial sector; therefore, a subsequent growth in business-related litigation will require more judicial attention to the intersection of legal and economic questions.  While the pundits and pols are still focused on the Supreme Court as arbitor of wedge issues, the American people are more concerned with questions of how America does business.  The next Supreme Court Justice is far more likely to leave her historical mark by rulings on, say, financial sector regulation than she is by defending Roe v. Wade. 

In Sonia Sotomayor, the President found a jurist with the chops to address the hot-button issues already before the Court.  But he also found a choice with the experience to address the business-related cases which will occupy the Court's future.   Sotomayor has experience with intellectual property law, with investor rights and securities fraud cases, and with controversial affirmative action rulings.  In one of her best-known decisions, Sotomayor ended the 1995 baseball strike by ruling that the owners could not hire non-union replacement players.  In several articles that have cropped up since Obama revealed her as his pick, Sotomayor has been described as "moderate" and "pragmatic" in her approach to business related rulings.

There is certainly enough in the Sotomayor selection to keep the punditocracy and political machine busy with speculation about her approach to social issues.  But I can't help feeling that (as usual) they are missing the point.  Obama did not select her because he thought she'd be a "good liberal."  Nor do I think he based his selection on a desire to diversify the Court, as important as this may be.   He certainly didn't select her for rulings she might make on questions of Executive power, because there's nothing in the public record to indicate her views.   Thinking about the kinds of rulings the next Justice would have to make, Obama selected a jurist who has the experience to rule on the cases that will effect how America does business. 

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks Sotomayor's choice has serious economic ramifications:  Hoover Institute fellow and Forbes columnist Richard Epstein and  Iain Murray at The Corner are already bemoaning the "bad-for-business" ways of this librulaktivist judge.