The Associated Press is reporting that President Barack Obama will name Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court this morning.

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Judge Sotomayor has her fans... and her critics. Jeffrey Rosen at the New Republic spoke to a number of people who have worked in the past with the judge, and they gave her a mixed review.

Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. "She is a rule-bound pragmatist -- very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk. "She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are."

The critics -- and these are individuals who agree with her judicial philosophy -- are not so enthusiastic:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

Obviously, Judge Sotomayor wouldn't be a pro-lifer's first choice:

Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network tells WorldNetDaily that Sotomayor is an activist judge, who likely agrees with Roe v. Wade and would prefer that the courts make abortion law.

Sotomayor remarked in 2005 that the courts are the place "where policy is made."

"What she said is exactly the way she judges," Long said. "It's exactly what the president has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us."

UPDATE: Much has been made of Judge Sotomayor's "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" statement. Here's a video of her entire 2 minute answer -- and not the 30 second clip that's going around -- so you can see it in context:

And here's my quick transcription (I cleaned it up a bit):

All of the legal defense funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law -- I know. Ok, I know, I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where -- before the Supreme Court makes the final decision -- the law is percolating... its interpretation, its application.

Judge Lessaro is right -- I often explain to people that when you're on the District Court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you're looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law, because the application of the law is non-precedential. So the facts control.

On the Court of Appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. So you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did.

But the point is, that's the differences [sic], the practical differences to the two experiences are that the District Court is controlled chaos, and not so controlled most of the time.

In its entirety, her statement isn't nearly so problematic.