Private: Who is Consuelo Callahan?

A new Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is expected any day, and the current rumor mill suggests that little-known Ninth Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan is in the mix.
The 55-year-old Callahan (photo via The Sacramento Lawyer) is a native of Palo Alto, California. She attended Stanford University and the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Callahan later served as the District Attorney in San Joaquin County where she established the office's first child abuse and sexual assault unit. In 1996 she was nominated to a seat on California's Court of Appeals for the Third District by Governor Pete Wilson.

After seven years as a State Court Judge, Callahan was nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 by George W. Bush. She received overwhelming Democratic support, with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) noting that, "not a single person or organization has submitted a letter of opposition or raised concerns about her." Callahan went on to be confirmed by the Senate on May 28, 2003 by a vote of 99-0.
Callahan's reputation seems to be that of a moderate conservative, though as she has been on the Federal Bench for only two years, her resume is rather thin. Talkleft credits her with "some favorable habeas rulings and a favorable Miranda and Sec. 1983 civil rights ruling - and some adverse immigration rulings."
Callahan's other noteworthy opinions include:
In Ileto v. Glock, 370 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2004), a mentally disturbed man, prohibited by law from owning a gun, opened fire on a Los Angeles-area Jewish Community Center wounding several children and killing postal worker Joseph Ileto. Callahan penned a dissent sharply criticizing the majority decision that allowed a suit filed by victims against the gun manufacturer to go forward. She wrote, "(t)he potential impact of the panel's decision is staggering ... the practical costs of forcing manufacturers to defend to juries all non-meritorious claims, as well as arguably meritorious claims, for all injuries that occurred in California cannot help but have a substantial impact on California's economy."
In Arnold v. Runnels, Arnold, a criminal defendant, told police that he did not want his answers to be taped during questioning. When police turned on the tape recorder anyway, Arnold refused to answer the questions. The tape was admitted as evidence during trial with the prosecution arguing that Arnold's refusal to answer question should be construed against him. After conviction Arnold appealed to the 9th Circuit, which ruled that the prosecution's use of the tape violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Callahan dissented, arguing that Arnold did not sufficiently invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, and adding, "the error, if any, in admitting the tape, was unlikely to have had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict."
Outside of the courtroom, Callahan has earned the nickname of Dancing Queen of the Ninth Circuit. As a profile of her last year in The Daily Journal explained:

A hoofer with a sense of humor, Callahan likes to surprise judicial and legal gatherings by starting discussions about serious topics and ending with a quip about appellate judges who tap dance around issues. She then pulls off her black robe to reveal a sequined costume and tap shoes.
She's been known to hop on a tabletop or in one case on a judicial bench during these special events and do some pretty impressive steps. "I may be the highest ranking tap dancer in federal court," Callahan said with a grin during a recent interview in her chambers in the Sacramento federal court building. "It is fun and it has a certain shock value."