Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Obama's judicial nominees, including Sotomayor and three others to the U.S. Court of Appeals, raise questions about what role a judge's background should play in deciding cases.

"I'm troubled, I have to say, by President Obama's philosophy of judging," Sessions, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, told USA TODAY and Gannett Washington Bureau reporters. "When he talks about wanting a judge to show empathy, that's very troubling to me."

Sessions, a former prosecutor, said he does not expect Republicans to filibuster Sotomayor's nomination, but he said she is the latest in a pattern of Obama nominees he has found troublesome.

"She seems to be willing to accept that a judge's rulings may be influenced by the judge's personal backgrounds or feelings, which is sort of what President Obama has said," Sessions said.

Hearings for Sotomayor's nomination are scheduled to begin July 13.

Sessions singled out three other nominations: David Hamilton of Indiana for the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Andre Davis of Maryland for the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; and Gerard Lynch of New York for the New York City-based 2nd Circuit.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman, who has studied judicial appointments, said it is difficult to generalize about any Obama pattern with so few nominations.

"The differences struck me more than any similarities," Hellman said of the nominees. "Lynch is a straight-down-the-middle former prosecutor. With Hamilton, you have someone who happens to have two high-profile cases in two of the most contested areas of the law, abortion and prayer."

Sessions focused on two Hamilton rulings. In one, Hamilton invalidated an Indiana law requiring women seeking abortions to obtain information about the procedure's risks. In the other, Hamilton forbade references to Jesus Christ in opening prayers at the Indiana Legislature. Both decisions were reversed.

The convictions stand against the so-called "Cuban Five," who maintain they did not receive a fair trial because of strong anti-Castro sentiment in Miami. The men have been lionized as heroes in Cuba. Exile groups say they were justly punished.

The five — Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino (aka Luis Medina), Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and Fernando Gonzalez (aka Ruben Campa) — were convicted in 2001 of being unregistered foreign agents. Three also were found guilty of conspiracy to obtain military secrets from the U.S. Southern Command headquarters.

Hernandez was convicted of murder conspiracy in the deaths of four pilots, members of the Miami-based Brothers to the Rescue organization, who were shot down by Cuban fighter jets in 1996 off the island's coast. The group sought to identify and help migrants leaving Cuba by sea. The Cuban government maintains the planes violated its airspace to scatter political pamphlets over the island.

U.S. Senate Republicans are in a quandary over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, aiming to raise pointed questions about her record without angering increasingly influential Hispanic voters.

Senator John Cornyn exemplifies the Republican dilemma over Sotomayor, who is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who seems certain to be confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

One of seven Republicans on the 19-member Senate Judiciary Committee, Cornyn will take part in what he promises will be tough but civil questioning of Sotomayor, Democratic President Barack Obama's choice, at her hearing starting on July 13.

Cornyn is also chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee that is charged with expanding a shrinking party and winning seats in the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate.

Hispanics, the fastest-growing U.S. minority who make up 15 percent of the population, are a key to any expansion plans.

Hispanics voted by a two-to-one margin for Obama in last year's presidential election. Many Hispanic voters greeted news of Sotomayor's nomination with joy, and Republicans are aware that Hispanics will be watching carefully how she is handled.

The justices, in an order Monday, say they will hear arguments next year in a case involving eight Shell station operators in Massachusetts who are fighting changes in lease terms that they say were intended to convert stations run by franchisees to company-owned facilities.

A federal jury awarded the gas station operators $3.3 million. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld some aspects of the verdict and overturned others.

Shell, owned by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and the station operators all appealed to the Supreme Court. The Obama administration also asked the court to intervene and rule in Shell's favor.

The case turns on provisions of the 30-year-old Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. Appeals courts around the country are divided on the issue.

The cases are Mac's Shell Service v. Shell Oil, 08-240, and Shell Oil v. Mac's Shell Service, 08-372.

The court, in an unanimous decision Monday, turned away Manoj Nijhawan's appeal. Nijhawan, who immigrated to the United States from India in 1985, had been convicted of fraud and money laundering, and stipulated that that the loss exceeded $100 million. The government then started deportation proceedings.

The law says any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony at any time is deportable. A related statute said aggravated felonies include fraud and deceit in which the loss exceeds $10,000.

Nijhawan argued that a jury should have determined the loss before he could be deported. But the court disagreed with his arguments.

"The defendant's own stipulation, produced for sentencing purposes, shows that the conviction involved losses considerably greater than $10,000," Justice Stephen Breyer said in the opinion written for the court.

The motion, filed late Thursday, argued that the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

"This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."

It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.