Pat Leahy: New Justice to Be Confirmed by August

By GottaLaff

Is this anything like health care reform legislation being completed by summer, er, fall, er, before Christmas, er, in March?

I'm sure we're all looking forward to the kindly old white Congress-gentlemen on the right side of the aisle reaching out to their brethren in a grand gesture of bipartisanship, coming together as one to confirm their president's Supreme Court nominee:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee predicted Sunday that a new Supreme Court justice would be confirmed before Senators leave town for the August recess.

Scalia Would Have Voted to Keep School Segregation

By GottaLaff

Supreme Court "Justice"?

In an appearance at the University of Arizona, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of 'separate but equal'; public schools," the East Valley Tribune reports.

"He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better."

"I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right.

This from the man who thought nothing of executing the innocent. And here's a peek at a few more chestnuts of judicial wisdom:

"Right to abortion?'' he asked. "Come on. Nobody thought it violated anything in the Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal.''

The same, said Scalia, is true of homosexual sodomy. Yet the nation's high court has struck down state laws banning both.

Thank you, Bush 43, Ronald Reagan*, for your lasting contribution to the Supreme Court, and thank you to everyone who voted to confirm Ronnie's nominees. We'll be indebted to you all for years...

...and years, and years.

*Sorry for the error. I am truly half asleep today.

Sotomayor votes, to date: 35-23

By GottaLaff

Here's the latest tally to keep you busy while I catch up with today's newsiness:

The latest C-SPAN tally in advance of the coming Senate vote on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court shows 35 senators in favor -- including 29 Democrats and 6 Republicans -- with 23 senators opposed.

There are still 42 senators who are uncommitted.

42 uncommitted, huh? I know of a few senators who should have been committed years ago.

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee approves Judge Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

Just a few minutes ago, Sotomayor was approved by a vote of 13-6:

The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning endorsed Sonia Sotomayor to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court on a largely partisan vote that sends her historic nomination to the full Senate for a final decision on her confirmation.

The 13 to 6 vote came nearly two weeks after the committee's members grilled Sotomayor for 2 ½ days, eliciting answers that betrayed little indication of how the nominee, an appellate judge for the past 11 years, would rule on the most significant issues that come before the nation's highest court.

Sotomayor is President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court and would become the court's first Hispanic and its third female member. In choosing her in May, the president emphasized her Horatio Alger-like life story, rising from a poor childhood with a widowed mother in a Bronx housing project to attend two Ivy League universities, eventually becoming a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that the full Senate probably will not begin debate on Sotomayor's confirmation until next week, although the specific schedule has not been determined. [...]

Graham, the only Republican to join Democrats in voting to send Sotomayor's nomination to the full Senate, said, "I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did." Graham called her "left of center but certainly within the mainstream. . . She can be no worse than Souter from our point of view," he said, referring to conservatives' view of David H. Souter, the retiring court member she would replace, who was appointed by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush.

Graham said his decision to support her was motivated, in part, by an effort to end the partisan fighting that has characterized some judicial nominations in recent years, when Senate Democrats filibustered several of President George W. Bush's most controversial candidates for lower federal courts. "We came perilously close to damaging an institution of the judiciary that has held this country together in different times."

"The filibusters that were going on a few years ago were historic in nature," Graham said, predicting that their continuation would "over time drive good men and woman away from wanting to be judges," rendering the judicial branch "just an extension of politics in another form."

The law, Graham said, "should be a quiet place, where even the most unpopular could have a shot. No way you can win an election but in the court you might have a shot." He also said that Sotomayor was qualified to serve on the Supreme court and said that, if, as the first Latina member, she "will inspire young women, particularly Latina women, to seek a career in the law, that would be a good thing." [...]

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) said, "These hearings have come little more than theater."

Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’

By GottaLaff

Astroturfy frauds-- aka corporations-- would love to see Sototmayor disappear. This is typically deceptive in the slimiest, Rushpublic-iest way:

How corporations are buying the judiciary: Part I

Corporate interests posing as a grassroots conservative group are behind attacks on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, a RAW STORY investigation has found.

The Committee for Justice (CFJ), an astroturf group established by big business in July 2002 to create an appearance of popular support for President Bush’s judicial nominees, is now leading the effort to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.

CFJ’s Executive Director Curt Levey has been sending out press releases and making media appearances to promote the theme that Sotomayor is racist and biased in her rulings, drawing his talking points largely from a speech in which she suggested that when it came to race and sex discrimination cases, it was possible that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences … would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“It’s pretty disturbing,” Levey told The Hill. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial … allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality. But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”

Gee, I wonder what kind of lowlife could have started such a group...

CFJ was created at the urging of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) – who has himself been plagued by allegations of racism.

Please go here for the rest.

So who's up for a genuine, citizen-driven, grassroots tea tantrum?

Oz. Curtain. Pulled back.

Here is Judge Sotomayor's questionnaire

By GottaLaff

Should you be so inclined, it's all there... in PDF format.

I have empathy for Sonia Sotomayor for having to fill out that questionnaire.

I am a white liberal female, and I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white Rushpublic male who hasn't lived that life.

Here's a random sample from the questionnaire:

b. Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you for this nomination (including, but not limited to anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department, or the Senate and its staff) ever discussed with you any currently pending or specific case, legal issue, or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, explain fully. Identify each communication you had prior to the announcement of your nomination with anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department, or the Senate or its staff referring or relating to your views on any case, issue, or subject that could come before the Supreme Court of the United States, state who was present or participated in such communication, and describe briefly what transpired.

No.

c. Did you make any representations to any individuals or interest groups as to how you might rule as a Justice, if confirmed? If you know of any such representations made by the White House or individuals acting on behalf of the White House, please describe them, and if any materials memorializing those communications are available to you, please provide four (4) copies.

No.

Anita Hill speaks out on Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

WWCTS*?

ESSENCE.COM: What do you think of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee?
ANITA HILL: I think it's an excellent choice, just on the face of the selection. Here's a person who has years of experience on the bench, and has distinguished herself in private practice as well, and has been a prosecutor. I think she's got an incredible breadth of experience. [...]

ESSENCE.COM: Things like...being a woman and a person of color?
HILL: Absolutely, that's part of it. But I think she's a great choice not simply because she's a Latina. She has acknowledged that as part of her identity, in a way that I think is very responsible and wise. [...] It means she's going to be aware of who she is and understand how that plays in her decision-making, but she is also going to be quite aware of the rule of law and have great respect for the rule of law, and be able to apply it. We are enriched in the judiciary by having both those concepts in one person, and so what some people have found troubling about her I actually find refreshingly candid and self-aware.

ESSENCE.COM: Do you know Judge Sotomayor?
HILL: She and I were in law school together [...] Not only did she excel in law school - where she was an editor of the Law Review - but after leaving law school she was a prosecutor, she practiced in a law firm, she was nominated and served as a judge at the district court level, and moved on to the appellate court level. [...]

ESSENCE.COM: After Justice David Souter announced he was retiring, Vanity Fair and others raised the suggestion that President Obama should nominate you for the Supreme Court. What did you think of that idea?
HILL: I actually responded to the Vanity Fair piece. I think there are any number of people, including Sonia Sotomayor, who will be excellent choices. This is a President who has come in and really tried to promote healing between various factions. Nowhere is that more needed than in terms of how we have approached Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. In those hearings there needs to be a certain level of honesty, but there also needs to be civility and really sticking with the questions that matter about the nominee. I don't think that there is much chance that that would happen if I were nominated, because of things that people would want to get into, that wouldn't be helpful to the process.

*What would Clarence Thomas Say?

Newt Gingrich blasts Sotomayor: "UnAmerican" !!!!!!!

By GottaLaff

Newtie, Newtie, don't you realize you're well on your way to becoming toast? I won't even go into his typos and overuse of !!!!!!!!s. I've edited this down... it was endless:

Renewing American Leadership, a 501(c)3 nonprofit that he heads, sent out an email to supporters calling on them to both "send blast faxes" to U.S. Senators demanding opposition to Sotomayor and contribute money to help the fight.

From the Desk of Newt Gingrich

"I have a dream: that my four little children will one day live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin, but by the content of their character."

- Dr. Martin Luther King

Can you imagine if the President of the United States nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who said this:

"My experience as a white man will make me a better judge than a Latina woman would be."

Or could you imagine if that same judge ruled from the bench to deny 18 African-American firefighters a promotion just because of their skin color?

That judge would be called a bigot -- and in my judgment, rightly so! Would there be any doubt that he would be FORCED to WITHDRAW his nomination for the Supreme Court?

None.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

The will of those in power represents subjective, fleeting standards that are never fully known by any and are applied purely to satisfy the wishes of a small, concentrated group in power. [...]

President Obama should withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Consider what Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview. [...]

If President Obama will not withdraw his nomination, then the Senate has a duty to ensure that judges with who hold these beliefs are not confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court.

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
The United States is a nation of immigrants from many backgrounds and their contributions have made our country great but that was made possible because our nation was built upon a solid foundation of law and order. The rule of law should be non-negotiable. It cannot be subordinated to ethnic or racial biases. To do so would be to make our Constitution arbitrary and meaningless undermining the very foundations of our society.

The rule of law is a crucial safeguard for the preservation of freedom.

[...] Cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court should be judged on the merits of the arguments rigorously tested against the United States Constitution. They should NOT be judged based on the racial and ethnic preferences of the judges making the decision!

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we'll get if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the Supreme Court -- a judge who will interpret the law based on her ethnic background, rather than based on the LAW. [...]

Remember, this is the same woman who, when speaking at Duke Law School, made it clear that she believes it is a judge's role to "legislate from the bench": responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she stated that the court "is where policy is made!" She tried to correct her slip, by joking that "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't ‘make law,' I know, I know." But, she already made herself clear: She believes JUDGES MAKE LAW!

She is wrong. Lawmakers make law NOT judges.

Words mean things and her words give her away. No amount of explaining or spin can change what she truly believes and if she is confirmed she will bring those beliefs to the Supreme Court. [...]

The U.S. Supreme Court is no place for these kinds of judicial philosophies -- we need to STOP this nomination from going any further before it is too late!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
Of course, no one believes that any judge can be 100% impartial and unbiased in every situation. Judges are human beings, and will occasionally allow their personal biases to cloud their attempts at impartiality.

But this is VERY different -- this judge is making it CLEAR that she thinks she SHOULD be biased and partial, based on her ethnicity and gender! [...]

When judges make decisions based not on the application of law but on their personal biases about an issue at hand, the independence and authority of the judiciary is compromised. [...]

Your background should NEVER impact the application of law under the U.S. Constitution. It should not be a consideration by the judge or an expected consideration by the judged. Decisions made by the highest court in the land should be made on the basis of what is right and wrong -- not who is right and who is wrong! [...]

We've set up a website where you can send "blast faxes" to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE, telling them to REJECT Sotomayor's nomination as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice! For less that what it would cost you to gather every fax number and send all those faxes yourself, you can send SCORES of faxes, ALL AT ONCE to Capitol Hill -- to make SURE they hear your voice!

BUT... we have to act QUICKLY! Sotomayor's nomination will be debated very soon in the Senate Judiciary Committee! SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT

JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!
Your friend,

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House
Renewing American Leadership

P.S. The Obama White House is already attacking me for pointing out the obvious: that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was specifically asked at the daily briefing to respond to my statements, spokesman Robert Gibbs gave a very ominous warning to anyone who dares to challenge this nomination:

"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

Well, I am not going to back down and neither should you. I see the damage that this nomination could do to our Constitution... and our country. We MUST stop Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court -- or any OTHER nomination that threatens the Republic. Justice demands it!

SEND BLAST FAXES TO EVERY U.S.
SENATOR, DEMANDING THEY REJECT
JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS LIKE SONIA SOTOMAYOR!

We need YOUR help to take this fight to Capitol Hill. Please consider supporting Renewing American Leadership with a generous donation today. $25, $50, or $100 will dramatically help us stand strong for the Rule of Law in America!

PLEASE MAKE YOUR BEST
CONTRIBUTION NOW:
DONATE ONLINE!

I haven't seen so much racism, sexism, and hypocrisy since... since... 2001-2008. Poor wittle thing, big bad Robert Gibbs ATTACKED HIM!!!!! How unAmerican of Gibbs to challenge the latest Swiftboating campaign. What a racist, activist Press Secretary!!!!!!

By the way, Newtie, that rule of law you're so fond of referencing? It went out the window with John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. Maybe you should BLAST FAX THEM!!!! TOO!!!!! OKAY!!??!!

Guess who's endorsing Sotomayor? Hint: Not a Democrat by a long shot

By GottaLaff

Really?

A prominent Catholic conservative who regularly criticizes liberal co-religionists for weak stances on abortion said Thursday he will be quietly rooting for Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be confirmed to the Supreme Court and said she may even be an improvement over retiring Justice David Souter.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said that Judge Sotomayor's record has more bright spots than conservative Catholics can reasonably expect to get from an appointee of President Obama.

Okay, that tempers it some, but still... seems he's giving a few Rushpublics the ouchies.

"I wish I knew more about her. But from what we know, it looks like she'll be at least a wash with Souter, and maybe we'll even see improvement."[...]

"She's [also] been pretty good on religious liberty cases" and "doesn't hold any animus on religion" either in her decisions or her known public remarks, he said. "She said it was wrong to prohibit a menorah on public ground; I like that. She talks about the religious rights of prisoners; I like that too."

Mr. Donohue also mentioned a more personal angle — his identification with New York's Puerto Rican community, which included leading the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City's Spanish Harlem and taking "groups of 15, 16 kids to Yankee Stadium."

"All these things put together, I'm gonna quietly root for her," Mr. Donohue said.[...]

"I am looking at this pool of likely competitors, and, far and away, Sotomayor is the best candidate," he said.

"I think it's important to always reserve your social and moral capital. You don't pull the trigger unless you have a clear target. … Sotomayor is not [Harry] Knox or [Kathleen] Sebelius," he said, referring, respectively, to a gay member of the White House's faith outreach office and to Mr. Obama's pro-choice Health and Human Services secretary, both of whom Mr. Donohue vigorously criticized.

"I would hope that Catholic conservatives would object some, but not do the full-court press," he said. "That might look like we have an agenda that will not look good to many in the Latino community."

Donohue must be an empathetic racist! I bet the Nation of Dick thinks he's a Democrat, too.

Joe Biden is asking us to support Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

Vice President Biden emailed me:

President Obama hit a home run with his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court -- and not just because she's the "woman who saved baseball" by ending the strike in 1995, nor simply because she would be the first Latina ever to serve on the high court.

It was a home run because in her three-decade career as a prosecutor, judge, private litigator and law professor, she has time and again earned bipartisan praise as one of America's finest legal minds. And it was the right choice because Judge Sotomayor -- herself born and raised in a South Bronx housing project -- has summed up the American dream in her own incredible story and never once forgotten how the law affects our daily lives.

Now her historic nomination goes to the Senate. I know that process well, and I can tell you that the debate of the coming weeks and months will be shaped by the public response in the next few hours and days. It's critical that the Senate and the public clearly see where the American people stand.

Will you add your name to the growing list of Americans who are pledging to "Stand with Sotomayor" today? Your name and comments will become part of a public display of support at this crucial time.

There was a lot more, but you get the idea. I signed, because I'm empathetic that way. Your turn.

Weirdest Sotomayor Endorsement Ever

By GottaLaff

David Corn has a tasty tidbit:

One email from the White House listed a slew of positive comments about Sotomayor. They came from former and current judges who have worked with her, Republican Senator Olympia Snow (who has called the nominee "well qualified"), New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, a bunch of legal scholars, and Larry Klayman. Yes, Larry Klayman. Ring a bell? He's best known--or infamous--for having been an overly litigious conservative crusader who, through his Judicial Watch outfit, hurled numerous lawsuits against Clintonites during the 1990s.

Klayman was no average self-proclaimed rightwing avenger. He came across to many as--how to say this politely and non-libelously?--bonkers. [...]

But now Klayman is just jake with the Obama White House. In addition to touting the comments of those highly credentialed Sotomayor advocates, the White House is making use of Klayman's support of Sotomayor. That email cites a Klayman statement--which the White House noted that it had received via an email from NBC correspondent Chuck Todd--in which the former Clinton-chaser says,

While I would have liked to see a more conservative libertarian type on the high court, President Obama's selection of New York federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayer, was a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama. Having initially been appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, soon to be justice Sotomayer has previously pledged to follow the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench, and her career as a federal court judge suggests, as a whole, that this is the way she will administer to the law. It is also great to have a highly qualified Latina on the bench. The Latin culture, with its emphasis on family and family values, will be a welcome addition, as an understanding of real life relationships is important for any jurist.

[...] The Obama White House certainly likes to transcend ideology and partisanship. Hooking up with Klayman is taking this to a new--and bizarre--level.

Bizarre, indeed. Oh, sorry... "bonkers".

VIDEO-- Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook

By GottaLaff



Here's the video of the Alito quote that Keith Olbermann referred to last night:

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Do I smell empathy? Ruh-roh.

“Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor’s alleged ‘empathy’ problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned,” writes Glenn Greenwald.

Alito must be a racist, albeit an empathetic one.

Later in the hearing, Alito referenced his father’s experience as the basis of his view on district reapportionment:

GRASSLEY: Some have questioned your 1985 statement regarding the electoral reapportionment, that is how districts are drawn. They suggested that you’re hostile to the principle of one person, one vote. Clarify for me, nowhere in your ‘85 statement did I find that you wrote that you ever disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote. Did you?

ALITO: I never disagreed with that principle, Senator. What I disagreed with when I was in college was the application of the principle in some of — the elaboration of the principle in some of the late Warren court decisions. And this grew out of my father’s work with the New Jersey legislature. He had been the secretary to the state constitutional convention of 1966, which redrew the provisions of the state constitution relating to the composition of the legislature in an effort to bring it into compliance with the one person, one vote standard.

These provisions, however, because they tried to respect county and municipal lines, as I recall, resulted in population deviations of under 10 percent, but those deviations were much higher than the ones that the Supreme Court said in the late decisions that I’m talking about would be tolerated regarding congressional districts. There was a belief that that principle would be applied across the board, both to congressional districts and to legislative districts, and that would have wiped out the plan that had been adopted.

And I was quite familiar with all of this. And it seemed to me an instance of taking a good principle, which is one person, one vote, and taking it to extremes, requiring that districts be exactly equal in population, which did not seem to me to be a sensible idea.

Republicans Will Not Fight Over Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

Rushpublics won't fight over Sotomayor? Why not? They fight over everything else:

Top Senate Republican strategists tell Politico that, "barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice."

Not a single senator has come out publicly in opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation.

Said one GOP aide: "The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill. If there's no 'there' there, we shouldn't try to create one."

1. They finally figured out that their party would effectively come to a screeching halt if they oppose her (well, a more abrupt screeching halt... it's not exactly thriving as it is). And...

2. They've made creating a "there" where there is none, into an art form. That statement is well on its way to becoming obsolete.

Insider Tips for a Smooth Confirmation Process by Former Reagan Chief of Staff

By GottaLaff

Future Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor, are you paying attention? A former Reaganite is giving out free pointers:

Former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein -- who also guided Justices William Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas through their Senate confirmation process -- shares 10 secrets for a smooth trip to the High Court.

• Personal stories are compelling every time.
• Begin your senatorial courtesy calls almost immediately.
• Practice, practice, practice.
• Be prepared for the kitchen sink at the hearings.
• The Constitution stops at the foot of Capitol Hill.
• Tell the truth, always.
• Senators welcome mea culpas in your oral testimony.
• Pause for seven seconds before you answer any question.
• Have an answer for the one question you didn't want to be asked -- because you will undoubtedly be asked that question.
• Senators usually depart when the cameras are turned off, but remember: The microphone will still be on.

He adds a bonus: "You have the best lobbyist in the world at your disposal... the president of the United States, and a popular one at that. Use the president's influence judiciously -- but use it."

She already has the hang of most of these tips. I have a feeling she'll sail through the Q & A with relatively few glitches.

The Rushpublics, on the other hand, may want to use that 7 second rule before they open their yaps. Come to think of it, they may want to take a good hard look at most of the above suggestions.

AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh: Obama/Sotomayor "reverse racists"

By GottaLaff

MSNBC just reported that Boss Limbaugh, in all his wisdom called Obama and Sotomayor "reverse racists".

I'll try to dig up the video.

Boss LimpDong is a reverse human.

UPDATE, blog title has been changed to reflect the addition of the audio:

RNC fumbles Sotomayor talking points

By GottaLaff

What?! The Rushpublics fumbled something? How out of character of them:

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dear and oh my. What a bloopery mess:

Here are the talking points:

o President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.

o Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor's legal views, judicial record and qualifications.

o Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments - which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.

o To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

o Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.

o The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

o Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.

o Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.

President Obama on Judicial Nominees

o Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.

o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."

o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."

o Obama has declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Additional Talking Points

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

o Abolishing the death penalty;

o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

Hilarious on so many levels, pathetic on others. But then, you already knew that.

Of course, Scalia, Thomas, Alito aren't activist at all.

Obama settled on Sotomayor back in November

By GottaLaff

According to Marc Ambinder, Prez O was all for Sotomayor just after the election...

According to Marc Ambinder, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was President Obama's first choice for the Supreme Court as far back as just after the presidential election.

In recent weeks, the president told White House officials "that he could be talked out of picking Sotomayor if they convinced him that she wasn't the right person for this moment in time."

"It turns out, though, that Obama's advisers loved the idea of picking Sotoamyor just as much as Obama did. The pick, they believed, would tell a story about justice in the 21st century. Her hard-scrabble upbringing, combined with her tough-as-nails realism, combined with her respect for the rule of law, combined with her academic achievements, combined with her -- yes -- identity as an Hispanic female -- provides a walking, talking counterpoint to the clubby formalism of the modern Supreme Court."

Thom Hartmann is noting that Sotomayor is a centrist, for lack of a better word. He says she's the "anti-activist" based on decisions that he's rattling off too fast for me to liveblog.

By the way, slightly off topic, but if anyone still thinks of Obama as a full-on "liberal", then they haven't been paying attention for a long, long time. Just sayin'...

Will Obama Use His Supreme Court Pick to Solidify Executive Power?

By GottaLaff

Will Obama Use His Supreme Court Pick to Solidify Executive Power?

That’s the shrewd question that Charlie Savage raises in his “Washington Memo” Monday in The New York Times. Looking beyond the usual liberal-conservative splits on social issues like abortion, gun control and gay rights, Savage considers how President Obama’s choice of Supreme Court justice — likely to be named any day now – might influence the president’s claims to broad executive authority. And the choice of who will replace Justice David Souter “could be terribly consequential, ” as New York University Law Professor David Golove puts it, because so many of the court’s rulings on executive power have been by a margin of five to four.

Follow the link above to read on.

Tuh-Weet! Supreme Court Pick edition

By GottaLaff

Via a Tweet from Howard Chua-Eoan, news director of Time Magazine:

Word is the supreme court pick is down to two. Granholm is out of running.

VIDEOS: Ben Nelson Open To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", Filibustering Supreme Court Nominee

By GottaLaff

Two major WTF Moments:




First, this:

Nelson declared that trials of Guantanamo detainees should not take place in the United States and detainees should not be imprisoned here. He distinguished between terrorists like the Blind Sheikh — who “committed violations of American law” — and those at Guantanamo to say the latter should be kept out of the U.S. [...]

Nelson also seemed to suggest that torture — or “enhanced techniques,” as he called it — could be used in the future:

NELSON: What we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.

Is he serious? Why even bother being a Democrat? Did he not hear the words of those who actually did the interrogating (Ali Soufan comes to mind)... the very same people who said it didn't work, and that the prisoners were more cooperative when the questioners treated them as, you know, human beings?

He even used actual Rushpublic talking points, as in: "activist judges".

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Ben Nelson warned the president against appointing an activist judge to replace the retiring David Souter. In the process, the Nebraska Democrat acknowledged that the scenario could present itself where he joined the GOP in voting against cloture. [...]

Earlier in the interview, he said that as the "author of the words 'extraordinary circumstances'" - the phrase that, per the 2005 compromise, now serves as a the basis of the filibuster attempt - "I do understand that there could be certain circumstances where you might vote against somebody on the filibuster."

This is exactly why I've been saying all along that, that just because we have 59 (or even potentially 60) Democrats in the Senate, there is no guarantee that we'd have a filibuster-proof majority. I've always maintained that the Conservadems would be a problem.

This is one time I have no desire to be right.