Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: The Fight That Wasn't

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor seems assured of confirmation. AFP PHOTO/Tim Sloan

If there was any question of whether Republicans had given up on the idea of turning the nomination of judge Sonia Sotomayor into a major political fight, the events of the past 24 hours have effectively erased those doubts.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn a ruling by Sotomayor regarding allegations of reverse discrimination by a group of white firefighters in Connecticut seemed like just the sort of thing Republicans would jump on to reinforce the idea that President Obama's nominee was not fit for the bench.

Instead, crickets.

To be sure, people like Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) issued statements hitting Sotomayor but neither GOP leader took any real rhetorical risks; McConnell said the decision reinforced his "concerns" about Sotomayor while Cornyn called the ruling a "victory for evenhanded application of the law."

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the party's frontrunner for the 2012 presidential nomination, didn't even see fit to offer a public statement on the Supreme Court decision or its impact on Sotomayor's confirmation.

It was left up to Judicial Watch, a conservative outside group, to use the decision to conclude that "Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court."

The simple fact made clear by the (at best) muted criticism of Sotomayor's decision on the firefighters case is that elected Republican officials have decided that the Supreme Court fight is not one worth picking.

"I think the strategy not to rain on a very big Latino parade that could not be stopped anyway was a very good one," said Mike Murphy, a prominent Republican strategist based in California.

The decision to back down -- as reflected by Murphy -- is, in large part, a politically-motivated one. Opposing the first Hispanic to ever be nominated to the bench would almost certainly have the effect of further damaging the Republican brand in the eyes of Latinos who are, in case you have been under a pile of coats for the last few years, the largest minority group in the country.

More broadly, there seems to be little public appetite for a fight over Sotomayor. In polling conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, more than six in ten Americans said the Senate should confirm Sotomayor -- including 64 percent of Independent voters.

Combine the risk of alienating the Hispanic vote, the general sentiment in favor of Sotomayor and the struggles that Republicans have experienced in settling on a message and messengers to carry it and it seems that taking a pass on a full-blown Supreme Court battle was the right choice.

Stuart Stevens, a media consultant who handled Romney's advertising during the 2008 presidential primary, put the GOP calculation bluntly -- and best.

"On Obama's watch, GM has gone bankrupt, unemployment is pushing historic highs, trillions have been wasted and more soldiers are at war today than a year ago," Stevens said. "Don't pick a fight with a tough girl from the Bronx. There are easier fights."

Tuesday's Fix Picks: Jeff Tweedy > Jay Farrar.

1. Maria Belen Chapur profiled.
2. Romney 2012 in waiting.
3. Paterson wins!
4. The Illinois Senate field grows.
5. A John Edwards tell-all is coming.

Sanford Apologizes (Again): Gov. Mark Sanford has sent out an e-mail to his supporters apologizing for his disappearance from South Carolina last week and his admitted extramarital affair . "Immediately after all this unfolded last week I had thought I would resign -- as I believe in the military model of leadership and when trust of any form is broken one lays down the sword," Sanford wrote, adding "that for God to really work in my life I shouldn't be getting off so lightly." He added that his plan to stay in office is in a teaching moment for his four sons, an attempt to turn a "fall from grace" into a "renewal and rebuilding and growth in its aftermath." Sanford's re-assertion that he will remain in office came almost simultaneously with Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's (R) pledge on CNN that if he became governor as a result of Sanford's resignation he would not, as planned, run for the open seat in 2010. (For more on the incredible intrigue that is South Carolina politics, make sure to check out the New York Times account.)

New FL-Sen Poll, Rubio Forces Rejoice: A new Mason-Dixon survey shows Gov. Charlie Crist leading former state House Speaker Marco Rubio by a 51 percent to 23 percent margin in the Florida Republican Senate primary. But, Rubio allies are claiming jubilation at the numbers as it shows their candidate gaining five points from a similar poll in May and Crist dropping two. (Worth noting: Those sorts of rises and drops are within the survey's margin of error and, therefore, could constitute movement or nothing at all. Ah, polling.) What is made abundantly clear in the Mason-Dixon data is that Rubio has significant room to grow. Roughly half of all Republican primary voters don't recognize Rubio's name while Crist is almost universally recognized. Among those voters who recognize both Rubio and Crist, the race is essentially tied with Crist at 33 percent and Rubio at 31 percent. At issue for Rubio is whether he can raise the sort of money (double digit millions) that will allow him to get known statewide in Florida. If he can, there is potential that the contest could be closer than many -- including the Fix -- think it would be.

Republicans Rally on Health Care: With Congress in recess, three high powered Republicans -- Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and John Cornyn (Texas) are gathering at the University of Texas this morning to make their case against the president's health care proposal. The event won't be televised or even streamed live on the Internet (booo!).

Conway Gets Horne: In the seeming unending fight for endorsements in the Kentucky Democratic Senate primary between Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo and state Attorney General Jack Conway, the latter added to his pile on Monday when Andrew Horne announced his support. Horne, a lieutenant colonel in the Army and briefly a Senate candidate against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2003, said that Conway "gives us the best short of winning in 2010" because of his ability to appeal statewide and his youth. Does Horne's endorsement sway a single vote in the primary (other than his own, of course)? No. But, just because these sorts of endorsements have almost no real-world impact doesn't mean they are not important; the game right now is to show viability and strength to activists and the more endorsements Conway (or Mongiardo) can secure, the better case they can make that they are the stronger candidate.

Are You Ready to Laugh?: Mark your calendars -- the annual Funniest Celebrity in Washington competition will be held on Sept. 30. Among those who will try their hand at the business of show are Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, Washington Times editorial page editor Richard Minitir and U.S. News and World Report's Anna Mulrine. Who could forget the travashamockery that was the 2008 funniest celeb contest where former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) somehow beat out rapping James Kotecki?

The Last Minute Fundraising Push: With less than 24 hours remaining before candidates must close their books on the second fundraising quarter, all sorts of appeals are coming across the Fix desk. A few of our favorites: 1) former GOP representative Rob Simmons, who is running for the Senate in Connecticut, promises to personally call (!) anyone who gives before midnight 2) Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Bob Menendez (N.J.) who asks for a very specific amount -- $129,071 -- to be donated before the period ends 3) Appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y) who wished us a happy weekend before asking for more money. 4) Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) who isn't up for reelection until 2012, acknowledges that "my next campaign seems like a long way away but it's close than you think." Got a favorite of your own? Send it to us at

Say What?: "Light bulbs may not seem sexy." -- President Barack Obama on energy, the universe and everything.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 30, 2009; 5:35 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Political Hall of Fame: The Nominations Are In!
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today


Dear Chris, it is YOU who crowned Romney the frontrunner. First you declare him a leader than you criticize him for not leading.

It may be true but he does not see himself as the leader or spokesman for the party. He sees himself as one of many strong voices for the party.

Look, the leader of our party was term limited out. We may have many voices, but no one leader. Romney could be that leader but he has no power or authority to do that. If you say he is the front runner, just because you say so doesn't give him any authority to speak for the party.

Romney speaks with great purpose, to effect positive change, to persuade others to Republican ideals, to correct the course of politics. I appreciate Romney's forthrightness and strength. But he knows his place. Its not his job to opine on every newstory and if he did you would be one to whine about it.

Your criticism of him is wholly undeserved.

Posted by: SteadfastImmovable | June 30, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Combine the risk of alienating the Hispanic vote, the general sentiment in favor of Sotomayor and the struggles that Republicans have experienced in settling on a message and messengers to carry it and it seems that taking a pass on a full-blown Supreme Court battle was the right choice.
Not to mention since she is a Liberal replacing a Liberal the urgency to fight her is not there since the balance will not change if/when she replaces Souter, and lastly the Republicans just don't have the numbers to win. But I do believe the Republicans if they play their cards right can tarnesh her and Obama over this Ricci case. This is a case where Liberals disagreed with the Supreme Court but I believe most Americans supported the firefighters. Obama wants to appear the moderate.. but here's a case were through his selection he sided with the far left.

Posted by: sovine08 | June 30, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Oops! I was looking for the Comments section of The Fix! I must have accidentally blundered into the 'King_of_Zouk's' private blog by mistake! So sorry!

To 'fulrich': Yes, it's not a very nuanced view [to refer to political parties as 'brands'], but it's the accepted expression--probably to differentiate it from the external, nominally objective view of the party vs. the officially sanctioned stances of a political party from within. There are so many things that have crept into the language--'my bad' being the latest excrescence (as if 'my mistake' or 'my fault' were somehow no longer serviceable).

One must admit, though, that a political party which often moves in lockstep and (until very recently, at any rate) has a well-coordinated, well-market tested message, does leave itself more open to 'brand identification' than otherwise.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | June 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"The point is not about backing a Chavez clone, but about preferring democracy to power change by military coup. Aren't you pro-Democracy?"

Those people are only pro-democracy when such a stance can be used to try and score political points (ie Iran) otherwise, they claim they are being "realists"

Posted by: DDAWD | June 30, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Stuart Stevens, a media consultant who handled Romney's advertising during the 2008 presidential primary, put the GOP calculation bluntly -- and best. 'On Obama's watch, GM has gone bankrupt, unemployment is pushing historic highs, trillions have been wasted and more soldiers are at war today than a year ago.'"

Ah, the GOP have become so deluded that they think Obama is Bush. Even before Obama took office, GM was about to go bankrupt, the recession causing unemployment was already a year long, and Bush had doubled the national debt and started the stupid, wasteful Iraq war. Under Obama, GM is undergoing an orderly bankruptcy in order to survive, the recession is gradually easing with forceful government intervention, and the Iraq War is ending. The deficit is a big problem, but it's costing a lot of money to fix all the GOP mistakes of the last 8 years.

Posted by: zvelf | June 30, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with chrisfox. It's small credit to the GOP that it has decided to stop shooting itself in the foot after it has already blown both feet clean off.

The GOP is a day late and a dollar short, and still muttering nonsense to boot.

Posted by: nodebris | June 30, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

U.S. consumer confidence took an unexpectedly steep slide in June, figures released on Tuesday showed, suggesting the 18-month-long recession had yet to loosen its grip on the economy.

Call it the Lib economy. At sopme point everyone will understand the origin of this crash - Libs of course.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That matches the lowest level yet recorded (see trends).

Oops the truth is getting out. the stupid are waking up.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

beware the Evil eye:

too funny for our own little slice of a third world dictator, complete with lavish food, jet trips and shopping sprees in Paris and London.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone who is as sick as I am of commentators referring to political parties and figures as "brands?" The Republican brand--what does that mean? Has politics sunk so low that it is now compared to the shelves of grocery stores? The use of the term in such broad ways reduces the dialogue. Is there a "Republican" product? The term indicates there is no variety in the Democrat brand or Republican brand, no diversity. Yes, it's an easy out but I thought the Fix was all about a more complex evaluation of current affairs and the ongoing discussion of our political system.

Posted by: fulrich | June 30, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Have you read about last week's White House luau, which flew in Hawai'i's premier luau entertainers as well as plenty of Hawaiian-grown fresh food? The rest of us, of course, are being told to eat locally. But who cares about the cost or the carbon footprint when President Obama wants to schmooze his friends with a little home town ambiance?

Meanwhile, the 50th State is facing a very real threat from a Nuclear Kim Jong Il, but I bet the tropical drinks were good.

Nothing's too good for our messiah and his sycophants.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Stupid GOP, playing to the Palin crowd.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

the endless drone of idiocy returns with the same drivl-esque chanting.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

preferring democracy to power change by military coup. Aren't you pro-Democracy?


the dude was subverting the constitution to stay in power beyond his term.

do you ever actually read any hard news, in other words, not MSDNC?

what is interesting from our POV is that Obambi immediately sided with the dictator. Again.

Does he wear hammer and sickle underwear?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

So? The damage is already done. Last November the Republican Party had 33% support among Latinos. Now it's down to 8%. The racist commentary about Sotomayor explains the drop allllllll by itself.

Stupid GOP, playing to the Palin crowd.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 30, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"so in keeping with the established level of acceptable Lib ignorance, you advocate reading the bill some time after it has passed"

Depends on what she was doing instead. Seems like the focus should be on getting what you want passed in the Senate & fix the differences in conference. What passed in the House is potentially irrelevant by the time you get to the conference committee.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"The Law Triumphs in Honduras
Another dot to connect as Obama instantly backs a Chavez clone"

The point is not about backing a Chavez clone, but about preferring democracy to power change by military coup. Aren't you pro-Democracy?


Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

so in keeping with the established level of acceptable Lib ignorance, you advocate reading the bill some time after it has passed.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Do you think it might be a legitimate question to ask our nation's energy czar why she still hasn't read the most dramatic (read: ruinous) energy bill ever passed?"

If it had passed both the House & Senate, you might have a point. Given that it has not, your point is moot.


Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse


This FYI:


EYES ONLY. TO: U.S. multi-agency intel section/unit chiefs, operatives
FROM: Target
RE: Multi-agency coordinated action program, a/k/a "The Program"





See linked article, psy ops responses to target internet postings, below:


Posted by: scrivener50 | June 30, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

What we see in Jackson is a manifestation in extreme form of modern man’s increasing unwillingness to place a limit on his own appetites, the precondition that Edmund Burke laid down for the exercise of liberty. Jackson, it is often said, was a child who never grew up; ‘I want, I want!’ was the sum total of his philosophy. He was, in extreme form, a very characteristic modern human type, whose life course was that of precocity followed by permanent adolescence. This was tragic rather than enviable or admirable; but it was a tragedy for our times.

Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

sounds like Libs doesn't it? I want I want, you pay.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Ed Morrissey highlights an exchange from this morning's Fox & Friends, in which Obama energy czar Carol "Brownout" Browner admits she still hasn't read the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House on Friday night. Steve Doocy's insistence that she answer his question was "absolutely not fair," she protested, assuring viewers that she'd read "vast portions" of the legislation.

Note to mainstream-media reporters: Do you think it might be a legitimate question to ask our nation's energy czar why she still hasn't read the most dramatic (read: ruinous) energy bill ever passed? All joking aside, what exactly did she do all weekend? Shouldn't this have been her priority? Hopefully she wasn't hanging with the president.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Once the truth of Liberalism gets out, they are doomed:

Yesterday on the Corner, Stephen Spruiell paraphrased Paul Krugman's latest defense of the trade war that the Obama Energy Tax will most likely instigate:

Fresh off his thundering condemnation of "treason against the planet," Paul Krugman has a written a blog post on the subject of that trade provision in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here's the shorter version of Krugman's argument:

The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans' access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don't you dumb hicks understand?

To which I reply: Please, please keep making this argument. As loudly as you can.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Have you heard the latest comedy stylings of Sen. John Kerry? He is a real card, that guy: with the lightness, suavity, and zing of Noel Coward. When Gov. Mark Sanford was thought to be on the Appalachian Trail, Kerry told a crowd, “Too bad, if a governor had to go missing, it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.” Uh, yeah, we know, Big John.

Can you believe that, but for a relative handful of votes in Ohio, this guy would have been president?

Reminds me of something a well-known politician said about George W. Bush (off the record, I’m afraid): “Whatever his other accomplishments, at least he kept two of the sorriest sons-of-[guns] who ever lived from being president.”

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Stuart Stevens, a media consultant who handled Romney's advertising during the 2008 presidential primary, put the GOP calculation bluntly -- and best.

"On Obama's watch, GM has gone bankrupt, unemployment is pushing historic highs, trillions have been wasted and more soldiers are at war today than a year ago," Stevens said. "Don't pick a fight with a tough girl from the Bronx. There are easier fights."


The fight with reality seems to be the tough one with the GOP and their minions. When Cilliza is through admiring the poo stains on the wall thrown by the GOP, he might want to remember that it is just that - poo...

Posted by: LABC | June 30, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse


The first sentence in the second paragraph should probably be rephrased because it is currently misleading. You explain that the Supreme Court decided to "overturn a ruling by Sotomayor," when, in fact, it wasn't a ruling under her name. It was a "per curiam" opinion which she (and two other appellate judges) endorsed "as a court." So saying it was a "ruling by" Sotomayor improperly implies that she wrote the opinion (when she did not), or that she somehow had plenary authority to make the ruling (which she did not, since two other judges were on the panel).

Rephrasing to "overruled a decision endorsed by Sotomayor" or "overruled a decision by an appellate panel including Sotomayor" would be more accurate.

Posted by: justmanj | June 30, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

President Obama has appointed yet another czar—you know, one of those people in his administration with a long title, huge portfolio and no budget to get anything done.(Snip)The list of Czars keeps growing, according to Reuters: There's a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Libs channeling Lenin?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The Law Triumphs in Honduras
Another dot to connect as Obama instantly backs a Chavez clone

Posted by: king_of_zouk | June 30, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Did you ever notice that very few Republicans leave office after admitting an affair or being caught in some pickle? Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig was going to resign, then he didn't. Senator Vitter didn't resign, Senator Ensign didn't resign.

Before you mention "Bill Clinton", I would add that Rep Henry Hyde,the House Judiciary Chairman had an extramarital affair for 9 years. Newt Gingrich was having an affair even while he was leading the Clinton probe. Jerry Falwell praised Gingrich for admitting the affair.

So, the chickens have come home to roost. The party of "family values" has pretty much decimated their supposed moral superiority.

And, please don't hand me the sin and forgiveness tripe. Republicans are so easy to forgive their own sins, yet love to point out the sins of others.

Posted by: MichelleKinPA | June 30, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for getting that off your chest, xcannons. If you hadn't spoken up, we all wouldn't have learned that people who don't believe what you believe are "brain dead."

And we now also know that Democrats are more eager to jump in front of a camera than Republicans.

Furthermore, we now know that Sonia Sotomayor has no judicial skills, whatsoever, and that she was continuously bumped up the chain simply because liberals want to promote minorities. Amazing that she, among all minorities, was chosen for such rapid advancement, isn't it?

This is why I continue to read these posts. I am eager to learn, learn, learn.

Posted by: dognabbit | June 30, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,

The Supreme Court ruling spoke for itself. Unlike Democrats, who would run over their own mothers to jump in front of a camera, the Republicans don't need to speak out on this ruling to reinforce Judge Sotomayor's incompetence.
Conservatives and Republicans know that Judge Sotomayor has no clue in interpreting the Constitution, yet she has a tremendous "life story" and is a minority, and that is all that's required to satisfy liberals and brain dead journalists such as yourself for the highest court in the country.

Posted by: xcannons | June 30, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"Where am I wrong?"

In using the gallup data.


Posted by: bsimon1 | June 30, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The early bird gets the worm.

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

"Under a pile of coats"? That's funny.

The Supreme Court decision was 5-4. When it comes to court decisions, you win some and you lose some. This doesn't mean that Judge Sotomayor was 44.4% right and 55.5% wrong. It means that these particular 9 judges ruled the way they ruled. If Bush had had the opportunity to load the Court with nothing but conservatives, the vote might've gone 9-0.

Posted by: dognabbit | June 30, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

............Well according to the latest in-depth survey by Gallup the ideology makeup of America is:


So................. Let's do the math:

40% "Conservative" of nine justices = 3.6 or rounded to 4 (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) Just right

35% "Moderates" of nine justtces = 3.15 or rounded to 3 (just Kennedy)

22% "Liberal" of nine justices = 1.98 or rounded to 2 (Scoter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyers)

WELL........well left-wing POST............It appears as if the Liberals are OVER REPRESENTED.......

Need to reduce to two liberals and get to 3 moderates.......

That's if anyone in the DEMOCRAT PARTY "really" believes in Affirmitive Action..........................

Where am I wrong?

Posted by: allenridge | June 30, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I see the doddering jaked was up early today. What happened jaked, you filled up your night-time Depends?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 30, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Republicans cannot win with these liberals and this liberal paper. What is the sense of jumping all over it? We Republicans know that Sotomayer is in because we know it would futile to fight it. Democrats have the votes, and liberals don't care about qualifications or rulings. She is an Hispanic women and that is all that matters to them. If she was an ax murderer that slaughtered her own children, liberals would not care less, just as long as she was a liberal, a woman, and a minority. We in the GOP know that. We know better than to look for integrity and scruples where there are none to be found. As for an honest debate about what the Supreme Court should be about, Liberals don't want that either.It does not matter to them, all that matters to them is liberal and minority, liberal and minority, liberal and minority.

Posted by: newmexican | June 30, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Media consultant Stuart Stevens must be on some alien crack if he thinks Romney can pin GM's bankruptcy and the unemployment numbers on Obama. Obama's "watch" as he calls it is not even 6 months old yet and the economic collapse--a part of which was GM's debacle earlier in the year--occurred on Bush's watch.

Isn't it astonishing that the GOP can lie with such abandon? Good God! Romney is supposed to be a decent, honest upstanding Mormon chockful of traditional values like honest. Yet, he allows a media consultant to deceptively try and pin our economic woes on Obama? Classic right wing chutzpa!

Posted by: jaxas | June 30, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

"Close, but Tweedy = Farrar"

You think so? I think Wilco is a far superior band to Son Volt.

Although back in the Uncle Tupelo days, I liked the Farrar songs better than the Tweedy songs.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 30, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

You are missing a point on Sotomayor. She is an hispanic and she failed to support the hispanic firefighters that were being disciminated against.
In her indifference in her support of the previous ruling she failed to help her own people.
Don't you think that will be noted??

Posted by: thornegp1 | June 30, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Close, but Tweedy = Farrar

Posted by: duwhanow | June 30, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

For the right-wing nazis (or GOP), the issue is not that the Supreme Battle battle is not worth fighting.....the real issue is that they are slowly coming to the conclusion they don't have either the troops nor the weaponry necessary to fight, and win, a real battle against president Obama. It seems nobody is now listening to Dick-Head Cheney or the obersturmfueher Psycho Von Limbaugh.

Posted by: analyst72 | June 30, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, newageblues and fairfaxvoter. I like bloggers who are not afraid to state the bleeding obvious.
Justice Roberts is so very much against judges rewriting law -- unless he is the judge rewriting it.
No one is a big enough imbecile to believe what Stuart Stevens said; he is a hack who would drink Limbaugh's bathwater if he was paid for it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 30, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

It's funny, I haven't heard any Republicans whining about "judicial activism" after this ruling, despite the fact that by their own definition that's clearly what it was...

Posted by: pdech | June 30, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Hey, at least Sanford has good taste in women.

More telling than the endorsements in the KY senate primary is how much money each candidate was able to raise this quarter -- do we know that yet?

Posted by: msame | June 30, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Agree. Also, every story I've read about Sotomayor since the initial choice has implied that this was the expected Supreme Court ruling, so it was already factored in and isn't news.

My reaction as a layperson was that the Court was divided 5-4, so four Justices currently on the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor. Moreover, David Souter, the justice Sotomayor would be replacing, was in the minority upholding her court's majority opinion, so that vote wouldn't have changed. Additionally, Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissent was quite powerful.

After reading the analysis of the actual decision, it sounds like the Supreme Court decided to make new law here and resolve what the majority saw as a long-standing contradiction between two parts of the same law. Making new law was more properly their role and not hers as a lower-court judge. This just doesn't feel like a gamechanger, given that most decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court are reversed (that's why they accept them for argument).

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | June 30, 2009 7:28 AM | Report abuse

The Repub spin doc says "On Obama's watch, GM has gone bankrupt, unemployment is pushing historic highs, trillions have been wasted and more soldiers are at war today than a year ago." Right, everything was going so heavenly before Obama got in and created those bankruptcies, unemployment, waste and deficits, and wars.

Posted by: newageblues | June 30, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Love Stuart Stevens' revisionist history on GM! Note to Mr. Stevens: GM has been heading to bankruptcy for years. It's been nothing but a carcass for 20 years now....

Re Crist: He's another Republican (like Graham) with closet problems...

Posted by: RickJ | June 30, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

I see you trying, Chris, and I like your work OK -- but you ain't Froomkin.

Posted by: frodot | June 30, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Those quotes are from Murphy and Stevens SINCE the United States Supreme Court slapped down Sotomayor again?

Posted by: JakeD | June 30, 2009 6:23 AM | Report abuse

Crist is trying to position himself to run for President as a Republican. Losing a Senate primary would, plainly, be damaging, but he would still be Governor of Florida. Probably the primaries are on the same day, so he would not be able to run for re-election as governor, but he would still have substantive experience. There would be other routes back, such as a future Senate run. By contrast, running as an independent would destroy any chance of running for President as a Republican.

Posted by: qlangley | June 30, 2009 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Is there any possibility that Crist may run as an Independent if he loses the Republican Senate primary? Kendrick Meek is going to have lots of money, and if Crist loses the primary, he can probably take Rubio. However, if Crist runs as an Independent, that may make for a very interesting 3-way race, which Crist may win. That would absolutely doom Rubio.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | June 30, 2009 5:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company