Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Winners and Losers, Sotomayor Day 4



It is nearly certain that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Brendan Smialowski -- Bloomberg

And, scene!

The confirmation hearings for judge Sonia Sotomayor concluded late Thursday just as the Fix was running out of ways to keep them interesting.

With the hearings now at a (merciful) end, we put our heads together with Ben Pershing (of Political Browser fame) to drum up a final list of winners and losers for the final day.

Our selections are below. Have your own? The comments section beckons.

WINNERS

President Obama: Lost in the plodding certainty of the last four days of hearings is that President Obama is almost-certain to get his first nominee to the Supreme Court confirmed without any major slipups or problems. That is a major accomplishment that should not be diminished simply because the confirmation was so newsless.

Robert Morgenthau: Morgenthau, the 89-year-old New York City District Attorney, was the most consistently entertaining and interesting witness called on the final day of the proceedings. Plus, Morgenthau is the inspiration for the character of Adam Schiff on "Law & Order".

Stephanie Cutter: Cutter, the longtime political operative who was tasked by the White House with guiding Sotomayor through the confirmation process, pulled off the extremely difficult task without a hitch. Cutter is feared/revered for her toughness and political savvy in negotiating the corridors of Capitol Hill. That reputation was significantly bolstered by Sotomayor's performance from selection to what is expected to be an easy confirmation.

Foreign Law: Did anyone who is not a) a judge b) a lawyer c) a constitutional scholar have any idea what the heck foreign law's impact on being a Supreme Court Justice was before this hearing? Of course not. Although, arguably, you may not know what its impact is after this hearing either.

LOSERS

The Third Round of Questioning: Despite lamenting the tediousness of the questioning process, several senators took the opportunity to ask even more questions when the Judiciary Committee went in for a third round of interrogation of Sotomayor. No new ground was broken in this third round, ensuring that all it did was extend an already lengthy hearing.

Frank Ricci: The only witness that anyone outside of baseball nuts like the Fix were looking forward to was Ricci, the New Haven firefighter at the center of the case over reverse discrimination that posed Sotomayor's most dangerous hurdle in the confirmation process. But, Ricci's statement was entirely devoid of controversy (or any mention of Sotomayor) and the follow-up questions to him produced no drama either.

Michael Bloomberg: Say it with us Mr. Mayor: So-toe-my-or.

Analogies: Sotomayor made abundantly clear on numerous occasion Thursday that she isn't a big fan of analogies. It was like she was channeling Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Friday Fix Picks: How can the Fix be so low on the Mediaite power grid? It's a slap in the face!

1. Biden vs. Cantor
2. Obama's for Corzine.
3. A look inside the Hutchison-Perry fundraising battle.
4. RGA chief Nick Ayers interviewed.
5. How good is the "Half Blood Prince"?

Reid Goes For Gillibrand: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) is wading into the New York Senate race by throwing his endorsement behind appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Reid touts Gillibrand as a "rising star" within the Democratic caucus and praised her "unique perspective" as a working mother of two. Reid joins the White House, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) in Gillibrand's camp. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, however, appears undaunted by the weight of establishment endorsements lining up against her in next year's primary. Polling suggests the two women start the race in a virtual dead heat although Gillibrand is widely expected to have a clear fundraising lead, which matters in a state as costly as New York in which to advertise.

Kirk To Announce Monday, Sets $25 Million Campaign Budget: After an initial waffle about a Senate bid, Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will announce his candidacy on Monday, according to an e-mail the congressman sent to "Illinois GOP leaders" Thursday night. "I believe that I am one of the only candidates who can win this race, taking back our state and denying the Democrats a 60-seat majority," wrote Kirk. (Democrats, of course, already have a 60 seat majority.) The e-mail goes on to list the scads of state and national Republican leaders backing his candidacy, before outlining Kirk's fundraising targets. "We have raised $1.3 million and plan to raise $24 million more," wrote Kirk. Kirk will face either state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy in the general election.

Alaska as Democratic Opportunity?: The soon-to-be official resignation of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) could hand Democrats a legitimate pickup opportunity, according to a recent poll in the Last Frontier obtained by the Fix. The survey, which was conducted by Global Strategy Group, showed Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell (R) at 41 percent to former state Sen. Ethan Berkowitz's (D) 40 percent -- a statistical dead heat. Democrats held the Alaska governorship from 1994 until 2002 as Gov. Tony Knowles (D) benefited from a fractured Republican party and serious independent candidates. As for those who argued that Palin decided to leave office for fear she would lose in 2010, this poll, which was in the field from June 14-18 suggests otherwise. Palin led Berkowitz 56 percent to 36 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup and carried a solid 56 percent/35 percent favorable to unfavorable score.

Ayotte, Hodes in Dead Heat: A new poll conducted for the liberal Daily Kos blog shows that New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte's (R) entry into the open Senate race has turned the contest into a pure tossup. Ayotte, who is rapidly gaining the support of the Washington political establishment, takes 39 percent in the Research 2000 poll to 38 percent for Rep. Paul Hodes who has cleared the Democratic primary field. Thirty six percent of the sample have a favorable opinion of Ayotte while just 13 percent have a unfavorable opinion -- a reflection of the fact that she has never been involved in a partisan race before. Hodes fav/unfav numbers -- 34/21 -- are slightly less rosy but only slightly. While the Kos poll is good news for Senate Republicans, there is still significant doubt as to whether Ayotte will dodge a primary. Businessman Fred Tausch has already sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into television ads promoting fiscal discipline and has hired several well regarded New Hampshire operatives to manage his likely bid. And, Ovide LaMontagne, the party's gubernatorial nominee in 1996, is also taking a serious look at the race and has hired Washington-based attorney Charlie Spies to advise him.

Say What?: "Senator Leahy and I were talking during these hearings, we're going to do that crack cocaine thing you and I have talked about before." -- Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (Ala.) makes a rhetorical boo boo during the final day of hearings on judge Sonia Sotomayor.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 17, 2009; 5:54 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hall of Fame: The Case Against Tip O'Neill
Next: Mouthpiece Theater: Ball & Chain

Comments

Once we finally get rid of the tainted Burris from the senate, Illinois needs a strong senate voice. I think we all must take a moment to address that exact question; how exactly can a US senator clean the State of Illinois? The answer is not a simple one.

The solution is complex, long, and will require commitments by both parties and throughout the entangled web of bureaucracy. To take the first step, we need a leader who is focused on solving the problem; from listening to Mark Kirk's announcement speech for US Senate, all of Illinois now should know that cleaning up Illinois is one of his top priorities. So that becomes the first step, having a clean leader who believes in the importance of cleaning up the Illinois system. He has shown from his past voting in the House that he has set up incentives for those who stay clean and harsh punishments such as eliminating pensions for the corrupt leaders. But being a senator and a leader will only enhance Kirk's ability to allow him to have more power over seeking out the bad apples, destroying them, and in their place planting the seeds for a new governmental system, one that puts a premium on honesty and integrity.

Posted by: vanosrapidamente | July 22, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"reverse discrimination" has a potent pull among the "sort of people" who would vote for Sarah Palin. They live in a world of paranoia and self-pity and feel looked down upon. Google "The Redneck Manifesto."

Jesse Helms' famous "hands" ad showed a white man's hands mutilating a notice that a promotion had been denied. You shoulda gotten the job but it went to a ni66er.

This is what conservatives want from the court, validation of this kind of brain-charred twaddle.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 18, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse

@cf8/It sounds like the guy spends most of his time (allegedly) gaming the system. Ultimately his suit against the Fire Department alleging discrimination based on his "dyslexia" won him a firefighters job. With that success he was encouraged to go for it again, suing the City for tossing out the bogus test. The press should have reported on all this: he was no victim.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 18, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I knew Ricci claimed dyslexia, didn't know he's one of those lawsuit freaks.

I knew a guy like that one, always trying to sue people. Antagonized his roommates, even set off a subsonic machine to give them stomach cramps. After a while the local two-bit attorneys all knew about him.

I guess the law has no formal recognition of people like that, but it should. Ricci should not have been able to go to an appellate court, much less the Supreme

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 18, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

More on Ricci (Fix-pronounced "loser")
______________

From "Yahoo! Answers":

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090716094743AAr00f5

"Did Frank Ricci fake dyslexia to get special privileges on the firefighter exam?

It is well known that they allow a handicap for dyslexics, as they get extra time to complete written tests.
It is also well known that the firefighter exam is very fast paced, and most people will score much higher if given extra time to complete it.
Given that Ricci failed the first firefighter exam, and successfully sued the fire dept claiming he had dyslexia, and the fact that he has been involved in six (most of them frivilous) lawsuits, one of them against his fire chief.
Does he not seem like the opportunistic, manipulating type that would fake dyslexia to try to score better on the exam?"

What's the answer to this question, MSM?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 18, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

What a load of crap. "Reverse discrimination" is the mating call of that socially endangered species, the self-pitying redneck.
?
Your other post is crap too. Dyslexia isn't like being in a wheelchair, or having an extra chromosome 23. To infer condescension from CC's listing him is more than a bit of a stretch, it's a reach. For sympathy.

Same old "liberal fascism" BS you guys have been pulling for ten years now. Get a new act, would you

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 18, 2009 12:27 AM
__________
cf8, I didn't know about this Ricci stuff until yesterday. Unreal. Had the MSM reported it (frivolous lawsuits, dyslexia claims) BEFORE the hearings Ricci would have been too ashamed to even show up. Internet posts raise serious questions about his claimed "dyslexia." Ironically some posts suggest, as an accommodation for his dyslexia, he may have been given extra time to complete those non-job-related promotional tests he did well on.

With Cronkite's passing, legitimate, fact-based journalism has, with some exceptions (e.g., Tim Dickinson's piece on Mac in the Rolling Stone, Charley James's coverage of Palin), passed away as well. Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 18, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Nearly inevitably any justice nominated by a Democratic president will vote to perpetuate reverse discrimination at least several additional decades.

==

What a load of crap. "Reverse discrimination" is the mating call of that socially endangered species, the self-pitying redneck.
?
Your other post is crap too. Dyslexia isn't like being in a wheelchair, or having an extra chromosome 23. To infer condescension from CC's listing him is more than a bit of a stretch, it's a reach. For sympathy.

Same old "liberal fascism" BS you guys have been pulling for ten years now. Get a new act, would you

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 18, 2009 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Winners: Sotomayor who thanks to the large majority of Democrats in the Senate will be the next justice. The only chance Republicans had of denying her confirmation was if they controlled the Senate with at least a 55-45 majority.

Those who support and will benefit from reverse discrimination. Nearly inevitably any justice nominated by a Democratic president will vote to perpetuate reverse discrimination at least several additional decades.

Losers:

Conservatives and Republicans.

The illiberal people for an american way, which showed some "liberals" can be as intolerant and McCarthyite as conservatives and reactionaries often are by issuing, as reported I think in Chris' blog, a smear e-mail against Frank Ricci.

Those who refer to a hardworking, successful individual with a learning disability, such as Frank Ricci, as a "loser," are falling to a new low in public "discourse" in this country. They seem to have no comprehension how difficult it is for a person with dyslexia to complete high school, let alone be successful in a profession.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | July 17, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Describing politicians or journalists as "losers" seems sort of within reasonable bounds, at least given how public discourse has degenerated in recent decades. However, for anyone to say or write Frank Ricci, who has dyslexia, is a "loser" is a low blow indeed, even taking into account the prevalent "yellow journalism" and excessive partisan political arena, of the modern era.

People should have at least minimal respect and sensitivity toward those with disabilities, such as dyslexia. One of the buggest losers was the illiberal group, people for the american way, which sent, according to news reports, perhaps in Chris' blog, an e-mail trying to smear Frank Ricci. Shows some people who call themselves "liberals" can be just as McCarthyite as conservatives and reactionaries.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | July 17, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

And that's the way it is, July 17th, 2009.

Greatest anchor ever.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Moment of silence for Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr. -- a real winner

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 17, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Ricci was a loser.

The MSM failed to disclose, until the hearings were over, Ricci (allegedly) got affirmative action in the form of preferences based on his "claimed" dyslexia and (allegedly) had filed a series of other frivolous lawsuits (allegedly). He wasn't the victim he was made out to be.

From:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php

"But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford Courant Ricci was singing the opposite tune: "A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic.""

The MSM does no reporting anymore, just Broder-ating. The public would have liked to know this as Ricci bleated about the evils of affrimative action.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 17, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

You are half right. Conservatives hope for the policies of Obama to fail because they KNOW what the long-term effect will be on the country, and it won't be good

==

Yeah just like you KNEW that the economy was going to collapse under Clinton, and you KNEW that the Iraqis were going to throw flower garlands at their heroic liberators, and you KNEW that tax cuts would lead in increased revenue.

You guys never learn.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Mediamatters.org weighs in on Fix's winners and losers:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907170006

"Cillizza went to great lengths to avoid naming a Republican one of the losers of Day 4 of the hearings; his "losers" list included "The Third Round of Questioning," "Analogies," and Michael Bloomberg, for mispronouncing Sotomayor's name. Bloomberg, of course, was a Republican until leaving the Party in 2007. Combined with Cillizza's choice of Arlen Specter among yesterday's losers, it seems the best way for a Republican to make Cillizza's list really is to leave the GOP."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 17, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 wrote: "And nothing spells "progressive" like a personal attack on the messenger"

Then how do you explain Zouk? This comment, like so many of your others, is demonstrably false.

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 wrote: "Conservatives hope for the policies of Obama to fail because they KNOW what the long-term effect will be on the country"

Just like conservatives so astutely gauged the effect of Bush's policies on the country?

God save us from what conservatives "KNOW."

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm revising my previous prediction. Kennedy will make it for the vote, but Byrd won't. So, the final vote will be 77 - 22. Republicans get a Phyrric victory as she doesn't match Roberts in total votes.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 17, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I missed how we got from SCOTUS to tax rates. But, a good resource is http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The lowest rate under JFK did go from 20% to 14% with one year at 16%. I'd guess my father - head of household, family of 4 - went from the 66% bracket to the 55% bracket under JFK. Now, correcting for inflation, he would be in the 25% bracket.

I understand the power of cutting taxes, but it is not a simple relationship. (Just ask California residents, where the top 5% of wage earners carry 20% of the state tax burden. We have to repeal Prop 13.) The problem I see with the Republican tax position of the last administration was that cutting taxes became a mantra instead of an economic principle.

Would JFK have raised taxes to support a major health care initiative? Not at the tax rate then. Would he now? That's hard to say - it was a different time. One of his advisors, Kermit Gordon, was one of the economic minds behind the Great Society, which included $1B to the War on Poverty, $1B to education and the establishment of Medicare.

Posted by: Kili | July 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"Nothing spells "pseudo-intellectual" like a sneer about economics."

And nothing spells "progressive" like a personal attack on the messenger instead of trying to defend indefensible liberal ideology.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Will there be an official "The Fix" t-shirt awarded on this thread too?

Posted by: Lisa421 | July 17, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Back to mark_in_austin's POOL, so far only Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated his definite opposition to Sotomayor.

“Judge Sotomayor’s record of written statements suggests an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath,” he said in remarks he planned to give on the Senate floor Monday. “This is particularly important when considering someone for the Supreme Court since, if she were confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter or prevent her from injecting into the law the various disconcerting principles that recur throughout her public statements."

It also looks like Sens. Robert Bennett of Utah and Jim Bunning of Kentucky are planning “no” votes. So, that's three thus far. I don't think that there will be more than two dozen "no" votes.

74-24.

Posted by: Lisa421 | July 17, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse


directly and indirectly,
the federal law affects all state law.
---constitutionality and rules and all that jazz.

so in reality, the feds have control over state. in that order. within any issue.

it's the indirect i worry about.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

chris: is that anything like
"quasi-evil"?

dbw: we also had Nam.
war makes money and jobs.

((slap, police conflict)))

hate it when i do that.

interesting talk of JFK years in office and what was accomplished.
yesterday was JFK, Jr's anniversary.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Nothing spells "pseudo-intellectual" like a sneer about economics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"The federal government has no control over the state income tax rates. See your state legislature about that."

And the investor/business doesn't care who is taxing them; either way it's money out of their pocket. So an investor is not going to make different decisions if he's being taxed 60% by the Federal government, or 40% by the Fed and 20% by his state/city.

It's also intellectually dishonest to pretend that JFK was only referring to the top tax rates on the wealthiest individuals. I would have to go dust off my history book, but I seem to recall he also reduced the lowest rate from like 20% to 14%. He believed tax rates were too high...across the board.

I'm not sure if you are missing the point, or refusing to recognize it. So let me ask it this way: do you really believe, given the multitude of statements JFK made on the subject, that if he were alive today that he would agree the way out of the economic mess is to increase tax rates...on anybody? And do you really believe JFK would agree with Obama that increasing tax rates on the highest earners and small business will spur economic growth and offset looming deficits?

If you truly believe that, you need to go back to whatever school you attended when you took "economics" and ask for your money back....

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

dbw-
i said family.
41 included.
and of course, the path that is being cemented for Jeb...

Jeb should be included on the Friday Line, but he's not Governor any longer.
But what good are Governors I ask?
They step on their state to get to Wash DC.
Then find out, governor as a title means jack.
Look at Chris' column on unemployment.
double digit in states where the Governors have spent one year to 18 months getting ready for 2010's race.
Along with the Bush policies of the last 8 years, which netted all his buddies money before he split. Made damn Texan sure of that.-----and Governors that vacate their office--in lieu of "the race" (or split like Sarah)---18 months before their job is done.
You know --that job they were elected to by the american people of that state.
which is at 10.0 to 16.0 unemployment.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The volume of dung coming out of an elephant is also remarkable. Correlation or coincidence?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The federal government has no control over the state income tax rates. See your state legislature about that.

Regarding the Federal income tax: JFK recognized that 90% was too high, and that a lower rate might actually yield more revenue. He was right. That doesn't mean he would be in favor of keeping the top rate at 35% or even lowering it.

Just because Obama may be in favor of raising the top rate from 35% back to 39.6% (or even higher) doesn't mean he is philosophically opposite of JFK. Maybe 39.6% is too high, but it seemed to work pretty good in the 1990s.

My point really is this: to quote or refer to JFK regarding lower taxes, without disclosing how high they were compared to now, is not intellectually honest.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The volume of posts from king_of_kook and joked is remarkable.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 17, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the subtle jest from the master of rapier, dry wit. You're just killing us out here, King, killing us. Just how does one continually create such
A Material day after day?

"duh, the wise Latina racist liar named Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod-off will get through the morons in the Senate.

It is 60% imbecile now. remember. OR where you busy watching Perry Mason reruns?

Posted by: king_of_zouk

Posted by: arielpoly | July 17, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Address? asks The BabeNemo...

How could I forget??

Must be the "D.E.W." -- you know, like what gave POTUS' scalp that "laser streak" behind his left ear? Or shattered that 'Prompter glass? (Just wondering, of course...)

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 17, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:
"we have already had long term effects that drove this country into 2 (maybe 3 wars), disasters not taken care of, financial ruin, and more violent crime.
It is called the Bush Family and the New World Order."

So "long-term" in your view is, what, 6 years? 8 years? Do you also believe the history of the world started in 1992, like a lot of Democrats seem to believe?

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm gonna go for 58 the Dem caucus and 18 Republican votes. So, that makes it 76, assuming that Kennedy and Byrd can't vote. If they show, then it's 78.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Sotomayor
Losers:
The Fix for not recognizing obvious "winners" & "losers";
Sessions & Graham;
Ricci (and the other firefighers who attended in force) for letting the Repubs "play him".

Posted by: rlj1 | July 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Fair point on the top tax rate being 90% in 1960, but if the Democrats get their way the top income tax rates will be in the 50%-60% range(when combined with effective state and local income taxes, which are much higher now than they were 50 years ago).

The point wasn't what the exact rate is. The point was JFK recognized that you cannot tax your way to prosperity, and you cannot tax your way out of deficits.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." -- JFK

The point was that Obama has not learned this principle which members of both parties seem to be forgetting.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

What? Latina is foreign? Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, which FYI is not a foreign country but a US Territory. Perhaps you should read her senior thesis on the subject.

Unless you think only 100% Native Americans should be citizens. Then I can agree that the rest of us are "foreign."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

thanks scrivener-
now -go to your room. (smiles)

wait, i think i have a new "hippy dippy political earth mother" website you can cut and paste from....i'll go get the address.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

dbw:
we have already had long term effects that drove this country into 2 (maybe 3 wars), disasters not taken care of, financial ruin, and more violent crime.
It is called the Bush Family and the New World Order.
Lump Dick "i will eat the lettuce" Cheney.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, jeez with the taxes again. Kennedy came after Eisenhower, and the top tax rate was 90% or something. Obama comes after Bush, who got the top rate dropped to 35%.

Whether lowering taxes or raising taxes is the right thing, depends on how high the taxes are at the moment. Right now taxes are lower than they've been since WWII.

Those who want lower taxes and lower deficits obviously want smaller government. Just say so. I want lower deficits eventually too. But I am in favor of both the stimulus and the health care efforts. So I think higher taxes are needed. And I will pay them.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

TO: All fusion center blog spammers
FROM: Big Brother
RE: Who says "the community" doesn't have a heart?


Nice work wallpapering "The Fix" today with your typically pungent frat-boy obfuscations and ruminations. You do the memory of Donald Segretti proud!

Some great role-playing today! That "TheBabeNemo" stuff really slays me!

Would WaPo ever expose our "public's dime agit-prop" when it's supplying so many hits 24/7?

I THINK NOT!

Gee, this is GRREAT! Why don't you probies take the rest of the day off...

...I'm texting this from REHOBOTH!!!

cc: Roslyn Mazer, Inspector General, Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse


Chris:
it's "foreign lawyer/judge"
not "foreign law".
She's Latina. She's foreign.
She practices law.
She's foreign law.
And the Senate committee is afraid she's going to pull some "foreign law voodoo" out of her robes once she is on the bench.

Jakey wants to see her birth certificate.
King wants to see her burned at the stake.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The history of SCOTUS nominees who were rejected is interesting. I didn't realize how tough sledding it was in the 1800s. Poor President Tyler was a glutton for punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Posted by: Kili | July 17, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:
"Conservatives are hoping for the policies of the president to fail, whatever the effect on the country."

You are half right. Conservatives hope for the policies of Obama to fail because they KNOW what the long-term effect will be on the country, and it won't be good.

At least JFK was wise enough to understand the typical 'progressive' approach to fixing the economy (i.e., increase taxes on the evil rich citizens) meant certain failure. Obama doesn't seem to grasp this concept yet.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

king:
the middle class was destroyed long before President Obama took office.
We lost middle class somewhere in time along with manners, politeness, and customer service.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Senators bring forth candidates nominated by presidents. (A little clarification)Smypathy? Not empathy? From the heart as Obama prefers. Emotion clouds the reasoning processes as in "From the Heart" Sotomayor clearly stated that she does not rely on feelings (from the heart) as preferred by the Prez. So, Durbin agrees with the Prez and Sotomayor disagrees with both. Sure is confusing. Durbin clearly made a racist comment and should apologize. Not very collegiate of him, dontcha think??

Posted by: veritas7 | July 17, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

If someone knows what asylum is holding zouk, please give them a call and see if you can get his internet access privs taken away.

Thanks in advance

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

i watched, nearly, the entire confirmation.

they were trying to nail her down to a stated opinion-(of any discussed issue)
-at these hearings........in which, later
---could come down on her with any particular consent or dissent on a future case she may give.

as in, nail her later with.

She was savy. Stuck to it.
I got sick of the panel.
Specter was a complete mess.


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

duh, the wise Latina racist liar named Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod-off will get through the morons in the Senate.

It is 60% imbecile now. remember. OR where you busy watching Perry Mason reruns?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

winners
-al franken (for getting there).
-the Obama family, for walking through the "Door of No Return" (is that correct?).

loser:
anderson cooper for snagging the africa interview and then cutting it into 15 segments for a week on his show
CNN is going chitty chatty......(GAG)!

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I'll assume you mean (white, male) nominees brought forward by republican presidents (not senators). Durbin was specifically speaking about those particular nominees, and asking questions about their understanding of minorities, as a preamble to asking Sotomayor about whether she would be *too* sympathetic to minorities.

Durbin clearly put his foot in his mouth with the DNA comment. In that sense he may be a "loser" in these hearings. But I don't think he was saying that all white men are incapable of sympathy to minorities. How could he, as a white male showing sympathy to the latina nominee?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse


Hi. My name is Sonia.
I'm a brunette Latina judge but I don't take my work home with me or let it influence anything I do in life.
The Tuscan countryside is my favorite vacation.
I like martinis and make my own ice cubes with my portable ice pick.
I respect white men and have a couple of them on my staff.
I'm looking for a structured, yet wishy washy mate, that can take orders.
But pretend otherwise.
I am good under fire of a Senate Committee specially when Al Franken can't spell judicial activism but had the nerve to ask me about it!
Yes, I'm Latina and have fire.
Hear me roar!

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 17, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ok - I'll try again "How about loser Durbin stating that white candidates brought forward by Republican Senators don't have the DNA to understand the plight of minorities?? I guess that it must also be true that Sotomayor doesn't have the DNA to understand the plight of disadvantaged, poor white people.!!" "The sound of Silence!!"

Posted by: veritas7 | July 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:
"If the over/under is 20, and you think she's going to get 75-80 votes, then you are taking the "Over." The Under would mean that she gets more than 80 votes."

It may not have been clear, but re-read my post. I'm taking the 'under' because I think there will be 19 or fewer "No" votes. I think there will be 75-80 Yes votes because I presume there won't be a full chamber of 100 Senators voting that day.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

OK back to "winners" and "losers" then.

I don't think CC meant that the Ricci and the other firefighters were "losers" in the general sense. Rather, that their testimony wasn't particularly effective. But what I really think disappointed CC, is that they didn't provide good TV soundbites for the talking heads to kick around.

This is a pretty weak W/L list anyway. And I think that is further proof that this was a well-run thing by both the administration and the nominee.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It is difficult to judge the value of being "principled" without reference to the specific principle in question.

I think the only principle that Republicans are particularly concerned with here is political expediency -- i.e., the value of appealing to their base vs. the damage of alienating women and Latinos.

The only deference they are going to show is to their own political viability. Or am I to believe they are showing deference to the president they hope fails?

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

How about loser Durbin stating that white candidates brought forward by Republican Senators don't have the DNA to understand the plight of minorities?? I guess that it must also be true that Sotomayor doesn't have the DNA to understand the plight of disadvantaged, poor white people.!!

Posted by: veritas7 | July 17, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Technically, predictions on the final vote and comparisons of said predictions to past votes, are "off topic" as well. Besides, I don't think the Democrats have held themselves out as "strict constructionists", so the comparison is flawed to begin with.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

OK, at least he stayed more or less on topic here today, compared to another recent multiple poster.

By my math, 24 Dems and one independant voted for Roberts, and 22 Dems voted against. Leaving Jeffords out of it, that's 52.2% of Dems.

If 21 Republicans vote against Sotomayor, that's 19/40 in favor, or 47.5%. Doesn't sound "more principled" to me, at least not in terms of advise and consent and presidential prerogative.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Note the definition-drift .. "principled" is defined as "voting for a SCOTUS nominee without regard for what (s)might do on the bench."

I would think that qualifications are implicit, that a President wouldn't nominate a brazenly unqualified person for the nation's highest court, but then there was Clarence Thomas and there was Harriet Meiers. But let's run with it.

So if qualification is something we can trust a president to meet, that leaves ideology. And to neglect a nominee's ideology for any reason, call it principle or bipartisanship or whatever shibboleth floats your boat, strikes me as seriously irresponsible.

Democrats were right to reject Bork, and Alito should have been rejected to. Not to score partisan points but to responsibly carry out the nation's business.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, mikeinmidland. I will always answer every question asked, in a civil manner, as long as you return the same courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

SUPREME INJUSTICE -- ENABLED BY FEDERAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT -- IS BEING COMMITTED AT THE GRASSROOTS...

VIGILANTE EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND TORTURE VIA GPS-ENABLED 'COMMUNITY STALKING'...

...AND THE PROLIFERATION OF SILENT, INVISIBLE AND LIFE-DEGRADING MICROWAVE AND LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

Is THIS the domestic component of the CIA hit squads" -- in this case, a covert multi-agency coordinated action "program" that covertly destroys the lives and livelihoods of unjustly "targeted" American citizens?

The long-time mainstream journalist who authored this article says YES:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is extrajudically tortured):

NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" (link in "stream" list or in articles index).

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 17, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I will say one thing for Jake. At least he stays on topic.

==

you must be new around here

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I will say one thing for Jake. At least he stays on topic. Unlike others who, whenever the daily topic isn't easy to exploit for anti-administration sentiment, instead copies and pastes screeds about anything and everything else. Bleah!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

I've answered every question you've asked me. You still haven't answered whether Kennedy or Byrd were included in your "78". Regardless, I think the final vote will be 77-21.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"I am consistent."

Yes, but not the way you think.

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"a modicum of intellectual honesty."

That you will not get from jaked. How could he hold the opinions he does if possessed that quality?

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"I am consistent."

You're consistently dodging the question. Oh well, that's what I get for trying to engage a troll in hoenst dialogue.

Lesson Learned.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

If you want to go down the Bork road for precedents, Presidents all the way back to Washington have had SCOTUS nominees rejected for political reasons. I think Taney was initially rejected but, obviously, was seated later (unfortunately). Bork didn't help himself during testimony either, with his unitary executive ideas and all.

What I was trying to get at was that, for political cover, the R Senators could always say that they are just following BHO's lead and voting against the first Latina not because she isn't qualified but because they don't agree with her interpretation of the Constitution.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Not all Democrats are unprincipled.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

It’s amazing, if you stop and think about it, that George H.W. Bush lost his bid for re-election because he was goofy enough to say, “Read my lips…no new taxes,” but Obama does his level best to bankrupt America and destroy the middle class, and yet continues to ride high in the popularity polls. I guess a lot of us who find ourselves going down the financial drain don’t really mind so long as we can watch Prince Obama and his princess holding hands on their $250,000 date night in New York City.

It’s almost enough to make a person pity Bernard Madoff. That poor schmo got a 150-year prison sentence, and he only screwed Americans out of about 65 billion dollars.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I realize that conservatives have felt this way ever since the Democrats nominated the Chicago crony of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich and the assorted felons at ACORN, to be our president, but why aren’t millions of honest, decent, hard-working Democrats up in arms? I can guarantee that if a Republican president had done half the things that Obama has pulled off in his first half year, most of us on the right would be calling for his head. At the very least, none of us would be kissing up to him.

Even before grabbing up car companies and banks, he got the ball rolling with a trillion dollar 1100-page pork-filled stimulus package that had to be passed, he insisted, within a few short hours or America was going to be turned into a pumpkin. Well, without anyone having had time to read anything but the price tag, it was passed into law. In the months since its passage, the unemployment rate has soared, entire states are going belly up and, apparently, nobody seems to know what happened to the money.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I am consistent.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"As to those Republicans, yes."

---

Stop creating qualifiers. If you are using a broad brush to paint all Democrats in a certain light because some of them voted against Justice Roberts, why are you not willing to apply that same brush to all Republicans if some of them vote against Future Justice Sotomayor.

All I am asking you to do is apply a consisent standard, a modicum of intellectual honesty. Do you agree to these terms, yes or no?

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

When smeone like drivl, who makes a fulltime career out of being an idiot talks about 'intelligence' -- you gotta laugh.


Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

As to those Republicans, yes.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Evita was about a woman of no particular talents except her ability to seduce powerful men as she rose from community streetwalker to First Lady of Argentina. The turning point in the story comes when Evita goes on a “Rainbow Tour” to Europe. She starts off great, wowing ’em in Spain, but the air slowly goes out of her bubble when her teleprompter breaks in Italy and they compare her to Mussolini; France turns up its collective nose at her, and by the time she gets to England . . .

Act One. “Barry,” a mysterious Community Organizer with multiple names and an indistinct past, suddenly appears in Chicago. His consummate mastery of the brown-nosing techniques he learned at Harvard (where the “Obamamometer” was invented to measure the audacity of taupe) quickly wins him the patronage of American patriots/guys in the neighborhood like William Ayers and his lovely wife, Bernardine Dohrn. True romance kicks in when “Hussein” (as he’s now calling himself) meets former Chicago Tribune journalist David Axelrod; the chemistry between Big Ambition and Big Media is instantaneous and in short order, Hussein rises to state senator, U.S. senator, and, miraculously, president. The highlight of Act One comes in Berlin, just before the election, when the high-flying, adored Hussein serenades thousands of rapturous Berliners with Weint nicht für mich, Berlintina.

Act Two. Tragedy strikes when Hussein’s beloved teleprompter dies of consumption due to the shocking lack of national health care. Bravely vowing to fight on, a grief-stricken Hussein redoubles his efforts as Toastmaster to the World, giving speech after speech in which he decries the sins of his country and offers up imaginative versions of recent history designed to flatter his listeners and ring the Obamamometer. But the Law of Diminishing Returns, passed by the evil Rethuglicans under a revivified Newt Gingrich while Hussein was out of town, slowly starts to drag him down, and no matter how many times he quotes himself approvingly, sticks his nose in the air, juts his jaw, and bounces a pitch to home plate, the magic is gone. Visionary programs such as health care and cap-and-trade both come a cropper in the Senate, the poll numbers keep dropping, and even one last great speech, Don’t Cry for Me, Amerikkka, is broadcast live only on Fox News, where Charles Krauthammer makes fun of it. It’s a sad ending, no doubt about it. But what memories we have!


and so it begins. the comedy that is the Katrina Presidency.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Is there no end to the prowess of His Serene Highness, the Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II, Lord of the Flies, Protector of the Holy Cities of Honolulu and Chicago, and by the Grace of Gaia the 44th president of the United States? Whether it’s swatting a pesky fly at the White House, bowling a near-perfect 37 during the campaign, or shooting some pick-up hoops in between charming various foreign leaders out of their socks, it seems there’s nothing the Dear Leader and Teacher can’t do.

Why, just the other night at the All-Star Game in St. Louis, the former bench-warming basketball player at the Punahou School donned a ChiSox jacket, muscled up on the mound, and soft-tossed a throw that must have gone all of 59 feet and no inches. What made the feat even more amazing was that BHO was pitching not to a catcher standing behind home plate wielding one of those great big easy-to-hit mitts, but to Albert Pujols, wearing an ordinary first baseman’s glove and standing right on the plate. Topping it all off was Obama’s rapturous ode to “Kaminsky Field” in his interview with Bob Costas, which ought to put to rest once and for all those scurrilous rumors that BO2 doesn’t know much about his country of origin. Take that, you birth-certificate nutters

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama Finally Finds Something
We Can’t Afford: Military Superiority

Imagine a fighter jet that would give the United States complete air superiority in any conflict. An aircraft that’s faster, has longer range, (Snip) An aircraft so advanced that the armed forces of every country on earth are scared to death of it and know that they would be defenseless against it for years to come. We have that plane. It’s called the F-22 Raptor, and our President and Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, hates it

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"By voting against Roberts and Alito. In doing so, he basically said that qualifications are not sufficient (I believe he even said that Roberts was exceptionally well-qualified for SCOTUS).

Maybe "politics" was the wrong word, but what I mean is the idea that a Senator can vote against a nominee because he/she disagrees with how a judge might view the Constitution or the job of SCOTUS."

mteng: You missed my point. Your claim was that President Obama set this precedent. I was arguing that the precedent was set two decades ago.

---------

"Of course, if more than 22 Republicans vote against her, then my PREDICTION will be wrong (hopefully not by much though ; )"

That's not what I asked. Your specifically said that Republicans are "(sic) more principled" and therefore would defer to the president's nomination whether or not they disagreed with her policially. I argue that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats and claim that if Judge sotomayor gets more "Nay" votes on confirmation it proves me correct.

Will you agree that if she gets more "Nay" votes, then you are wrong about Republcians "being mroe principled" when it comes to the "adivse and consent" clause?

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

President Obama’s political strategy has finally crystallized: When all else fails, blame Bush-Cheney. And make no mistake about it — all else has failed. He’s losing independents due to his botched response to the economic crisis, and working to win them back by stirring up hatred for Bush and Cheney. It may have worked in last fall’s campaign, but can this recycled garbage rescue Obama once again?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

bobbywc:

Your post also points out the need for more diversity in the Senate.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

We'll see. I have little faith in the conservative "principles" of the R Senators who bloated our budget during GWB's Presidency.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
"Also, if the confirmation is a foregone conclusion, I suspect you'd see a good number of Republicans voting against her to satisfy their constituencies."


That makes the retirees the hardest to pick. Martinez probably votes for confirmation. Bond? Gregg?

My prediction of 70, i.e. 10 Repubs, is a cynical floor. mnteng's 11:22 list is a near certainty.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

Of course, if more than 22 Republicans vote against her, then my PREDICTION will be wrong (hopefully not by much though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Simple question: What has changed in the last 230 years when the fact of the matter is the Senate Judiciary Committee is comprised on 19 Angles of which only 2 are female?

Could they possibly have understood the "wise latina" comment or what it means to be a minority?

Is this all the more reason we need more diversity on the Supreme Court?

Just a question

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | July 17, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

By voting against Roberts and Alito. In doing so, he basically said that qualifications are not sufficient (I believe he even said that Roberts was exceptionally well-qualified for SCOTUS).

Maybe "politics" was the wrong word, but what I mean is the idea that a Senator can vote against a nominee because he/she disagrees with how a judge might view the Constitution or the job of SCOTUS.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Does your "78" include Byrd and Kennedy voting?"

---

For the sake of making it easier, we'll do it the other way. If more than 22 Republican Senators (i.e. the number of Dems who votes against Roberts) vote against Sotomayor, will you admit to being wrong?

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"I do not think 24 in the R caucus will vote for SS, but I suspect you were thinking proportionately. There are fewer Rs now than there were Ds then."

Also, if the confirmation is a foregone conclusion, I suspect you'd see a good number of Republicans voting against her to satisfy their constituencies.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 17, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

Does your "78" include Byrd and Kennedy voting?

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

yeah, Jake, bipartisanship, like the GOP has exhibited with such scrupulous professionalism and sportsmanship since losing the last two elections.

Just stick to you LONG FORM routine

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

and 'principles'. LOL.

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

If she gets fewer than the 78 votes Roberts got, will you admit to being wrong?

==

you must be new around here

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

When smeone like jaked, who makes a fulltime career out of criticizing obama talks about 'bipartisanship' -- you gotta laugh.

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

So much for "bipartisanship".

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"The same people who trashed conservatives like Rush for hoping "Obama fails" (and everyone knows he meant Obama's liberal agenda) seem to jump for joy every time a conservative fails."

Liberals are amused by actual, proven, personal failings of an opponent that bespeaks his hypocrisy regarding the policy issues he promotes.

Conservatives are hoping for the policies of the president to fail, whatever the effect on the country.

A significant difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives don't see a difference between these two situations.

Posted by: nodebris | July 17, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"I disagree (obviously). The Republicans made their points, but they will stay true to conservativism in deferring to the President and giving her an up-or-down vote. It's called "principles"."

===

If she gets fewer than the 78 votes Roberts got, will you admit to being wrong?

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I disagree (obviously). The Republicans made their points, but they will stay true to conservativism in deferring to the President and giving her an up-or-down vote. It's called "principles".

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Yep. And it won't be anywhere close to a straight party-line vote in Committee like Alito. You do recall that Sen. Kerry attempted a filibuster on that one, right?

==

But Alito should not have been confirmed. He was a member of an openly racist organization at Princeton and never answered questions about it, moreover his judicial philosophy is rather extreme for a court already way too far to the right. The Democrats were right to oppose him, to filibuster if necessary.

Sotomayor is centrist by any responsible definition.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 17, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, it is worth a look, but I think 23 Ds plus Jeffords who was caucusing with the Ds voted FOR Roberts.
I do not think 24 in the R caucus will vote for SS, but I suspect you were thinking proportionately. There are fewer Rs now than there were Ds then.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 17, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"BHO set the precedent that politics can play a role in voting for or against a SCOTUS nominee."

---

How did he do that? By travelling back in time and voting against Bork?

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I'll take 73 to confirm.

Posted by: optimyst | July 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

R "ayes" for Sotomayor: 4 in SJC, 9 in full Senate. (Graham, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Martinez, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, KBH). I could see Corker and McC also voting for Sotomayor. But I think the hearings pointed out the tack that R "nays" can (will?) take for defending their votes -- BHO set the precedent that politics can play a role in voting for or against a SCOTUS nominee.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"I just got Dick Lugar."

---

Go to the doctor and get some penicillin, should clear that right up.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, bsimon, for the info.

Fairfax voter, I think you're misinterpreting what CC means by "loser." He isn't calling Ricci a life failure or anything like that. I think he means that Ricci was a loser in the sense that he wasn't able to derail Sotomayor's nomination.

That being said, I don't think Ricci had an especially vested interest in keeping Sotomayor off the bench. I think he was asked to give a testimony and he gave it.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I think it's worth noting that JakeD and I have reached a rare bipartisan consensus here in the Fix comments this morning. In honor of this rare event, would you consider a precedent-setting Fix executive decision and actually do an "update" to this post moving Frank Ricci (the person) from Losers to Winners? It would be a historic moment!

In addition to being more accurate, at least in my opinion (see my earlier comment for why I think so), it would have that nice counterintuitive quality we all enjoy in many of your Winners and Losers pieces. Just a request from your comments public!

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | July 17, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse


I forgot to add my prediction.

Soto in by 75-80 votes. All the Republicans played to the base with their interrogations. They have to look at their state's voting patterns if they want to knock down the 3rd woman and 1st Latina SCOTUS appointee, one from a popular president. I guess they may want to check how Obama is polling in their individual states as well.

As a minority party, Republicans have to prioritize how much effort to put into swimming upstream all the time. It's tiring.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | July 17, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd, I missed Kyl's remarks. All I can add is that in my circuit [USCA - 5] the analysis of these cases was different than in USCA - 2. The Holder Amicus suggested to the Supremes that they remand to the trial court to take evidence on the fairness of the test - that would have been the procedure in my circuit. The USCA - 2 procedure of simply excusing the employer from promoting anyone on fear the test was biased struck me as remedy avoidance. Doing "nothing" [paralysis by fear of disparate impact] is not mandated by the statute. For reasons of familiarity with the remedy, I would have preferred that the Supremes had adopted Holder's brief.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The pool is proceeding nicely. To avoid the problem some of you raised about sick old Ds not voting, why not restructure all predictions as how many Rs will vote her out of SJC ["aye"] and how many Rs will vote for her on the floor? Personally, I expect some R abstentions to go with 14 "ayes".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 17, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Great post, fairfaxvoter @ 10:34am. I agree completely.

Posted by: simpleton1 | July 17, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Given the tone of the Republican questioning, especially yesterday, do you think that more than 20 will vote against the first Latina on the Court?

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

My predictions has been and remains 75-25. I just got Dick Lugar.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 17, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"The over/under I was thinking is also 20, and I will take the 'under'. "Yes" votes will be in the 75-80 range, depending on how many Senators decide to just vote "present" that day (sorry, little dig at Obama there)."

---

If the over/under is 20, and you think she's going to get 75-80 votes, then you are taking the "Over." The Under would mean that she gets more than 80 votes.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Byrd was released from the hospital at the beginning of the month. I'm not a doctor, but I can't imagine that travel would be recommended for a 91 year old who has just spent a month in the hospital fighting two different infections. Especially just for one vote, where his vote won't really make a difference.

Kennedy will want to vote, I'm sure. But I just figure he'd be better off staying at home recuperating and not flying down to DC to make a symbolic vote.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I strongly agree with fairfaxvoter (this one time ; )

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse


Is it me, or are the anti-Obama posts just getting funnier and funnier? Besides repetitious and boring as well?

Fix, when you say "independent candidates" in "Alaska" don't you really mean "secessionists"? What's patriotic about seceding Alaska from the Union? As a lower 48er, I would like to remind Alaskans that we paid Russia good money for Alaska in 1867 and have no intention of letting it go. Also, does anyone care to list all the federal goodies Alaskans receive? I bet it's a ton of money per capita, more than average.

Alaska's population footprint may not be large enough to field a national candidate anyway. There are towns, cities and counties in America way bigger than Alaska.

Anyway, Palin is a secessionist and a quitter - oh wait, that's the same thing isn't it?


Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | July 17, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Slap in the face?

Well consider Dante:

"But hitherward stretch out thy hand forthwith,
Open mine eyes;"--and open them I did not,
And to be rude to him was courtesy."

Posted by: GaryEMasters | July 17, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

mnteng writes
"I'll take 67-31 for confirmation, with Kennedy and Byrd not voting."

Isn't Byrd out of hospital? My guess is this is a vote for which Kennedy shows up. Seems like the kind of thing he'd prioritize as being worth the trip.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

JakeD and BSimon:

The over/under I was thinking is also 20, and I will take the 'under'. "Yes" votes will be in the 75-80 range, depending on how many Senators decide to just vote "present" that day (sorry, little dig at Obama there).

The GOP was able to hit home a couple important points and reveal her inconsistent views on important juducial philosophy (some 'rights' not in the Constitution are settled law, but some rights in the Constitution aren't settled?).

But at the end of the day most conservatives consistent in their views will not vote 'no' simply because she may hold liberal views. Conservatives believe, as I do, in a very limited role for the Senate in approving judicial nominations, and blocking nominees should be rare events for special circumstances.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Slap in the face?

Well consider Dante:

"But hitherward stretch out thy hand forthwith,
Open mine eyes;"--and open them I did not,
And to be rude to him was courtesy."

Posted by: GaryEMasters | July 17, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Hypocrisy is not a trait exclusive to either end of the political spectrum."

Yeah both sides blame the other for creating and enabling the Banking Oligarchy, when in fact, they are both powerless to stop them.

Free market indeed. Isn't that how the Russian Oligarchs were made? Somali Pirates are just pikers. The Russian people thank Putin for saving them from crony capitalism - imagine preferring a Caudillo to Democracy. Strange days indeed.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 17, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

ddawd asks
"Procedural question for anyone who knows. Is a cloture required on every bill or appointment or just in cases where one party decides to filibuster?"

Just for a filibuster.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"mark_in_austin and bsimon:

Betcha Hatch votes for her too. I agree that Sotomayor will get more crossovers than Alito but fewer than Roberts. "

I think Alito got the second fewest votes ever beating out only Clarence Thomas. Among the people who made it in, of course.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 17, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"No more than 20 Republican Senators will vote against Sotomayor. Is that specific enough for you?"

---

OK sorry I didn't read this. So, at 80-20, you *do* think that Sotomayor will get 2 more votes than Justice Roberts.

Thanks!

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I strongly disagree with you about Frank Ricci being a "loser." He and the other fireman who testified (Lt. Vargas?) were winners because a) as noted by both Democratic and Republican Senators, they are FIREMEN and have devoted themselves to saving our lives and property, so it's sort of like being fighter aces, they are automatically winners (you do remember 9/11, right?) and b) they preserved their dignity and character by testifying honestly about the pain of the decision and how it unfairly they felt it affected them, but not trying to pose as lawyers (which they aren't) and tear apart the judge's professional work. They didn't show any sign of letting their egos get in control and simply stood as models for all of us.

Maybe the people who tried to "use" or manipulate Ricci and Vargas were losers, but those two men are major winners in my book. They did just what any citizen summoned by Congress should do. They testified to what they knew, didn't pretend to be experts in the law, and left with their dignity intact and perhaps enhanced. I feel better about both of them now.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | July 17, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

If liberals like yourself are so compassionate, why do you find so much happiness in the personal failures of others
****
because it's fun.

Posted by: frieda406 | July 17, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"Yep. And it won't be anywhere close to a straight party-line vote in Committee like Alito."

---

You've moved the goalposts already? Your first post was very clear (or so I thought):

"I guess that it will shock you to the core when more GOP Senators vote for Sotomayor than Dems did for Roberts or Alito."

I took that to mean that you thought that Sotomayor would get more votes from the senate (the actual confirmation) than either Justices Roberts or Alito. It appears to me that once you saw that Roberts number, you're now changing your tune and only feel that she will get more GOP votes just in Committee than just Justice Alito?

Please be clear here.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"My guess? 72-36. There's a couple old Dems who won't have to vote on cloture, so they won't be voting at all. Not worried about their voting record for the next election, either of them."

Procedural question for anyone who knows. Is a cloture required on every bill or appointment or just in cases where one party decides to filibuster?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 17, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I am somewhat confused by conservatives predicting bipartisan support for Sotomayor. Perhaps they are trying to make a virtue of necessity.

If your GOP senators will not block this nomination on principle (which is what you would prefer) then you will praise them for being bipartisan. In truth, they are looking at their next election, and voting not to alienate their base or the hispanic vote, whichever is more critical to their re-election.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Oh, forgot to give my prediction: 67 - 33.

Posted by: Kili | July 17, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin and bsimon:

Betcha Hatch votes for her too. I agree that Sotomayor will get more crossovers than Alito but fewer than Roberts. I'll take 67-31 for confirmation, with Kennedy and Byrd not voting.

Posted by: mnteng | July 17, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"Because it's politics as a team sport."

Yes.

Death to the Culture War!

Posted by: Kili | July 17, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama is definitely a winner, because it is clear he chose one of the most qualified jurists ever. Some on the left wanted him to pick someone more liberal and/or younger, in order to more strongly influence the court further into the future. But I think the lack of controversy in this confirmation will tend to "de-Bork-ify" the process a bit in the future.

My guess? 72-36. There's a couple old Dems who won't have to vote on cloture, so they won't be voting at all. Not worried about their voting record for the next election, either of them.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | July 17, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:

No more than 20 Republican Senators will vote against Sotomayor. Is that specific enough for you?

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Mark_in_Austin, did you happen to catch Jon Kyl's question on lack of precedents in the Ricci case? Any thoughts on that?

75 votes for Sotomayor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603651.html

David Cone's testimony. It was on the 1995 baseball strike and Sotomayor's involvement. Nothing too interesting.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 17, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The 'liberal MSM' is the biggest piece of fiction ever written. The entire MSM apparatus -- every major media outlet -- is owned by one of six multinational corporations -- and everyone has a republican CEO.

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Yep. And it won't be anywhere close to a straight party-line vote in Committee like Alito. You do recall that Sen. Kerry attempted a filibuster on that one, right?

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

This is only a "big victory" for Obama becaue the MSM keeps saying it is so.

Obama picks a minority woman whose rulings seem to lean only slightly left. Given that, a huge democratic majority in the Senate, and the political realities facing republicans today, and everyone knew this nomination was a shoe-in. I don't see how a foregone conclusion ends up being a "big victory".

And if Foreign Law was a winner, then the U.S. Consitution was a loser since nowhere in the Constitution does it state that U.S. Law is subordinate to "foreign law".

Posted by: MDLaxer | July 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Repubabots and ostructing discussion with mindless repitition:


"In early May, conservative word guru Frank Luntz authored a messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on health care reform. In order to obstruct reform, Luntz offered a set of poll-tested words that he said “should be used by everyone.” Some of those words were “rationing,” “doctor-patient,” “takeover” and “bureaucrats.” Using the Capitol Words search engine, the Sunlight Foundation’s Paul Blumenthal has found that Republicans are following Luntz’s advice:

Over the past month, as the health care debate has really gotten off the ground, the use of these words in the Congressional Record has skyrocketed. See the numbers below:

“Rationing” goes from 18 uses in May to 90 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “rationing” in the Capitol Words database.

“Doctor-patient” goes from 6 uses in May to 20 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “doctor-patient” in the Capitol Words database.

“Takeover” goes from 13 uses in May to 106 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “takeover” in the Capitol Words database.

“Bureaucrats” goes from 53 uses in May to 78 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word “bureaucrats” in the Capitol Words database."

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

The polls that suggest Carolyn Maloney is even with -- or even close to -- Kirsten Gillibrand are almost certainly invalid.

It's clear from reading the blogs and the comments to news stories that too many people are confusing Rep. Carolyn Maloney with the far-better-known Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

If Maloney is factoring those polls into her decision about whether to run, she is making a big mistake.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | July 17, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

JakeD- just a reminder, Roberts was confirmed 78-22, Alito 58-42. Are you predicting that Sotomayor gets more votes than Roberts?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

Same double standard in the liberal MSM.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes
"I guess that it will shock you to the core when more GOP Senators vote for Sotomayor than Dems did for Roberts or Alito."

Care to put a number to your prediction? mark_in_austin proposed a pool, if you're willing to go on the record with a specific number.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"The same people who trashed conservatives like Rush for hoping "Obama fails" (and everyone knows he meant Obama's liberal agenda) seem to jump for joy every time a conservative fails. If liberals like yourself are so compassionate, why do you find so much happiness in the personal failures of others?"

---

Because it's politics as a team sport. It's the same reasons why the hordes of conservatives who told me for the last 8 years that disagreeing with anything that the president did made me a "traitor and/or terrorist sympathizer" are now telling me that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Hypocrisy is not a trait exclusive to either end of the political spectrum.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 17, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

MN-6 Update, from Eric Black:

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/07/17/10313/tinklenberg_vows_to_go_to_dem_primary_if_necessary_to_get_another_crack_at_bachmann

Elwyn Tinklenberg wants another shot at Bachmann. Tarryl Clark passes on a run for the Governorship to take a shot at Bachmann's seat (though she hasn't formally announced). Maureen Reed rounds out the DFL field at 3. Both Reed and Tink are vying for both the DFL and IP endorsements. In 2008 Tink did get both endorsements, but MN election law restricts a candidate to one party's primary; an Anderson won the IP primary & thus a ballot position for the general. Despite essentially nonexistent campaigning he still won 10% of the vote (due largely to his name, if you believe Bob Collins of MPR), handing the victory to incumbent Bachmann.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

pjbishop:

I guess that it will shock you to the core when more GOP Senators vote for Sotomayor than Dems did for Roberts or Alito.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

The same people who trashed conservatives like Rush for hoping "Obama fails" (and everyone knows he meant Obama's liberal agenda) seem to jump for joy every time a conservative fails. If liberals like yourself are so compassionate, why do you find so much happiness in the personal failures of others?

I have to admit, though, that you proved once again that no one can copy-and-paste as well as you can. If you can find an adequate response to my question above on one of the left-wing blogs you troll, feel free to copy-and-paste it here...

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I would have to say Jeff Sessions was a loser big time. The crack cocain comment was way out in far right field. He came accross as an old white guy who checked his sheets at the door.

Posted by: bradcpa | July 17, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

sorry about debris in last post...

this is not a surprise.. from the 'doth protest too much' school...

"You remember the C Street Group, the combo Bible fellowship and group home for members of Congress up on Capitol Hill. But it's been occurring to us that the C Street Group, which is an emanation of a shadowy religious outfit called "the Family", might not be a religious fellowship at all so much as a covert 12 Step Group from Republican Hound Dogs, womanizers and sex addicts trying to get clean during their tenure in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Less than a month ago, we had C Streeter John Ensign take a dive. Then just a week or so later it was South Carolina Mark Sanford, himself a C Streeter from his days in Congress. And in his tell-all (but not quite all) press conference just after his return from Argentina he said that he'd been working with the C Street Group to deal with his on-going affair, which I guess didn't help that much.

And today we have news of yet another C Streeter falling off the fidelity wagon.

Now it's the turn of former Rep. Chip Pickering (R) or Mississippi, who appeared to be in line to grab Trent Lott's Senate seat and was allegedly offered the gig by Gov. Haley Barbour (his office denied this to TPMmuckraker), but decided instead to leave Congress altogether.

Pickering and his wife divorced soon afterward and now she is suing the novelistically named Elizabeth Creekmore-Byrd for "alienation of affection," i.e., for stealing her husband. What's more, according to legal papers filed by Leisha Pickering, some of the "wrongful conduct" between Pickering and Creekmore-Byrd (I guess that's what they call it down there?) took place at ... you guessed, the C Street group home up on Capitol Hill.

I mean, I don't know about their politics. But these dudes know how to party. I don't see how you get around that."

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

No, Senator Sessions did not make a 'boo-boo' in his crack to Leahy about doing 'that crack cocaine thing' ( the proposed legislation to equalize sentencing in convictions for dealing cocaine in crack vs powder form ). He was being cute. Sessions is often cute. He has a twinkly-eyed elf shtick, which must be a potent political asset back home and charm his constituents out of their socks, which was brought forth over and over at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in his repetitious questioning of Judge Sotomayor. There was a jarring dissonance between his coyness of manner and the nastiness of matter.

Senators Sessions, Cornyn, and one or two of the other Republicans on the Senate Judicial Committee were beating a live horse, so to speak, at the hearings, using the tried and true Republican tactic of repetition for purposes way beyond an honest examination of the credentials or judicial philosophy of the nominee, and beyond the customary set speeches with which committee members of both parties touch bases with their constituents' politics and vainly attempt to influence the nominee's future decisions. Tolling the same positions over and over and over in the guise of questions to the nominee was a blatant rehearsal themes for the upcoming political campaigns as well as future judicial hearings.


Posted by: pjbishop | July 17, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse


Where homes are affordable

Residents who live in these 25 growing towns see their incomes go the furthest.
View Photos

Current Mortgage Rates

Type Overnight avgs

30 yr fixed mtg 5.42%
15 yr fixed mtg 4.90%
30 yr fixed jumbo mtg 6.44%
5/1 ARM 4.51%
5/1 jumbo ARM 5.25%

Find personalized rates:
turning the corner...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Initial construction of U.S. homes and applications for building permits both surged in June, according to government figures released Friday.

Housing starts rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 582,000, up 3.6% from a revised 562,000 in May, according to the Commerce Department.

Posted by: drindl | July 17, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Kili:

Finally, I think I agree with you on something. This "confirmation process" has become a politically-charged circus it was never intended to be. The founders never intended a nominee to the Supreme Court to be subjected to grilling (from either side) as to their personal views on issues they may decide.

The Senate's role to "advise and consent" was merely intended to be a check to make sure a President was putting justices on the court who were actually qualified to be there, and not packing the court with campaign donors, best friends, golfing buddies, etc. I cannot believe the founders ever intended the Senate's role to be blocking/approving nominees based on their political ideology (as Obama himself was guilty of as Senator).

Posted by: dbw1 | July 17, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"Pool, anyone?"

I'll take 70-30.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 17, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

She's an obvious "winner" because she doesn't say anything?! What happened to the WHOLE truth and nothing but? It's a default win at best.

Posted by: JakeD | July 17, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Sotomayor should be listed as a "winner" - by not listing her, it seems like this column considers her merely a prop.

On the "loser" side, how about listing the confirmation process itself? Ever since borking was invented, the strategy of a candidate is to say nothing. The actual decision - which is done using the calculus of re-election - was done before the hearings started.

There's gotta be a better way.

Posted by: Kili | July 17, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

So the cbo has pulled back the curtain and revealed the false promise of bigger, better, CHEAPER government health care.

Buh bye Barry. At least you got one bill through in your four year fake -the porkulus. Your legacy is already established. Such promise. Such spending. Such failure. A Katrina for our economy.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Tea Bagger Catherine Crabill, surely, the future of the GOP.

She knows things you don't. Were you aware the Federal Government bombed its own building in OK City? To make the Reich Wing look bad no doubt.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 17, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Losers- American people getting a racist prevaricating justice.

I must now go out and spend a lot of money to keep from going bankrupt.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 17, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

How is Frank Ricci "a loser?" Actually Ricci had little contribute by way of substantive remarks, and in any case, his presence there was pure theater. But that does not make him a "loser."

You missed the real losers: Feinstein and Sotomayor who are both lawyers, but made remarks about the law during the hearings that demonstrated their ignorance.

When talking about the "Commerce Clause" Feinstein said, "... however, the court has changed its interpretation of the commerce clause and struck down more than three dozen cases." Wrong. The only case in the last 10 years where SCOTUS held that Congress exceed its authority was United States v. Morrison (2000).

Sotomayor made two misstatements with regard to the Kelo case. The property taken there was not "blighted," indeed both sides agreed on that. She also misstated the nature of the taking which was the direct transference of title from one private party to the other. This errors are "green eyeshade stuff," but that's what law is all about. Like surgery, you don't want to make errors because they can be fatal.

For anyone really paying attention, these two came out as losers for showing ignorance in their professional field. Of course Sotomayor will get confirmed, but that's all about politics and not competence.

Posted by: zarkov01 | July 17, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Actually, truble2301, Jeff Sessions was a "total jerk and bully" and should be dubbed a "loser." Though LG has been a loser as well!

I kept wanting to hear Sotomayor respond to Sessions and Cornyn (another total jerk) by asking "So, how does your cracker status affect YOUR judgment?!" Or least have someone turn the tables on them.

Posted by: al_jal | July 17, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Can't Judge Sotomayor find a better hairdresser?

Posted by: ravitchn | July 17, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

This is a highly significant victory for the president in the midst of roadblocks for health reform and consistent criticism over the economy. This could be the start of a big Obama bump in the polls.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | July 17, 2009 7:53 AM | Report abuse

On Tuesday I received a mailer from KBH asking for a contrib with the included gimmick that her fundraising committee would match my donation if I made it by today.
I complied. I will be interested to read the results next week. This was her first mailer.

Rob Mosbacher is probably the originator of "compassionate conservatism", but in his case, he means it.

As I mentioned yesterday, KBH's fundraising already makes all other fundraising in America look puny - except for Perry's. But her postponing her resignation of her Senate seat has not been good for her campaign.
------------------------------------------
I predict that LG, Cornyn, and Grassley will join the Ds on the SJC in recommending her to the floor and that she will pick up 14 R Senators on the confirmation vote.

Pool, anyone?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 17, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse

I think Sotomayer should get some credit for her performance too. She is the obvious winner here since she has shown herself to be a fair even-minded jurist.

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 17, 2009 7:28 AM | Report abuse

How can you not list Lindsey Graham as a loser? He came across as a total jerk and bully.

Posted by: truble2301 | July 17, 2009 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Jeez, Fix, that Palin poll in Alaska was done AFTER she said she was resigning. I know that when somewhen takes the gun from MY head I always smile at them, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 17, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Jeez, Fix, that Palin poll in Alaska was done AFTER she said she was resigning. I know that when somewhen takes the gun from MY head I always smile at them, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 17, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company