This is a pretty depressing saga unfolding right before our eyes and it's another reason why we need cameras in the Supreme Court so we can view the mockery Roberts is making out of the Third Branch of government. They are about to grant corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to attack political candidates right up until an election, which would make destroy the very fabric of our voting structure. Did you know that a corporation is an individual in Scalia's mind?

Dahlia Lithwick explains the horror that is unfolding over the hit job produced by Citizens United on Hillary Clinton.

When we first met this case, it involved a narrow question about whether a 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton could be regulated as an "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold. The relevant provision bars corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that feature a candidate for federal election during specified times before a general election. A federal court of appeals agreed with the FEC that the movie could be regulated. Citizens United, the conservative, nonprofit advocacy group that produced the film, appealed. The issue last spring was whether a feature-length documentary movie was core political speech or a Swift Boat ad. But the court surprised everyone when it ordered the case reargued in September, this time tackling the constitutionality of McConnell and Austin.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas are already on record wanting to overturn these cases. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts have been inclined to wait. The question today is whether we wait no more [...]

Solicitor General Kagan stands to defend the FEC, not in a frock coat but a tasteful blue pantsuit, and when Scalia pounces on her, two sentences into her opening, she scolds him as if he were an impudent 2-L: "I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case." Kagan is so loose and relaxed, you'd think this was her 100th argument. Which allows Roberts to dispense with the kid gloves and accuse her, respectively of "giving up" an argument she made in her opening brief and "changing positions." When she is asked, in effect, if she wants to lose this case in a big way or a little way, Kagan is eventually forced to reply, "If you are asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a preference as to the way in which it loses if it has to lose, the answer is yes."

One of the ways the Roberts Court hopes to make all conflicting case law in the campaign finance realm disappear is to blame all prior bad case law on Kagan. When everyone is thoroughly confused about what rationale the government may advance in order to limit corporate spending, Roberts can gleefully conclude that all of Austin "is kind of up for play. …" Poof. And Austin is a problem no more...read on...

It truly is a depressing read, even though we it's an excellent piece and we need to read it. With cameras in the court, Americans would be able to watch how the Roberts Court will tilt the country away from the American people and into the hands of the corporate elite.

All a corporation would have to do is merely threaten a candidate that they'll make a movie or run a gazillion ads against them and that would be enough to "buy" their vote over anything that a corporation deems unprofitable. What's sad is that corporations already funnel millions of dollars through PACs already, but that's still not enough for the activist judges of the right.

(Video of Obama's announcement and nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor)

The NRA will not be happy, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed today to be the first Latina on the Supreme Court. That's a beautiful thing. Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan will be rolling in their racism over this vote.

PFAW:

By a vote of 68 to 31, the Senate today confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker issued the following statement:

“The confirmation of Sotomayor is a historic step for the nation and a triumph of the American way. The efforts by the NRA and the far right to sabotage her nomination failed badly, with a large majority of Senators uniting to confirm her today. Those Senators will not regret their votes.

Talk Left has the vote count:

The vote was 68-31. In addition to all Democrats and Independents (with the exception of Ted Kennedy, still absent due to his health), 9 Republicans also voted in favor - Voinovich, Bond, Martinez, Alexander, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Gregg and Lugar.

Back in our C&L Time Machine:

Look who's calling Sonia Sotomayor a 'racist': The Right's leading bigots

Pat Buchanan wonders if the nation will survive having 135 million Hispanics

Bob Shrum explodes over Pat Buchanan's racism as Limbaugh uses MLK against Sotomayor

When Jeff Sessions speaks, weird things happen.

He was talking to Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, about scheduling a Senate Judiciary hearing on the disparity of the penalties for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine

Sessions said he and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., had been talking about it. "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," Sessions said.

The hearing room cracked up.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., looked over at Sessions. "Please rephrase it, Senator. Please rephrase," he said.

Sessions laughed along with the crowd. "I misspoke," he clarified. "We're going to reduce the burden of penalties in some of the crack cocaine cases and make them fair."

We have learned that Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) has a favorite Puerto Rican jurist -- Jose Cabranes. Sessions demanded to know why Judge Sotomayor did not follow Judge Cabranes' lead

Interestingly, Sessions was very critical of Judge Sotomayor's involvement, as a member of the Board of Directors, of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Sessions seemed not to know that his favorite Boricua judge, Cabranes, was also a member of the Board of the PRDLEF. Now right wing groups allied with Sessions and following his lead are running an ad attacking Sotomayor as a "terrorist."

The question needs to be asked of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) (the KKK sympathizer; the person who said the NAACP was a "commie" group and who berated a white lawyer who worked for civil rights as a "disgrace to his race"), what do he and his allies make of the fact that their favorite Puerto Rican jurist, Jose Cabranes, was also a member of the "terrorist" group - the PRLDEF?

Via Atrios, Craig Crawford describes the political disaster that the GOP has decided to perpetrate upon itself:

Watching Lindsey Graham's gotcha grin as he needled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with disingenuous and rhetorical questions you had to wonder what was so funny. Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing?

. . . Even if they vote for her, the fallout for Republicans could reach well beyond Hispanic voters. They are coming across as a bunch of snarky and bitter old white men who cannot bear the thought of their kind losing power.

The only thing that can make it worse for the GOP will be, as I noted earlier, if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor's confirmation. Here's hoping.

Politico writes:

GOP not buying 'Latina' explanation

Pretty funny if you ask me. For the Republicans do seem to be rejecting any desire for Latino votes.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2069)

PLAYS: (4307)

For Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, white men deserve preferential treatment. Given his stated sympathies for the KKK, this is hardly surpising. But it is worth noting. In his opening statement, Sessions said, Sessions said:

I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yet, Sessions voted for Samuel Alito, who testified in his confirmation hearings that he does take his own personal background and sympathies into account as a judge.

Sessions demands preferential treatment for white men. He clearly applies a stricter standard to persons who are not white men. Given his history, this is hardly surprising. But it is also the perfect embodiment of the Republican philosophy.

h/t to Media Matters.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1137)

PLAYS: (1434)

Rush Limbaugh tried to lie about George Allen's racist "macaca" remark that cost him his Senate seat by claiming that it was all made up out of thin air by Democrats trying to destroy him. Yeah, we just knew that Allen was waiting to utter a racial slur and call S.R. Sidarth a type of monkey, and then pounced and took it out of context. How did we do that, RushBo?

That's more lying nonsense, but then he went off on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, saying that what she said was much worse than that. What a guy that Limbaugh. I mean, this is all they have to work with and I thank you. Limbaugh is re-digging a ditch to throw George Allen back into and burying him in the process.

Thanks Media Matters:

LIMBAUGH: So Russ Feingold: A couple of words that Sonia Sotomayor said taken out of context. You mean, like, macaca? George Allen saying macaca -- we heard about that for weeks and months as The Washington Post and the Democrats sought to destroy Allen; he'd been a congressman, a governor, and a senator.

Sotomayor's comments are much worse than macaca; and they're frequent, and they are long-held. You see how this race thing works, folks. If you're a liberal, nothing you say can be held against you."

I think Limbaugh is feeling the heat from DenounciaRush.

Presente Action released this statement today: "Rush Limbaugh has no shame -- launching more racist attacks on Judge Sotomayor during a historic week when her credentials are on full display and our community is beaming with pride. Our elected leaders cannot remain silent in the face of these inflammatory comments polluting the public discourse. We demand that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee denounce Limbaugh's latest remarks immediately."

Allen was thought to be the great right-wing hope to run for president in 2008, but being a racist wasn't very helpful to him now was it? Here's a reminder of what really happened to George 'macaca' Allen via The Situation Room back on Aug 14, 2006.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (479)

PLAYS: (2897)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1065)

PLAYS: (2178)

Sen. Orrin Hatch doggedly pursued Sonia Sotomayor today on a series of questions about the Second Amendment, since the matter of gun rights -- especially the evil President Obama Secret Plan to Take Your Guns Away -- is probably the biggest legal issue on the minds of most Utahns.

As you can perhaps see from the excerpts, Sotomayor handled them all ably (one of the rulings Hatch raised, she pointed out, was a very narrow case involving nunchucks and not guns). At one point, she had to point out that Hatch essentially wanted her to issue a ruling on cases that she might actually have before her on the Supreme Court, so she couldn't answer those.

Nonetheless, you can rest assured that the National Rifle Association and the various gun fetishists out there -- convinced that their gun rights actually are what keep us safe from government tyranny -- will find whatever she says unconvincing and denounce her anyway.

Last night, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was on Glenn Beck's show, and he made it abundantly plain that they were going to go through the pretense of listening to Sotomayor patiently before they denounced her.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1232)

PLAYS: (2933)

Essentially, the NRA is demanding that Sotomayor prejudge all her Second Amendment cases and pay fealty to their often cockamamie legal positions, or else they will denounce her.

Count on more of the same from the Senators they have in their pocket. Orrin Hatch being one of the more prominent.

The only thing amusing about it is realizing just utterly impotent they all really are.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1147)

PLAYS: (6168)

You knew Jeff Sessions wouldn't be able to hold back his true feelings about race. Jeffrey Toobin calls him out for his gender/ethnicity prejudices. Really, only white, superior men are unbiased and understand the ills caused by racism and sexism because they are a blank slate. Sure thing there Jeff.

Big Tent Democrat:

Jeff Toobin captured the entire philosophy of the Republican Party, embodied by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, only white men are oppressed. Only white men are unbiased and without prejudice.

JEFF TOOBIN: What’s worth noting about what Jeff Sessions -- the line of questioning, was that being a white man, that’s normal. Everybody else has biases and prejudices[,] . . . but the white man, they don’t have any ethnicity, they don’t have any gender, they’re just like the normal folks, and I thought that was a little jarring.

Good on Toobin

Yes, because our history shows that white men have been oh so kind to minorities and the ladies. That's what's inside of a mind like Sessions.
And let's remember what Sessions said about Roberts.

During the John Roberts confirmation hearings, when Roberts argued against applying discrimination laws in memorandum, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was adamant in defense of judges who "respected precedent"...read on

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (958)

PLAYS: (2306)

Sen. Pat Leahy gave Sonia Sotomayor today the chance to set the record straight regarding the fake controversy over her "wise Latina" remarks:

SOTOMAYOR: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks.

No words I have ever spoken for written have received so much attention.

(LAUGHTER)

SOTOMAYOR: I gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly, of young Latino lawyers and students.

As my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you reference, I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. I don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society.

I was also trying to inspire them to believe that they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I had. The context of the words that I spoke have created a misunderstanding, and I want -- and misunderstanding -- and to give everyone assurances, I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.

What -- the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.

That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time -- or I shouldn't say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can't mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.

So her literal words couldn't have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.

LEAHY: Well, and isn't that what -- you've been on the bench for 17 years. Have you set your goal to be fair and show integrity, based on the law?

SOTOMAYOR: I believe my 17-year record on the two courts would show that, in every case that I render, I first decide what the law requires under the facts before me, and that what I do is explain to litigants why the law requires a result. And whether their position is sympathetic or not, I explain why the result is commanded by law.

LEAHY: Well, and doesn't your oath of office actually require you to do that?

SOTOMAYOR: That is the fundamental job of a judge.

MSNBC has more.

During the John Roberts confirmation hearings, when Roberts argued against applying discrimination laws in memorandum, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was adamant in defense of judges who "respected precedent:"

Roberts’ memorandums and briefs were “absolutely consistent with the Supreme Court ruling of the United States at that time. So, all I would say is, I think it’s unfair to suggest that he has a record that indicates that he was somehow wrong on civil rights at that time.” When asked about his brief as Deputy Solicitor General in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, arguing that victims of intentional discrimination should not receive damages under Title IX, Senator Sessions said: “On the Gwinnett case, the Title IX, the women’s education case, the position you took that would deny the right to sue a state entity, a government entity for money damages, wasn’t that a position consistent with the position of the Court of Appeals that had written the only opinion on the subject? … So you, in advocating on that position, were expressing a view that was the view of the highest federal court in the land at that time?”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, that involved discrimination against non-white males so of course Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, admirer of the KKK, labeller of the NAACP as a "commie" organization, would think that. You see, Sessions has deep empathy for the poor white male - so oppressed in our society. Everybody else? Not so much, The perfect embodiment of the GOP.

Speaking for me only

David Neiwert documents the irony of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III accusing anyone of bigotry given his own checkered history. The question today is will Sessions continue his self defeating assault on Judge Sotomayor today?

I'll be live blogging the proceedings, both here and at Talk Left. NOTE: When I live blog, I do not provide stenography but instead comment on notable events (at least those things I find notable.) The live blog will be below the fold.

The answer is yes - Sessions calls her a bigot. Thank you Beauregard.

Kagro at daily kos is sick of the umpire talk in the Sotomayor hearings. In fact, it was always a ridiculous argument, first forwarded by the disingenuous now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During his 2005 confirmation hearings, I wrote about how disingenuous Roberts was to use the analogy:

It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?

Senators Feinstein, Whitehouse, Schumer and Durbin all pointed out today that Chief justice Roberts was less than honest about what his judicial strike zone would be. In that sense, the umpire analogy still has its uses.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (108)

Today Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke like a person prepared to defer to the President's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and vote for her confirmation despite his disagreements with her judicial philosophy. While I disagree with Graham on the Senate's role regarding judicial appointments, I must credit him with consistency on this issue. Graham said:

“My inclination is that elections matter…President [Barack] Obama won the election, and I will respect that.” He criticized Obama’s rationale, when a senator, for voting against the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, but he added, “We’ve got a chance to start over. I hope we take that chance. . . . My belief is that you will do well. Whether I agree with you on the big things in life is not relevant here. My question is whether you have earned the right to be here. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) With due respect to Senator Graham, I disagree with him both on the "big things" regarding judicial philosophy and the fact that if he disagrees with Judge Sotomayor on those "big things," he should still vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor. He should not. He abdicates his responsibility as a Senator. More . . .

Continue reading »