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

DOWNLOADS: (2009)

PLAYS: (9948)

If you didn't watch Rachel Maddow's debate with Pat Buchanan Thursday night, you missed an outstanding display of corporate media-financed white supremacy.

Pat Buchanan repeated the same exhausting argument that Judge Sotomayor is unqualified for the Supreme Court and therefore doesn't deserve the nomination -- in fact, she's been elevated, in Pat's estimation, based solely on race and not intellect. He said to Rachel:

I don't think Judge Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or a major book or something like that on the law.

Oh.

So qualifications are suddenly important to Pat.

While pissing all over Judge Sotomayor's qualifications, judicial record, accomplishments and achievements, Pat Buchanan thinks Sarah Palin! is qualified to be President of the United States.

Sarah Palin -- who couldn't accurately describe the duties of the vice president during a nationally televised vice presidential debate. Remember this?

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

Sarah Palin -- a politician who's less intellectually curious than George W. Bush, has less experience and fewer credentials than the worst president in American history. And Pat Buchanan thinks she's the best Republican ever. Presidential material.

But Judge Sotomayor is intellectually unqualified for the Supreme Court, right? And Sarah Palin is qualified for the highest office in the land.

What conclusion can we draw from this inconsistency? Easy. Pat Buchanan hates brown people. Read his latest awful editorial and tell me this isn't true. If he doesn't hate brown people, he simply, then, believes white males are far superior in almost every way (to be fair, he admits to Maddow that blacks can run fast).

He continues by complaining that white people are being discriminated against and this is a terrible crime. What Pat Buchanan will never admit is that for every one Frank Ricci, there are literally thousands of Americans with dark skin or "exotic" names who are being held back or punished or imprisoned for no other reason than their race or ethnicity. It's been that way for hundreds of years here.

This naturally doesn't make discrimination against white people "okay." In an imperfect system, though, correcting our massive racial imbalance means that, unfortunately, a few Frank Ricci types fall through the cracks. But if people like Pat Buchanan would embrace the spirit of correcting the imbalance, we'd be able to fix these cracks.

Ultimately, however, Pat Buchanan is an old white man who is clinging desperately -- and desperately is the appropriate adverb -- to the past, as Rachel pointed out. He fears the inevitable browning of America and so he's lashing out more and more often with this venomous, divisive, hate-mongering language.

The serious question here is whether MSNBC will continue to finance his clearly white supremacist views. If there's anyone in America who doesn't deserve more air time, it's people like Pat Buchanan. They had their time and they failed. Their reign was destructive and a blight on American history. They have no place in the discourse anymore.

Time to step aside, Pat. For the good of the country.

(Cross posted at BobCesca.com)

My oh my, I don't think the Republican Party is trying very hard to disprove the widely held notion that they are the party of privileged white men. Let's look at their perhaps unintentionally revealing tactics in questioning Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

First, we have Sen. Jeff "I couldn't become a federal judge because of my racist tendencies" Sessions basically telling Sotomayor that he expects her judgments to fall in line with other Puerto Ricans on the bench, because they're Puerto Rican. (h/t Think Progress)

And then Sen, Jon "We don't want no stinkin' Gazan refugees" Kyl goes off on a SEVEN minute rant to Sotomayor over his out-of-context interpretation of her "wise Latina" remark (thinking and talking points courtesy of Rush Limbaugh), despite the fact that Sotomayor had already addressed this issue a number of times.

And then Sen. Lindsey "I'm going to throw a tantrum and shut down the Senate if you get to see what we enabled" Graham treated Sotomayor with such attitude that even MSNBC's Tamron Hall and Mike Viquera termed it "patronizing".

And then to really hit home how the GOP's exposure to minorities come almost exclusively from TV sitcoms, Sen. Tom "Don't Ask, Don't Tell about my fellow GOP's sordid affairs" Coburn invokes none other than Ricky Ricardo to warn Sotomayor if she--metaphorically speaking, of course--attacked him.

Really, GOP...how do you think you're gonna attract that all-important Latino bloc of voters to your side in 2010-- with fried chicken and potato salad?

Here's a recap in video of Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation hearing from Monday just in case you missed it. Don't forget to check C&L's Video Cafe on a daily basis because the team is posting a ton of videos there that we don't front page.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Introduces Her Family Members

Senator Hatch Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Senator Feinstein Interrupted By Protester Judge Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

Senator Sessions Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Judge Sotomayor No Republican Would Have Picked You! Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Russ Feingold Defines "Judicial Activist" Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Jeff Sessions oblivious to the irony of calling Sotomayor 'prejudiced'

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

I'm endorsing this move because the truth is the truth. Presente Action (a new Hispanic organization) and the PCCC are going to run ads in Florida called: DenunciaRush.com to highlight the anti-Latino sentiment that permeates the right wing Republican base, and how that bias is bubbling over with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Adam explains:

We've been pushing hard for health care reform recently, but another big thing is happening this week: The hearings to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as our first Latina Supreme Court Justice are starting today. And it's already ugly. First, congressional Republicans refused to denounce Rush Limbaugh's racist attacks on Sotomayor.

Then just yesterday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee went on CBS and questioned the role of her "ethnic background" in her judicial work. Really? In 2009? Enough! It's time for Republicans to pay a political price for their blatant racism. That's why our friends at Presente Action are going on offense, running Spanish radio ads in key congressional districts -- starting in Florida. These ads will expose Republican racism for voters.

And Blue America's Alan Grayson is also getting big props for stepping up and bashing Limbaugh:

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson -- also from Orlando -- did take on Limbaugh, despite representing a long-time Republican district. He said, "We have an African-American President and, soon, a Puerto Rican Supreme Court Justice. I'm proud of that. You're proud of that. And if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, that's just too bad." Grayson is a bold progressive in Congress. He successfully prosecuted Iraq war profiteers before defeating a House Republican last year and earning a reputation for grilling Wall Street execs this year. Grayson's outspokenness has made him a top Republican target in 2010. When you chip in to help air the radio ads, we've added a place where you can help Grayson's re-election as well. Please consider it.

You can also donate to Alan Grayson's campaign via Blue America here.

Frank Ricci has become the poster child for the right in their attacks against the Sonia Sotomayor nomination because she followed current law and didn't create new law. You know, the thing that conservatives complain about all the time, but new information is surfacing about the firefighter who sued New Haven in the first place, Frank Ricci.

It seems he has a penchant for suing. Isn't that another issue conservatives can't stand?

Ricci is invariably painted as a reluctant standard-bearer; a hardworking man driven to litigation only when his dreams of promotion were shattered by a system that persecutes white men. This is the narrative we will hear next week, but it somewhat oversimplifies Ricci's actual employment story. For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once [sought] special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it.

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District—which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."

In August of 1998, a state Department of Labor investigation cleared Chief Wayne S. Bartolotta of any wrongdoing in the firing. The Aug. 3, 1998, letter from the state Department of Labor indicated that the case was closed with a finding of no violation. "After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the South Fire District did not discriminate against Mr. Ricci." Ricci's response? According to the Courant, Ricci contended "Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong." He told the paper he would "pursue the matter in civil court."...read on

Brian Beutler adds:

Deserved or not, the biggest political thorn in Sonia Sotomayor's side has been one Frank Ricci of New Haven, CT. Ricci is a firefighter who sued the city claiming reverse discrimination in 2003 after officials there discarded the results of a firefighter's promotion test after the test was revealed to have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.

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."

[Poster by Favianna Rodriguez for Presente.]

The Right is throwing every little bit of ugliness they can at Sonia Sotomayor in hopes of derailing her nomination to the Supreme Court.

They've called her a racist. They've compared the National Council of La Raza to the Ku Klux Klan. They've called her a "lightweight" and "anti-white." They've suggested she lacks the right temperament, since she's just another stereotypical hot-blooded Latina. They've even suggested she's unfit to be a judge because she menstruates.

OK, we get it, fellas. The kid gloves are off.

Presente has organized a grassroots campaign to let ordinary citizens send the following message to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We are outraged by the smear campaign against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Instead of discussing her record, right-wing activists have sought to question Sotomayor’s intelligence and temperament, and suggested that her racial identity will prevent her from ruling fairly. This thinly veiled racism and sexism is not only insulting to Sotomayor, it's an affront to anyone who believes that a nominee should be judged on her record, not her heritage or skin tone.

The reality is that Sotomayor is an accomplished judge who would start with more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. In her more than 3,000 panel decisions and almost 400 opinions, she has consistently protected the rights of working Americans and become one of the nation’s most respected legal minds. Sotomayor is not only a superbly qualified nominee; she is a powerful example of the American dream and knows how the law affects the daily lives of Americans.

I stand with Judge Sotomayor, and urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to give her nomination a speedy hearing and a positive confirmation.

Go here to sign it.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1124)

PLAYS: (1309)

I meant to get to this yesterday, but time flew by. Anyway, Chris Matthews had on Manuel Miranda, disgraced right-wing hack and former hired hand of Bill First, to discuss his provocative letter that attacked the GOP over Sonia Sotomayor. Matthews tried to appear to be very tough on Miranda, but never brought up his criminal background or his over-the-top comments about Mitch McConnell.

Greg Sargent:

The New York Times reports that a coalition of heavyweight conservative groups has signed a letter pressuring Senate Republicans to filibuster Sonia Sotomayor. The organizer of the pressure campaign — which has angered Senate GOP leaders — is identified as one Manuel Miranda, whom the paper only describes as a “former adviser on judicial issues to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.”

There’s a bit more to Manuel Miranda than that, however. Miranda, as longtime Congressional insiders will recall, was the GOP Senate staffer who was nailed in 2004 for hacking into the computers of Senate Dems and downloading thousands of documents relating to the strategies of Dem Senators on judicial nominations.

Miranda’s scheme — widely referred to as “Memogate” — was a big deal. A Senate probe found that many of the swiped files had been systematically downloaded “from folders belonging to Democratic staff,” with some leaked to friendly reporters. Miranda resigned, and a Washington Post editorial denounced his “political spying operation” that indicated “how low the nominations process has sunk.”

Miranda called Mitch McConnell "limp-wristed":

A group of conservative Republicans questioned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's handling of President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday, with one suggesting Kentucky's senior senator should resign if he is unable to aggressively challenge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to McConnell's predecessor Sen. Bill Frist, orchestrated a letter signed by 145 GOP conservatives urging lawmakers to scrutinize Sotomayor. Miranda resigned his position in Frist's office in the wake of a probe into alleged hacking of Democratic computer files.

In an interview with Politico, a Washington based publication, Miranda said McConnell should "consider resigning" as Senate minority leader if he can't take a harder line on President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.

Miranda accused McConnell of being "limp-wristed" and "a little bit tone deaf'" when it comes to judicial nominees.

Asked by McClatchy Newspapers to explain those statements, Miranda said the Senate as an institution hasn't properly vetted previous court nominees and "should do more."

He specifically criticized how McConnell "holds the gun" to judicial nominees. "He doesn't hold it very firmly. He doesn't hold it very well."

Hmmmmm. I wonder why he used the term limp-wristed against Mitch ...

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

DOWNLOADS: (982)

PLAYS: (1495)

Mitch McConnell joined John King of CNN to discuss judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination. King asked him to comment on Limbaugh's racist rant against her. McConnell took the cowardly way out by not denouncing Limbaugh-Gordon Liddy and all the rest of them for their hate speech and instead used a different tactic.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.

MCCONNELL: Look. I've got a big job to do, dealing with 40 Senate Republicans and trying to advance the nation's agenda. I've got better things to do than be the speech police over people who are going to have their views about a very important appointment, which is an appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

So I'm not going to get into policing everybody's speech. The important thing here is to look at the nominee, her qualifications, read the 3,600 cases, and do it right. That's what the American people expect of us.

In other words, McConnell is whispering, "hey Rush/Newt/Cheney/Buchanan/Tancredo! Keep saying what you're saying and I'll make believe that the Senate Republicans are above it all."
Think Progress:

Asked if Sotomayor is a "racist," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) ducked the issue on CBS this morning. "I'm not going to get involved in characterizations before I've even met her," Kyl said.

CNN's transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Earlier this month, George Washington University professor and New Republic legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen turned to anonymous sources in a blistering - and controversial - attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial temperament. Now just days after the raging right predictably made Rosen's smears a centerpiece in the battle against Sotomayor, the mainstream media are following their lead.

As it turns out, 24 hours after McClatchy claimed, "Sotomayor's take-no-guff demeanor could alter court dynamics," Thursday's New York Times headline announced, "Sotomayor's sharp tongue raises issue of temperament."

That conservative mouthpieces like Michael Gerson, Karl Rove and the Washington Times would amplify Rosen's second-hand smear that Sotomayor is "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench" is unsurprising. (For his part, Rove this week called Sotomayor "a schoolmarm" and a "lightweight.")

But two days after even Rosen acknowledged, "Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court," the New York Times built on his earlier critique. In a piece featuring a preponderance of positive assessments from her judicial colleagues and attorneys appearing before her court, the Times instead emphasized the negative:

But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor's sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner -- some lawyers have described her as "difficult" and "nasty" -- raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability -- and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her...

Other lawyers, though, are not so enamored. In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges, she has gone from generally rave reviews to more tepid endorsements. Among the comments from lawyers was that she is a "terror on the bench" who "behaves in an out-of-control manner" and attacks lawyers "for making an argument she doesn't like."

"I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn't let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions," said Sheema Chaudhry, who appeared before Judge Sotomayor in an asylum case last year. "She's brilliant and she's qualified, but I just feel that she can be very, how do you say, temperamental."

Which apparently is the exact discussion TNR's Jeffrey Rosen would like to see. After all, in his 2007 PBS series and accompanying book, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, Rosen declared judicial temperament as embodied by the great John Marshall the key to determining success or failure on the Court. Of course, early on Rosen praised incoming Chief Justice John Roberts as "resurrecting Marshall's vision." Ultimately, a disappointed Rosen expressed buyer's remorse over Roberts' utter disregard for precedent and unanimity, lamenting, "Will Roberts ever get better?"

Sadly, only Rosen's first opinions and initial judgments seem to make it into the mainstream media.

(Glenn Greenwald has more on Rosen, the New York Times and anonymous sources. This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

He calls her a racist too. Keep it up guys.

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad....

This is just disgusting. In a new Quinnipiac Poll, Americans favor the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor: 52-24.

A new Quinnipiac poll finds that a majority of Americans approve of President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

With Obama's Supreme Court Justice pick still pending approval by the Senate, the national survey found that 54 percent support the pick and 24 percent disapprove, with 22 percent undecided. The poll surveyed 1, 438 registered voters nationwide.

Jon Perr has more on the revolting behavior of the far right.

Back in 1995, Newt Gingrich famously concluded menstruation rendered women unfit for combat roles in the military. Now just two days after Gingrich branded Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "racist," convicted Watergate felon and right-wing radio host G. Gordon Liddy agreed that both of Newt's arguments disqualify Sotomayor. Period.

After echoing Tom Tancredo's slander that the National Council of La Raza to which Sotomayor belongs is a "Latino KKK," Liddy Thursday recycled Gingrich's theory of menstrual disqualification:

"Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

If that pathetic formula sounds familiar, it should. As the New York Times recounted 14 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military, if not off the bench:...read on

With Republicans like Liddy,Tancredo, Rush and Newt---conservatives are right where they should be. In the tank...

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

DOWNLOADS: (1276)

PLAYS: (2900)

Let's give Bill O'Reilly some credit: He's smart enough to recognize that the GOP's desire to try to tear down Sonia Sotomayor is a classic case of cutting one's nose off to spite what's left of your face.

Here's a political party, after all, that's caught in a death spiral of declining membership and vanishing power. One of the key reasons for that has been the sharp decline in Hispanic participation in the GOP -- a significant loss among the nation's fastest-growing ethnic component.

O'Reilly can see this, and discussed it in last night's Talking Points Memo segment. But he also thinks it's just a PR problem:

So Hispanic voters actually put Barack Obama in the White House, and the GOP needs some of them back, thus Republicans face a quandary.

This morning on ABC, conservative Ann Coulter pretty much defined the problem:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Saying that someone would decide a case differently, better in fact, because she is a Latina rather than a white male, I mean, that statement is by definition racist. I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is.

DIANE SAWYER, "GOOD MORNING AMERICA" CO-HOST: Were you moved by the Hispanic breakthrough, Ann?

COULTER: Why aren't Democrats — why aren't they choking up over Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada? I mean, you know, come on, why are we all supposed to weep only when it's a liberal Hispanic or a liberal black?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Yes, indeed, Coulter does define the problem. So do Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Their own bigotry has been on display so often, and so nakedly, that we already know where they're coming from. Coulter's performance -- including a flat refusal to offer even the smallest note of grace -- spoke for itself.

And how does it look to have the Right's leading bigots shouting "Racist!" at Sotomayor? Besides hilarious?

But O'Reilly didn't see it that way:

Ms. Coulter's point is true. Liberals gleefully attacked Clarence Thomas and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, but the media is now lurking, looking to pound any conservative who goes after Ms. Sotomayor. So the Republicans have a tough situation on their hands.

The judge is vulnerable, especially on affirmative action, and her racial tone on who has a better outlook on the law, minorities or whites. But to the Hispanic-American community, that might not matter much, especially considering the judge's background.

So according to O'Reilly, Hispanics aren't concerned about her alleged racism, because she's such a swell "life story." When actually, they're not concerned about it because she's not racist.

A little later, in discussing it with Dick Morris, O'Reilly described it again:

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (891)

PLAYS: (2688)

I worked my way through my recordings of Fox News yesterday and all the discussions of what a 'racist' Sonia Sotomayor is for those 2001 remarks about the "wise Latina woman" on the bench, and NOT ONCE did anyone -- even those ostensibly defending her -- mention the most salient fact about these remarks.

Maybe if we repeat the following sentence from Media Matters endlessly it may start to finally penetrate the fog that's issuing from under all those anchors' desks:

In fact, when Sotomayor made that statement, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining "race and sex discrimination cases."

In that context, what Sotomayor was saying was neither controversial nor even particularly noteworthy -- it is in fact a matter of simple common sense. Of course someone who has lived through the realities of race and sex discrimination will be better attuned to the consequences and realities of the laws that judges will rule upon than someone who has been shielded from those realities.

This is why President Obama mentioned "empathy" when discussing his criteria for a Supreme Court justice: The law is in many ways a tabula rasa, and judges in reality draw on their real-life experiences to form the meat of their judgments. People who have real-life experience dealing with discrimination are naturally going to be better able to penetrate the consequences of their rulings.

Is there anyone on the right capable of understanding this? Can they be any more dishonest in their handling of this matter?

Go read more at Media Matters. They've been doing stellar work on this. Unfortunately, no one else is.

As you know, I'm a huge baseball fan, and even Major League Baseball is saying that Sonia Sotomayor ended the strike that almost destroyed the game under the idiot, Bud Selig.

It was Sotomayor's ruling that forced Major League Baseball players and owners to resume the national pastime in 1995 after a 234-day player strike wiped out the final six weeks of the regular season and the entire postseason in 1994.

On Dec. 23, 1994, with collective bargaining negotiations at a standstill, the owners implemented a salary cap. Commissioner Bud Selig announced at the time: "We are committed to playing the 1995 season and will do so with the best players willing to play."
----
The strike ended when Sotomayor issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31, 1995. Three days later, the day before the season was scheduled to start, the strike was finally over. Sotomayor's decision to effectively order the 1990 work rules to be reinstated received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the New York-based Second Circuit, which denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.

Hey, Ted Frank of the NRO, it's not me saying this, but the MLB. It's on their own website.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1094)

PLAYS: (2012)

Sean Hannity claimed at the top of his show last night that, in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, President Obama "turned his back on Middle America" -- because she's a radical liberal who hates them.

So he had on Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who cuts a major figure in the Judiciary Committee, who already had a run-in with Andrea Mitchell over his previous votes on Sotomayor. With Hannity, of course, he had a much friendlier exchange.

Hatch is probably the best gauge of where the GOP is headed on this nomination, and it's clear he intends to vote against her largely on ideological grounds, while holding up the multiple fig leaves of the various talking points they've already already established:

-- She sees an "activist" and expanded role for judges.

-- She's a racist who happily discriminates against white people.

-- She was chosen based on "empathy" as the main criterion.

-- Blah blah blah.

And you know, these things have all been thoroughly debunked. But Republicans seem to develop severe cases of obtuseness and deafness when they get mentioned. Which means they're going to be repeating this stuff endlessly until we get to a vote. Which means that their real plan is to drive us all insane with a toxic mix of boredom and intentional stupidity.

You know, if I hadn't been a reporter and didn't know how heavily politicized (and blind to actual justice) most prosecutors are, I might actually swallow this horse hooey:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has overturned a long-standing ruling that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

There's a good reason for this. In case you haven't noticed, criminals are rarely intelligent and they're often easily coerced. You know that bit on cop shows where they use a copy machine as a "lie detector"? Some cops actually do that.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable."

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said.

I don't know where Scalia grew up, but apparently his life experience is very different from mine! I knew too many kids who got arrested and coerced into confessions to give this much credence.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

Don't worry, Justice Stevens. We lost confidence in the "reliability and fairness of our system of justice" a long time ago!