May 2009

• Any bets on how long it'll be before Sen. John Cornyn apologizes to Rush Limbaugh?
• The Thomas More Society is calling on Notre Dame to drop trespassing charges against two protesters arrested during events surrounding President Obama's speech while Alan Keyes court appearance stemming from his own arrests has been pushed back to June 3.
• Focus on the Family actually has some praise for the White House after participating in a meeting on how to better serve the needs of kids in foster care.
• Liberty University is going to be filing its own complaint against Americans United in response to AU's request that the IRS review Liberty's tax-exempt status.
• If there is ever an opportunity for the Alliance Defense Fund to push its way into legal fights over marriage equality, you can rest assured that that is what it will do.
• Are La Raza and The Federalist Society even remotely similar?
• Bill Donohue says he's quietly rooting for Sotomayor, while William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, is not, judging by the fact that he is calling her a "Hispanic supremacist."

Yesterday, the Judicial Confirmation Network's Wendy Long demanded that the White House release the full video of Sonia Sotomayor's remarks in which she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made":

"An important controversy and debate continues to brew over Judge Sotomayor's comments at Duke University in which she said that appellate courts "make policy," and in her published words tucked away in law review articles ... [W]e are calling on White House Press Secretary Gibbs to post the Duke University video on The White House web site and let the American people judge her comments.

I ignored this at the time because it was an blatant attempt to generate controversy where none exists, with JCN insinuating that the White House was somehow trying to hide the complete video from the public.

Of course, it's not and Media Matters posted a link to it several days ago (you can get the webcast here) and a more complete transcript of her remarks, which makes it clear that Sotomayor was making a distinct and utterly non-controversial point about the difference between the roles of district and circuit courts:

SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.

If JCN had bothered to do any basic research, they would have known about this webcast days before they issued their demand to the White House ... and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs would have been saved from this inane exchange with a reporter during yesterday's press briefing:

Q Given what you said about keeping Judge Sotomayor's previous remarks in context ... For example, the YouTube video of her remarks at Duke and the speech at Berkeley -- has the White House considered releasing those full YouTube videos to urge people to watch them in context, for example, on whitehouse.gov, or transcripts as Judicial Confirmation Network is challenging you to do?

MR. GIBBS: Go to Google, type in a couple of key words, hit enter, it pops up.

Q We could also get, let's say, this briefing on video by doing that, but you guys post it on the White House YouTube --

MR. GIBBS: But I think the implication in your question, and I think the implication in the interest group making this, is that somehow these are some top-secret documents that are contained in some undisclosed location in or around the grounds of the White House. If you go to newyorktimes.com, and you're a moderately good Googler like my five-and-three-quarter-year-old son, I have a sense that you and the interest group can find exactly what it is that they're desirous to see.

Q And is that what you're encouraging the American people to go look at it in context --

MR. GIBBS: Sure. Once the vault gets dug up from the front yard -- this I think is symptomatic of exactly the type of game that you have already seen and that you're likely to see. If somebody can find it on YouTube, if somebody -- I don't doubt that -- they produced a commercial, if I'm not unfamiliar with this, that has some of this stuff in there.

Did we somehow give them the secret document in order for them to make the Internet commercial, so that they can then put out a press release asking us to release the secret document that they used to make the commercial" This is the sort of semantical dance that professional interest groups play that pop up like dandelions after a spring rainstorm when there's a confirmation upcoming. Again, I think somebody with a dial-up Internet account can find said secret documents.

Gibbs is right - both of Sotomayor's remarks at Duke and her speech at Berkley are readily available to anyone willing to spend a few minutes searching for them. 

Perhaps people like Long and organizations like the Judicial Confirmation Network should spend a bit more time doing some basic research about Sotomayor instead of filling the airwaves and newspapers with their knee-jerk opposition.

One thing that has always amazed me about the Right is its ability to discover obscure but outrageous anecdotes and quickly transform them into evidence that Christians and conservatives are under attack. 

Years ago, I remember reading an Ann Coulter column in which she related the sad tale of one Raymond Raines, who supposedly received a week's detention for simply praying before lunch in the school cafeteria.  The story hung around for years and was regularly trotted out by the likes of Newt Gingrich and David Limbaugh whenever it served their purposes, despite the fact that it was completely untrue.

Ever since then, I have been fascinated by how these stories pop up in right-wing news outlets and are immediately taken as gospel by the Right, which uses them to further their political agenda. 

As a prime example, take this new column by Sandy Rios, former president of Concerned Women for America, explaining why Sonia Sotomayor must be defeated:

It was Good Friday when the knock came on the door at the home of Pastor David Jones and his wife, Mary. San Diego County officials were hot on the trail of reportedly suspicious activities taking place inside the couple’s home each and every week.

Mrs. Jones, the co-conspirator, was interrogated vigorously. “Do you sing? Do you say ‘Praise the Lord?’ Do you say ‘amen?’” San Diegans can be relieved their county officials are in hot pursuit of major trouble makers. Especially on Good Friday. How could authorities possibly sit by and allow homes to be the centers of meal sharing and Bible Study in the midst of unsuspecting, at-risk neighbors?

The Joneses were warned that if they did not pay for an expensive Major Use Permit, normally used for the city to conduct studies on environmental impact, traffic patterns, etc., their weekly gatherings of 15 would have to stop. And if they did not stop, there would be escalating fines and “then it will get ugly.” Seems like it already has.

Meanwhile, down in Louisiana, a man was reportedly stopped by police and held for questioning and a background check for displaying the notoriously offensive “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker. Christopher Gadsen, a Revolutionary War era general designed “Don’t Tread on Me” for a flag representing the need to defend America’s rights from tyranny. Ben Franklin loved the symbolism Gadsen used of the rattlesnake and the rebellion. Good thing Franklin wasn’t traveling in Louisiana, bearing that flag on his carriage, when those police were out to catch “right wing extremists.” Imagine … Homeland Security urging the nation’s law enforcement to protect the homeland from those who want to protect the homeland. Is there a category for that?

Or for that matter, for this: Debbie McLucas is a hospital supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas. Her husband and sons have all served in the military. Her daughter is currently stationed in Iraq as a combat medic. In honor of Memorial Day, Debbie did the unthinkable: She hung a three-by-five foot American flag in an office she shares with three other supervisors. One was quite offended. So offended, she took down the flag all by herself. Take that, Debbie McLucas. The hospital refused to support the display, claiming other patients and visitors were also offended.

...

These three stories currently in the news represent the types of issues that may very well end up in the United States Supreme Court ... What’s at stake with the nomination of a judge like Sonja Sottomayor [sic] are real-life consequences for ordinary American citizens. What we don’t need is a justice taking the bench with the notion that somehow the Constitution doesn’t mean what it has always meant, who proceeds to twist it to reflect his or her own viewpoint—a justice like Sonia Sotomayor.

Of course, if you bother to track down some non-right-wing news coverage of these anecdotes, you inevitably end up with far more rational explanation of what actually happened.

Here is what happened with the Jonse' and their Bible Study:

Every Tuesday night about 15 people drive to Jones’ Bonita home to eat dinner and discuss the Bible. They usually park on Jones' property, he said, but sometimes that parking spills out into the cul-de-sac.

Last month, someone filed a complaint about the number of cars.

A county code enforcement officer visited the house and asked Jones' wife about the weekly Bible studies.

"She said, 'Do you say amen?' and my wife said, 'Well, yes,'" Jones recalled.

"And she said, 'Do you say praise the Lord?’ she said, 'Well, yes but what does that have to with it?'" Jones said.

10News asked the county official about the officer's line of questioning.

"Did the officer actually do that? Is that part of the requirements to ask those questions?" Reporter Joe Little asked.

"Obviously, I wasn't there, so I can't tell you exactly what was said. However, what our officer was trying to do is establish what the use is so that we know what regulations to actually utilize," explained Chandra Wallar of the county's land use and environment group.

Wallar said it's the officer’s job to determine what kind of event is hosted at Jones’ house to decide what part of county code the event falls under.

And here is what happened with McLucas and her flag:

A Texas hospital owned by Louisville-based Kindred Healthcare drew online criticism after a Dallas television station reported that it wouldn't let a supervisor display a large U.S. flag in her office.

But Kindred said yesterday that the incident has been portrayed inaccurately, giving the false impression "that we do not respect the flag or the sacrifice it represents."

According to the TV report, Debbie McLucas hung a 3-by-5-foot flag last week in the office she shares with the other three supervisors at Kindred's hospital in Mansfield, Texas. Later her boss told McLucas that an officemate found the flag offensive and that some patients' families had also complained, the report said.

Kindred said "this was simply a dispute between two employees who shared a small workspace, one of whom removed the flag because of its size." Both employees have had family in the military, the statement said.

As for the tale of some motorist being pulled over for having a "Don't Tread On Me" sticker on his car, that can't even be verified because it is based almost entirely on a WorldNetDaily article in which WND withheld "the driver's name and the relative's name at their request" and was itself largely based upon an American Vision blog post:

Our friends at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana alerting Patriot Depot that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an "extremist" group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.

So did this actually happen?  There is no way of knowing ... though, personally, I am not particularly inclined to give too much credence to fourth-hand hearsay that originated with the brother-in-law of "Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana."

Yet, for the Right, these sorts of completely unverified and/or fundamentally misrepresented myths are  presented as established fact which are then used to explain why Sonia Sotomayor is unfit to sit upon the Supreme Court.

Everyone knows that conservatives and Republicans are struggling at the moment and trying to figure out how to regain their influence in politics, motivate their supporters, and start winning elections. 

Nobody seems to be able agree on a course of action or any sort of messaging ... but what they can agree on apparently is that what they need are new groups. 

A few weeks back a new group called The Faith and Freedom Institute emerged in order to combat "satanic wickedness" and return America to a foundation of Biblical principles.  Since that is pretty much the mission of every other right-wing group, why this new one is needed is beyond me. 

And just last week we found out that Tony Perkins, Richard Land, Wellington Boone, and Harry Jackson were launching something known as Call 2 Fall ... which seems to be some sort of Lou Engle-less version of "The Call."  Again, why this new duplicate effort is necessary remains a mystery.

Now, via Dan Gilgoff, we find out that yet another new right-wing effort in underway:

As religious conservatives are receiving some cold shoulders from the Republican Party, they're beginning to launch new political organizations of their own. Tonight, coinciding with his debate with Doug Kmiec at the National Press Club—an exchange that began here on God & Country—conservative Catholic legal scholar and activist Robby George will be unveiling one of them: the American Principles Project.

The group's website says it will hold Republicans to account on conservative positions:

The message of the 2006 and 2008 elections is not that the American people want to be governed by the ultraliberal and statist ideology of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid; rather it is that Americans will not tolerate Republicans and "conservatives" who refuse to honor in practice the principles they purport to affirm—Republicans and "conservatives" who expand government, spend our tax dollars wantonly, do nothing about out-of-control judges who undermine democracy, and sit idly by as marriage is redefined and further weakened.

The key difference between this group and others cropping up to chart a course forward for the GOP is that the American Principles Projects counts opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage among its top priorities.

The American Principles Project seems to be a response to the National Council for a New America, which angered the Religious Right when it unveiled its agenda for the remaking the GOP which contained no mention of the social issues like gay marriage and abortion that make up the core of their mission.

The confusing thing about this is that there are already dozens of right-wing groups for whom opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage are their top priorities.

In fact, this mission statement from the American Principles Project could, literally, apply to just about every other right-wing group currently in existence:

The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truth that each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If these timeless principles are to be restored and our national commitment to them renewed, then a new voice is needed in American politics, a voice that is unafraid to stand up for what is right and speak out against what is wrong. Indeed, that "voice" must be nothing less than millions of American voices raised in unison in defense of political liberty and economic freedom, the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, and the sovereignty and security of our nation.

The Right already has dozens of national and state-based organizations committed to this very same mission.

Has anyone at the American Principles Project ever heard of the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition? 

What exactly is this new group going to bring to the table that these various other groups don't? 

Whatever the conservative movement's problems might be at the moment, I can assure them that their dilemma is not rooted in the fact that there are just too few groups pressing the right-wing agenda.

• Hilzoy takes a look at the Ricci decision and declares that "both the District Court and the Second Circuit seem to me to have been applying the law in accordance with clear precedents. This is what judges are supposed to do."
• Jonathan Chait offers the "definitive case against gay marriage critics," calling their defense of "traditional marriage" a "hollow formulation ... held largely by people who either don't know why they oppose gay marriage or don't feel comfortable explicating their case."
• Bill Berkowitz says that Lila Rose is the new face of the anti-abortion movement.
• Some good news, via Good As You - Mat Staver and Matt Barber's radio show is going off the air.
• Finally, last month a I wrote a post responding to Pat Robertson's assertion that hate crimes legislation would lead to sex with ducks.  Garfunkel and Oates have offered up a much funnier and more melodic response.

Yesterday, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice made quite a spectacle of himself by suggesting to The Hill that right-wing opponents of Sonia Sotomayor have suspicions about her choice of cuisine and the influence it has on her judicial decision making:

Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.”

This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.

Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn’t certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law. 

“It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality.

This sort of nonsense seems to be a sign that Levey and the Right are struggling to figure out how to react to Sotomayor’s nomination, especially since her record on the bench doesn’t appear to be giving them much ammunition: 

Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative legal group Committee for Justice, said her judicial record would probably not be enough to stop Sotomayor's confirmation, given the Democratic dominance in the Senate, but her speeches are another matter. "The best predictor of whether a controversial nominee can be stopped is whether the case against her is based on more than just her legal analysis," he said … Although Levey acknowledged that his description of Sotomayor as a "wild-eyed judicial activist" would be hard to extract from her record on the bench, he said "her words are the best indication" of how she would see her role as a justice. 

Given that that is the case, Levey seems to be adopting a new tactic whereby he uses Sotomayor’s caution and restraint to suggest that she has been meticulously concealing her radical views for years as part of a nefarious plot to secure her confirmation to the Supreme Court:

Over the past two years, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has come face-to-face with two of the most controversial topics in U.S. law: racial preferences and the right to bear arms. In both cases, she tried to duck a fight.

Sotomayor’s handling of those cases will be an issue as the Senate considers her nomination by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court. In each, Sotomayor joined two other judges to produce a few sentences of legal reasoning, opting not to make broader arguments that might have influenced other courts.

Sotomayor’s supporters point to the cases as examples of judicial restraint. Her detractors say Sotomayor, 54, was trying to divert attention from the cases, hoping to prevent Supreme Court review and possibly enhance her resume for a promotion.

“It makes me wonder whether she’s just cautious by nature or whether she was already thinking about being appointed to a higher court,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice in Washington and a critic of the Sotomayor nomination. He said Sotomayor might have been “covering her tracks” by limiting the scope and prominence of the opinions.

Got that?  The fact that the Right has very little that it can use to paint Sotomayor as a radical judicial activist is not the result of her decision making has been cautious and reasoned, but rather suggests that she has been systematically “covering her tracks” for more than a decade.

Last week, Harry Jackson announced that he was prepared to wage all out war to prevent Washington DC from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, declaring:

In traditional wars that are fought in armed conflict, there is always an attempt to seize the capital of the nation. The capital is a nerve center and defeating it always renders numerous aspects of the nation’s potential resistance impossible. In addition, the loss of the capital disheartens everyone except the most experienced warriors. Taking a nation’s capital in physical war in most cases means the defeat of the nation.

As such, Jackson has now declared war:

A coalition of ministers and same-sex marriage opponents formally requested a citywide referendum yesterday to block the District from recognizing gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, setting the stage for a heated legal and political battle over the issue this summer.

In paperwork filed with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, the group Stand 4 Marriage D.C. said it wants to begin the process of collecting about 21,000 signatures needed to overturn the bill that the D.C. Council overwhelmingly approved this month recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. That bill is tentatively scheduled to take effect in July.

The referendum effort is a preemptive strike designed to slow plans by several council members to take up a separate bill this year to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.

"It's a declaration of war," said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, a vocal critic of same-sex marriage and a leader of the referendum effort. "We are sending a clear message this is going to be fought every step of the way."

Jackson said that he will take the matter in court if the board rejects this application filed by Jackson and his allies, such as Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, who explained his opposition to marriage equality thusly: 

"I part company with advocates of gay rights when it comes to assigning the title 'marriage' to a same-sex union," said Mr. Fauntroy, a friend of Martin Luther King and an organizer of the 1963 March on Washington who served as the District's non-voting representative in Congress.

"In my well-considered view, it is neither logical nor fair to reward citizens with financial benefits when they cannot perform the tasks for which the benefits are given," he said.

What “tasks” does he have in mind?  Having children?  If that is what he means, then what about infertile couples or couples who choose not to have children? Should they not be allowed to get married either? 

What on Earth is he talking about? 

• Why is the Baptist Press, which fancies itself a reputable news service, quoting Peter LaBarbera?
• Good news:  Roy Moore is running for governor.
• Mike Huckabee is again throwing his lot in with the conservative underdog and getting set to endorse Florida Senate hopeful Marco Rubio.
• Liberty University has declared that a chapter of the College Democrats can only receive official recognition if it inserts two clauses into its constitution – one stating that they are a pro-life organization and the other that they support the traditional view of marriage.
• Pat Toomey made 5 times as much in the last 17 months as he would make in a year he becomes a US senator, thanks largely to a Club for Growth salary of $336,049 and $325,000 in bonuses in 2008.

It looks like Pat Robertson has a new book out about how to manage your money called “Right on the Money: Financial Advice for Tough Times” and so he has been making the rounds promoting it.  

Though, judging by this interview with Time, I don’t know that I’d be willing to take financial advice from a guy who doesn’t even seem to know how he’s been managing his own money:

TIME: This is your first personal-finance book, is that right?

Robertson: That's right. I talk about finances on my TV show; we call it "Money Monday." One of the editors happened to see that segment and thought it'd make a nice book.

It seems a little bit out of your usual line.

Well, actually, I manage a couple of stock portfolios or funds or whatever you want to call 'em, and I think I've done relatively well with them. My broker says I'm in the top 1% of fund managers with the results I've been having.

Considering Robertson’s own history of questionable and sketchy business dealings, perhaps he is not really the best person to be handing out financial advice.

The Washington Times seems to have serious problems doing simple math.  Just last month, they published a editorial claiming that President Obama was the “second-least-popular president in 40 years” when, in fact, the very poll it cited showed that Obama’s standing was “well above the historical norm for all approval ratings.”

And now we get this equally inane claim from the Times today:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

So the Supreme Court granted review in a total of five cases where she authored the majority opinion and reversed the decision in three of them, giving her a 60 percent reversal rate … which is actually quite good considering that, in recent years, the Supreme Court has reversed more than 70% of all the cases it has heard.

But more importantly, as the article points out, Sotomayor wrote 380 majority decisions in her 11 years on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the vast majority of which didn’t get reversed by the Supreme Court. In fact, only five even ended up there and thus her three reversals out of 380 decisions gives her a reversal rate of exactly 0.00789473684.

The only “problem” for Sotomayor here is the Times’ pathetic lack of math skills.  

So, anything happen while I was on vacation? 

Oh yeah, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.  And guess what?  The Right already doesn't like her:

Family Research Council:

"President Obama has chosen a nominee with a compelling personal story over judicial pick with a solid constitutional judicial philosophy. A compelling personal story is no substitute for allegiance to the Constitution and its sound application to public life.

"Judge Sotomayor's failure to premise her decisions on the text of the Constitution has resulted in an extremely high rate of reversal before the high court to which she has been nominated.

"With that fact in mind Judge Sotomayor appears to subscribe to a very liberal judicial philosophy that considers it appropriate for judges to impose their personal views from the bench. President Obama promised us a jurist committed to the 'rule of law,' but, instead, he appears to have nominated a legislator to the Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family:

"From what we know about her, Judge Sotomayor considers policy-making to be among a judge’s roles, no matter what the law says," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "She disregards the notion of judicial impartiality."

...

Hausknecht said: "The president's professed desire for judges with 'empathy' rather than impartiality might deny the country what the Founding Fathers intended and wrote into the Constitution — judges who dispense justice without regard for the status of any party that comes before them."

Traditional Values Coalition:

To no one’s surprise, President Obama has nominated an individual who supports his position of deciding cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law. Although Sotomayor spoke strongly of the importance of the rule of law and principles of the Founding Fathers, her previous decisions contradict this, as do the previous statements and promises of President Obama.

...

Judge Sotomayor fits the “empathy” qualification. During a law conference, she has openly bragged that she views her role as a judge as a policymaker and activist who will impose her leftist political views on the rest of us. She may have empathy for the poor, gays and minorities – but she is likely to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. She is clearly the ideal nominee for President Obama but will be a disaster for our legal system.

Concerned Women for America:

CWA President Wendy Wright said, "A necessary quality for a Supreme Court justice is to be committed to equal treatment of the law, regardless of ethnicity or sex. Sonia Sotomayor has an extensive record and several troubling opinions where she seems willing to expand certain 'rights' beyond what the Constitution establishes and the appropriate Supreme Court precedent. Revealing her immodest bias, she stated that a 'Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' Congress needs to thoroughly vet Judge Sotomayor and Americans deserve enough time to evaluate her record and her announced bias for certain people. Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senate's duty to do so."

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA's Policy Director for Legal Issues, said, "Much has been made in the media about a Hispanic woman being nominated, but the truth is that none of that should matter as the Senate fulfills its 'advise and consent' role. What matters are the judge's judicial temperament and her view of the Constitution. We must determine if Judge Sotomayor will respect the Constitution as written or legislate from the bench. She has made some disconcerting statements that should require everyone to examine her record with an open mind and reach some conclusions. For example, she said once that 'policy was made at the appellate level,' a very dangerous way of looking at the role of a judge for those of us who value our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution."

Judicial Confirmation Network:

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

"She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

"She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

Committee for Justice:

Having told colleagues that I thought President Obama was too smart to pick someone with as much baggage as Sonia Sotomayor, I was surprised to learn of her nomination. Many other people were surprised as well, given both the widespread expectation that Obama would choose an intellectual heavyweight and Obama’s own recent statement that he would not make gender or race the major factors in his selection. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley summed it up well on MSNBC yesterday, expressing bewilderment that Obama chose Sotomayor when heavyweights like “[Seventh Circuit Judge] Diane Wood would have met all his criteria.”

The only plausible explanation for Sotomayor’s selection is that the President was boxed in by demands from Hispanic and women’s groups that he pick one of their own. What else could explain his choice of a nominee who presents such a big target for conservatives and so clearly forces red state Democratic senators to choose between the values of their constituents and those of the nominee?

Priests for Life:

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, says he has just one question about Judge Sonia Sotomayor as she is nominated by President Obama for the Supreme Court: "Does justice include the right to tear the arms and legs off of babies, crush their skulls, and treat them as medical waste?"

"We all draw the line somewhere. An avowed racist or anti-Semite is not acceptable on the Supreme Court. Why should we give a pass to the violence of abortion?"

Operation Rescue:

"Just as Obama has attempted to abuse the process of law in reshaping America to the far left, so too Sonia Sotomayor believes in the abuse of judicial authority having stated that courts can create social policy," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "This philosophy dangerously overreaches the duties of the judicial branch and flies in the face of the separation of powers doctrine."

"Sonia Sotomayor is a far left ideologue that blurs the lines between the legislature and judiciary and will surely be a rubber stamp for Obama's radical abortion agenda, which is opposed by the majority of Americans."

Organized for Life:

Peter Shinn, National Director of Organized for Life, commented that, "Sonia Sotomayor is out of step with the American people. Quoted in 2005 as believing that policy comes from the bench, she stands counter to the American people's desire to end the tragedy of abortion."

Ruben Obregon, President of Organized for Life, added, "In nominating Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama chose to further his own pro-abortion agenda rather than seek common ground on the abortion issue. Instead of faithfully representing America's views, President Obama has added another reliably liberal member to the Court who will continue to impose the Court's will on the people. Pro-life activists, the Davids in this epic battle for life, can only stop the Goliath of the White House by banding together and signing the petition at www.stopsotomayor.com."

Vision America:

Scarborough warned: "At age 54, Sotomayor could be a member of the United States Supreme Court for the next 20 years -- or longer. As a dedicated liberal, we know her views on abortion, gay marriage and reverse-discrimination -- whether or not she's ruled directly on these issues."

"That much power simply can't be bestowed by a compliant Senate," Scarborough observed. "This nomination must be stopped dead in its tracks. Sonia Sotomayor isn't a 'centrist,' she's a disaster at every level."

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Women are best protected by the rule of law -- and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal preference, ideology or painful personal history inform judgment. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause. Given what we know about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy -- including her support of policymaking from the bench -- Americans should be concerned about the role of personal preference in her overall judicial philosophy.

When it comes to protecting all human life, one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's record of support for judicial activism offers little comfort that she will be a friend to the unborn on the Supreme Court. As the Senate fulfills its Constitutional role to 'advise and consent,' Senators should ask the hard questions to thoroughly assess Sotomayor's judicial temperament, and reaffirm the authentic feminist standard of blind justice for all."

Randall Terry:

"The filibuster trail was blazed by President Obama, VP Biden, Majority Leader Reed, Sec State Clinton, and other Democrat leaders in 2005 with Justice Alito. Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe judge?

"The Democrats have two weak links in their chain; Senators Nelson (NE) and Casey (PA) who both declare they are 'pro-life.' The question of conscience and courage is on the table: will they choose babies' lives or party loyalty?"

Ken Blackwell:

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Mike Huckabee (after first mistakenly calling her "Maria Sotomayor"):

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bi-partisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the "feelings" of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.

Richard Viguerie actually issued three different releases, including this one:

"The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor unites all wings of the conservative movement--economic, foreign policy, social, traditional, neocon, and libertarian--in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years.

"Judge Sotomayor frightens all conservatives. As the debate over her nomination heats up, conservatives will provide the primary opposition to Sotomayor and will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using direct mail, the Internet, talk radio, cable TV, You Tube, and other forms of new and alternative media.

"It was sad to read that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comment on the Sotomayor nomination reflected the typical reaction Americans have come to expect from Republican politicians when he said that Republicans will reserve judgment on Sotomayor.

"No wonder conservatives now look to talk show hosts and other unelected conservatives for leadership, rather then wet-finger Republican politicians who always seeming to be waiting to see the direction of the political winds.

"It remains to be seen how active and effective Republican politicians will be on this historic fight, but conservatives are on the field, engaged, and ready to battle President Obama and all U.S. Senators who support Sotomayor."

This collection is actually just a fraction of the statements made in opposition to Sotomayor by right-wing groups, but it's more than enough to drive home the point that they appear intent on doing everything they can to oppose her nomination.

• First of all, our congratulations to Pam for being among those who will be honored at the Women's Media Center first annual WMC Media Awards.
• Dan Gilgoff says that religious conservatives who "have argued for years that legalized gay unions would undermine the basic family unit" are moving toward arguments claiming that marriage equality threaten their religious liberties.
• Sarah Posner argues that "because of that deception on reproductive rights, it's more important than ever for the president to lay the moral groundwork for his own position -- not just to recognize the moral qualms of abortion opponents."
• David Hart takes issue Robert Gagnon's assertion that gays should be covered by hate crimes legislation because, he claims, homosexuality is a choice. Hart responds by noting that "current hate crimes law includes religion, which is [also] a choice."
• Finally, Media Matters has a clip of Michael Savage calling Rush Limbaugh a "total fraud."

Until I saw this article in WorldNetDaily, I was completely unaware of the Reclaiming Oklahoma For Christ:

[Pastor Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla.] is founder of a group called Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, an outreach to pastors that encourages church leaders  to take a stand against the spread of immorality in American culture. He is urging pastors across the nation to stop being silent and muster the courage to speak out against efforts to criminalize Christianity. He said church leaders have abandoned the prophetic call and have chosen instead to be CEOs of competitive church businesses rather than proclaiming "faith in Christ alone and repentance from sin."

"Pastors used to speak strongly about issues – like when Billy Sunday led a crusade, and the next thing you know, liquor was outlawed. So they made a difference," he said. "The year 1954 is when pastors began to grow timid because, all of the sudden, they had this misguided notion that they might lose their tax exemption if they made too much noise."

Shortly after ministers grew silent, prayer and Bible reading were taken out of schools. The sexual revolution immediately followed, along with Roe v. Wade. Now, he said, attacks on Christian liberty and morality have become more brazen and coordinated than ever – with widespread movements to legalize homosexual marriage, the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to profile Christians as "potential terrorists" and strategies to silence pastors through hate crimes legislation.

...

Blair is stepping up the effort by calling on "patriot pastors" to lead their congregations in three areas: 1) evangelizing and leading people to Christ to change the culture 2) educating people about the truth of America's Christian heritage and real threats like the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and 3) contacting elected representatives by writing letters and participating in petition drives.

His church is planning a special Memorial Day weekend sermon where he will bring in a 150-foot crane to fly the American flag as he warns his congregation of attacks on freedom.

"We absolutely will be addressing the fact that freedom isn't free," he said. "We'll talk about the great sacrifice that was paid for the liberty we enjoy and how there are attacks on that liberty not just abroad, but here at home."

Accompanying this article was this ten minute video in which Blair runs through the litany of right-wing lies about hate crimes legislation:

While watching it, my first thought was “this sounds an awful lot like the nonsense Janet Porter has been peddling” which, as it turns out, makes sense because Blair’s organization has ties to Porter, having signed on to her recent effort to pressure Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign.

It made even more sense when I saw that she was going to be a featured speaker at the upcoming Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ Conference:        

The 2009 conference will be held on July 24 and 25 at Oklahoma Christian University in Edmond.

Scheduled speakers include Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth, Dr. John Morris from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), LTG (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, one of the original members of the U.S. Army's Delta Force, and Faith2Action President Janet (Folger) Porter.

Boykin, you may recall, made news a few years back when he declared that we were at war with Islam and that our “spiritual enemy ... will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus” but that we would eventually win because our God is real while they worshiped an idol.  Since leaving the military, he’s hooked-up with fringe Religious Right figures like Rick Scarborough and now, apparently, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ.

In fact, ROC seems to have some pretty significant ties to a variety of second and third-tier right-wing leaders.  According to its website, its 2008 conference featured the likes of David Barton, Bill Federer, and Mat Staver.  The organization also participated in the “One Day Crusade” events put on by Scarborough and Gordon Klingenschmitt before the election last year and was deeply involved in rallying support for Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern, the self-proclaimed “warrior for Judeo-Christian values” who declared that the “homosexual agenda” was “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”

It seems that while we were busy not paying any attention this organization, they were busy building relationships with a variety of more high-profile right-wing leaders and organizations to whom we do pay attention.  And since they seem to be treating ROC as a legitimate ally, I guess we’re going to have to start trying to pay a bit more attention to what they are up to.

• As Eric Boehlert asks, who cares what Newt Gingrich thinks?
• Greg Sargent answers that question, pointing out that the National Council for a New America does.
• Pam reports that Peter LaBarbera is already fulminating against the Fulsom Street Fair.
• Dave Neiwert says Ann Coulter doesn't do well when challenged directly.
• Steve Benen comments on Michael Steele's speech today positioning the GOP as the party of new ideas, observing that until they come up with some, they are apparently just going to stick with "socialism, handshake, 9/11."
• Jonathan Chait wonders if the Republicans have any contingency plans in place in case their anti-Obama crusade doesn't pan out politically.
• Finally, Jeremy observes that even legally recognized gay marriages are still "counterfeit" to the Alliance Defense Fund.

Last week Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410) which would, among other things, "end the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad."

The change would, in essence, "require the State Department to confer the same benefits to same-sex partners as it does to married couples."

And guess what?  The Religious Right doesn't like it:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action, pointed out that H.R. 2410 violates the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"The public policy of the United States expressed through DOMA and other federal provisions is to promote one-man, one-woman marriage," she said. "That is the gold standard by which the government does, and should continue to, offer benefits."

That sort of complaint, while entirely predictable, appears downright sensible compared to this one from the Family Research Council:

Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration are not ready to attack traditional marriage directly, but they may be willing to have it die a death of a thousand cuts. Under the current version of H.R. 2410, the State Department budget reauthorization bill, taxpayers will be financially responsible for the same-sex partners of U.S. diplomats. The legislation calls for an end to "the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits [like health care and travel] routinely provided to the spouses... serving abroad."

If the House agrees to fund these "significant others," the policy would be completely inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the government from treating same-sex partners as the equivalent of spouses. Ironically, House leaders are asking Congress to overturn the policy on the grounds of discrimination--even though the bill blatantly practices it. Under the current language, gays and lesbians are eligible for these perks, but heterosexual partners are not.

Apparently FRC considers offering the same benefits to committed partners of foreign affairs officers as are offered to spouses is itself discriminatory because such benefits are not being offered to "heterosexual partners."

Of course, "heterosexual partners" could always get married and then they would receive the same benefits.  Except for a handful of states, gays can't get married - thanks largely to the Religious Right - and even in those states where they can get married, the Right doesn't want those legally vaild marriages recognized by the federal government in any way, shape, or form.

If gays could get married, this sort of thing wouldn't even be an issue. But since the Religious Right is focused on making sure that never happens, we end up with efforts like this aimed at ensuring that the families of gay and straight foreign service officers are treated equally.

And how does the Right respond? By complaining about discrimination!

To say that Michael Steele's short tenure as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee has been something of a disaster would be putting it mildly.  But that is all about to change, because Steele is set to unilaterally announce that the era of the GOP's flailing and failure is now officially over:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele will tell GOP state leaders Tuesday that they must embrace conservative principles, focus their efforts on rebuilding the party and highlight the policy differences between Republican ideals and President Obama's agenda.

"The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over," Steele will say in a speech to the RNC's 2009 State Chairmen's Meeting, according to excerpts obtained by CNN. "It is done. We have turned the page, we have turned the corner. No more looking in the review mirror. From this point forward, we will focus all of our energies on winning the future."

Frankly, I wasn't even aware that the GOP had been apoligizing for its mistakes.  When did that start?  I was aware that seemingly every other week Steele himself was being forced to apologize for his blunders, so maybe what he means is that, in this brave new GOP future, he's not going to be apologizing any more. 

More importantly, Steele won't have to apologize ever again because "Republicans are [now] turning a corner in three important ways":

First, the Republican Party will be forward-looking – it is time to stop looking backward. Republicans have spent ample time re-examining the past. It has been a healthy and necessary task. But I believe it is now time for Republicans to focus all of our energies on winning the future by emerging as the party of new ideas. Republicans are emerging once again with the energy, the focus, and the determination to turn our timeless principles into new solutions for the future.

And the reason the Republicans will no longer be looking backwards is, Steele explains, because that is what Ronald Reagan would have done: 

The Republican Party has turned a corner, and as we move forward Republicans should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Again, we’re not looking back – if President Reagan were here today he would have no patience for Americans who looked backward. Ronald Reagan always believed Republicans should apply our conservative principles to current and future challenges facing America. For Reagan’s conservatism to take root in the next generation we must offer genuine solutions that are relevant to this age.

So the GOP is going to stop looking back so that it can focus on "winning the future by emerging as the party of new ideas" ... and it is going to do that by taking lessons from Ronald Reagan, who left office twenty years ago and died in 2004?

Huh?

• Is it true that some Republicans are getting tired of the militants at the Club for Growth?
• Mike Huckabee: Poet.
• Governor Rick Perry finally declares "I'm not in favor of Texas seceding."
• Michael Steele seemingly doesn't know how to deal with efforts by some RNC members to label the Democrats as "socialists" ... and apparently has even less of an idea of how to sell opposition to marriage equality to the younger generation.
• Sean Hannity told Alan Keyes he would have gladly bailed him out of jail had Keyes needed to money.
• Seriously, what on earth is Rep. Michelle Bachmann doing on a Worldview Radio program, along with Gary Cass, no less?
• Tony Perkins, Richard Land, and Bishop Harry Jackson are unveiling something called The Call2Fall, which is "is a public commitment for Christians to set aside some time on July 5, 2009 to pray for the healing of our nation. The day after Americans celebrate their 'independence,' they will pray for 'dependence' upon God."
• Speaking of Perkins, for $2 the Family Research Council will mail you a copy of their document "Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples":

The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

While it is still unclear whether Bishop Harry Jackson actually lives in the District of Columbia, he has, over the last couple of weeks, managed to establish himself as the leader of those fighting the DC government’s efforts towards granting marriage equality to its residents … and has recently begun efforts to paint those opposed to his efforts as a bunch of outsiders and interlopers.

For instance, take a look at his most recent column in which he seeks to paint himself and former DC Mayor Marion Barry as the true voices of the residents of the District.  Calling Barry the “quintessential grassroots politician,” Jackson praises his new-found opposition to gay marriage as representative of the views of the District as a whole because he is, after all “someone who was so in touch with the pulse of his community that he could emerge from a prison cell and get re-elected in his beloved city.”  

Jackson then lashes out at his opponents, claiming that they are reduced to busing in supporters and buying off city council members in order to create the illusion of support for marriage equality among DC residents:  

The side that needs the most credibility buses in many voters from other parts of the city to attempt to drum up support for their side. It’s amazing the “academy award winning performances” that people will put on when buses, stipends, and professional organizers are paid for. In DC’s case the same group that has given campaign donations to “swing vote” council members are behind these new efforts. 

The ironic thing about this complaint is that Jackson’s anti-marriage rally last month consisted almost entirely of people who did not live in DC:

LL spoke to ten individuals after the 90-minute rally ended. None were current residents of the District of Columbia.

One, a youth minister from Bowie, Md., was taking time off of work to join the rally. “It think it’s important that whenever people are taking a stand, we need to support people taking a stand,” he said. While he personally doesn’t like in the District, he said “friends and relatives will be affected by it.”

Another, the Rev. John Hardy of Stafford, Va., came with his wife and a congregant from his flock at Covenant Family Worship Center after getting a call from Jackson. He says he plans to tell the rest of his flock about his event and pray for local politicos. “We believe that prayer does things,” he says.

A couple from Chevy Chase, Md., Jim and Joan Schnabel, came after getting an e-mail alert from the FRC. Jim pointed out that he was a native Washingtonian. “Probably the only one here,” he cracked. Joan pointed out that D.C. isn’t quite the same as other places: “It is the center of the nation. It influences the world.”

Heck, Jackson even admitted to the Washington Post that his efforts are largely dependent on outsiders: 

[Jackson] says he's not the least bit reluctant to recruit out-of-town supporters to put pressure on the city's politicians. He tells me that the Alexandria-based political consulting firm of Shirley and Bannister, a longtime player in conservative Republican national and local campaigns, is handling planning and execution of the effort to defeat D.C. same-sex marriage initiatives, both at the council level and -- should the city pass this and a measure legalizing same-sex bonds here -- in Congress. Jackson won't say who's paying the consulting firm or who's bankrolling his effort to build a coalition of pastors against the D.C. bill. 

But the way he sees it, his efforts are entirely justified because the battle for marriage is, in essence, a war and in war control of the nation’s capital is paramount:

What happens in DC will affect the nation. In traditional wars that are fought in armed conflict, there is always an attempt to seize the capital of the nation. The capital is a nerve center and defeating it always renders numerous aspects of the nation’s potential resistance impossible. In addition, the loss of the capital disheartens everyone except the most experienced warriors. Taking a nation’s capital in physical war in most cases means the defeat of the nation.

Applying this principle of war to our struggle to preserve the potential and power of biblical marriage, we have to protect marriage in the nation’s capital. We must wage a non-physical, non-violent, political war to protect the definition and potential of marriage for future generations.

And, as such, he is now bringing in reinforcements: 

This Wednesday and Thursday over 400 pastors will gather in DC to be briefed about major issues of our day, lobby Congress, and carry out spiritual prayer walks in the capital city area. Representatives from this group will host a press conference at 1pm on Thursday. Ministers from around the country and from Washington, DC will unite to make their voices heard. 

Meanwhile, what have the residents of the District of Columbia been up to?

[Y]esterday, gay rights advocates declared victory in a key battle to set the tone for the issue when the Ward 8 Democrats voted 21 to 11 to support the legalization of same-sex marriage, in preparation for legislation expected to be introduced in the D.C. Council this year.

If, as Jackson says, the “side that needs the most credibility” is the side that has to bus in supporters, then what does it say about his efforts considering that he is bringing 400 pastors to Washington while the most important political organization in Marion Berry’s own ward publicly supports marriage equality?

Several related articles today, all pretty much saying the same thing:  even though right-wing groups are doubtful that they’ll actually be able to defeat President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, they are raising lots of money to try and do so anyway and, in doing so, hope to make it an issue in the 2010 elections.

The New York Times:

While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.

“It’s an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there,” said Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser. “It’s a massive teaching moment for America. We’ve got the packages written. We’re waiting right now to put a name in.”

Gary Marx, executive director of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said donors, whom he declined to identify, had committed to contributing millions of dollars for television, radio and Internet advertisements that might reunite conservatives in a confirmation battle.

Conservatives face big obstacles, though, in rousing supporters or spurring Republican lawmakers to mount an all-out fight.

The movement is much diminished from four years ago under President George W. Bush, when Supreme Court vacancies last arose and conservatives marshaled their forces to champion his nominees. (Judge Richard Posner, a prominent Reagan appointee, wrote recently that the conservative movement suffers from “intellectual deterioration.”) Republicans have lost control of the White House and Congress, have no clear party leader and have received low approval ratings.

And some leading groups are having budget woes. Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based evangelical group led by the semi-retired James C. Dobson, rallied social conservatives in support of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees, but it recently cut more than 200 jobs.

The conservative movement is sharing its resources as it prepares for the nomination. The Judicial Action Group, founded in 2006 and based in Alabama, has organized a research network — dubbed the Supreme Court Review Committee — of about 15 “pro-family ministries” and conservative legal groups, said Phillip Jauregui, president of the group.

…

 

Manuel Miranda, who has led conference calls for conservative groups about judges, said the focus on such issues would present “a great opportunity to really prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency.”

“It isn’t just about the nominee,” he said. “It’s about the fact that the American people gave control of presidency to a Democrat who will appoint a certain type of judge and the Senate that will most likely rubber stamp that choice.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family’s political arm, said he believed that despite conservatives’ recent political troubles in other arenas, the public still prefers their judicial philosophy.

“This is an issue that if Americans focus on it, it will bring out their conservative side,” he said. “And that could help the political fortunes of conservatives in the future.”

The Washington Times:

Republicans are going on offense to tarnish potential Supreme Court justice hopefuls, attempting to spark an early fight over President Obama's first nomination to the high court.

…

Wendy Long and Gary Marx of the Judicial Confirmation Network penned a memo for activists on the issue last week, predicting, "The first Obama nominee to the Supreme Court will be hailed by Democrats, liberal interest groups and many in the media as a 'moderate.' No matter how liberal, activist, or extreme she may be."

They said they have crafted a video to "expose the liberal activist records of those who have been named as front-runners to fill Justice [David H.] Souter's seat."

Scott Wheeler, executive director for the National Republican Trust PAC, sent a letter to Republican senators, warning that activists "will hold them accountable" for the nomination process, so they should "keep steadfast and stay true to your Republican conservative values and beliefs."

Mr. Wheeler also went after Mr. Obama's empathy standards, saying that because they "have nothing to do with interpreting the law or the rule of law ... It is up to you and your fellow Republican colleagues to stop such a nomination."

The Washington Independent:

Conservatives, on the other hand, have a number of catch phrases they want to apply to Supreme Court nominees. “We will continue to be using the metaphor of the neutral umpire,” said Marx, echoing the language used by now-Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2005 confirmation hearing. Marx listed two other qualifications a justice should possess: “judicial restraint” and “not legislating from the bench.”

He also pulled out a Biblical reference to make his point. King Solomon, he said, did not need “empathy” or “compassion” to resolve the famous baby case. “Was that compassionate?” he asked rhetorically. “No, it was wisdom.”

Despite their success in determining which terms have come to dominate the debate, conservatives acknowledge that their purpose may not be so much to block the confirmation of a justice as to score political and perhaps fundraising points for future elections.

Marx says that the confirmation debate will have “three huge implications”: it will educate the American people about the issues, help them understand Obama’s true political philosophy and set the stage for the 2010 U.S. Senate campaigns.

According to [Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundtion], the effects of this battle could extend to 2012 as well. “Whoever this nominee’s going to be,” he said, “if the court moves forward on gay marriage or restricts the Second Amendment or goes forward with another change that’s unpopular among the American public… that’s something that will affect the president’s reelection bid.”

Still, the game is likely to change considerably when Obama announces his nominee. “To be honest, I think this is all noise,” Darling conceded. “It will become completely irrelevant when the nominee is put forth.”

Finally, the Right sees signs of hope for its chances of stopping Obama’s SCOTUS nominee in their obstruction of Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation: 

Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, says the stalled Johnsen nomination should send President Obama the message that he does not have a free hand to appoint someone "extreme" to the Supreme Court, even when there are 59 or 60 Democrats in the Senate.
 
"Dawn Johnsen was an executive branch appointee to the Department of Justice. They get more deference, not less, from the Senate than judicial nominees," he notes. "So, if he were to appoint somebody anywhere near as extreme as Dawn Johnsen to the Supreme Court, the nominee would very likely not be confirmed by the Senate."
 
A bold but unlikely pick for Obama, according to Levey, would be black Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, who is a friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is more moderate than the other potential High Court picks whose names have been floated. 

• AU notes the irony of Pat Robertson blaming the economic crisis on greed considering his own questionable business dealings.
• Think Progress reports that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has again refused to reject the idea that his state might secede from the US.
• Logan Murphy at Crooks and Liars reports that former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave is not done embarrassing herself or her party.
• Speaking of C&L, The American Prospect reviews David Neiwert's new book.
• Steve Benen says that if we are judging Nancy Pelosi by her enemies, then she must be doing a good job.
• Pam notes that Chuck Colson is getting a little hysterical about marriage equality.
• Finally, John Aravosis notes that Bill O'Reilly seems to have changed his tune rather dramatically regarding marriage equality since 2002.

I've already written a few posts about the right-wing lunacy that is taking place at Notre Dame ahead of President Obama's scheduled commencement address, but I have to say that nothing sums it up better than this photo:

Because nothing says "reasoned, respectful debate" quite like Alan Keyes pushing a blood-covered doll around in a Spongebob stroller.

Today, the New York Times profiles the Catholic League's Bill Donohue and he is loving life right about now.  Donohue has seen a lot of "anti-Catholic," behavior in recent weeks which means he’s spent a lot of time talking to the media about how “outraged” he is ... and that is exactly how he likes it:

It has been a busy week for Mr. Donohue, a contentious and unofficial enforcer of Roman Catholic sensibilities who can grate on enemies and friends alike with his immense ability to be offended on behalf of his church.

In the 16 years since he took the reins of the Catholic League — an organization that claims to have 50,000 paying members nationwide but has no formal connection to the church and no spokesman except Mr. Donohue — he can recall few moments that have so thoroughly tapped his well of combativeness.

With the movie “Angels and Demons” opening on Friday, he has been issuing public broadsides and giving interviews on radio and television by the fistful, pounding at what he says are historical distortions about the church’s history in the book’s plot. “They even have a scene where rats eat a bunch of cardinals,” he said. “Can you imagine any other religion where this would not be viewed as rank religious bias?”

On Sunday, the University of Notre Dame is set to give an honorary degree to President Obama, a supporter of abortion rights, and Mr. Donohue has been vociferous in his criticism. “Not so much against Mr. Obama, but Father Jenkins for inviting him,” he said, referring to the university president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins. “Here is a Catholic priest, bestowing an honor on someone who supports selective infanticide.”

And Mr. Obama’s appointment of Harry Knox, a gay human-rights activist — “an anti-Catholic bigot who has called the pope a liar” — to the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships had Mr. Donohue in overdrive.

“This is fantastic,” said Mr. Donohue, 61, with a gap-toothed smile that he rarely shows on television. “I can’t get enough of it.”

Donohue describes himself as "the Marine forward unit of the church," seeking out the enemy and destroying them ... and by “enemy” he means anyone who says anything critical of Catholics, the Catholic Church, or the Catholic Faith, as determined entirely by him. As Donohue sees it, "if an offense is committed against the communal institution of Catholicism, it is an offense against every individual Catholic.”

But there is nothing that riles him up more than apostasy, especially from Catholics who support reproductive choice: “I hate them," he admits.

Which makes this little nugget all the more interesting:

Before taking up the cause, Mr. Donohue, a divorced father of two grown children who lives in Mineola, on Long Island, was a sociology professor at La Roche College, a Catholic college in Pittsburgh.

• First off, our congratulations to Jeremy and his beloved while, in business news, he notes that Exodus International has finally given up the charade that there are "30+ sexual orientations."
• To say that Steve Benen is not impressed by Govs. Rick Perry and Mark Sanford and their Tea Party II (Electric Boogaloo) efforts would be a bit of an understatement.
• Speaking of Sanford, Jed Lewison notes that he is now coming under attack from fellow Republicans for refusing to spend stimulus money on rebuilding the state's crumbling schools.
• Pam points out that Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte has quietly signed on to a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to be President.
• Media Matters has video of Randall Terry saying Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama "would be like inviting Pilate to speak after he ordered Jesus to be crucified."

Over the last few weeks, we've been chronicling the Religious Right's growing resentment toward the Republican establishment as it seeks a path back to electoral success that appears to be trying to push social conservatives aside.

The Family Research Council has been particularly vocal in its criticism of the Republican Party ... and it continues to hammer away today in response to the news that the National Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's Senate bid and might even be looking about for someone to challenge Pat Toomey's Senate bid in Pennsylvania:

Considering his unpredictability on key party issues, the departure of Sen. Arlen Specter should have come as a relief to the Senate GOP. But now, less than a month later, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) seems to be hunting for the moderate's replacement. Yesterday, the Committee finally found the centrist it was seeking, throwing its support behind Gov. Charlie Crist's (R-Fla.) Senate candidacy minutes after it was announced.

While he continues to be popular among Floridians, Crist is known for bucking the conservative platform--even going so far as to hit the road with President Obama in support of his controversial stimulus package. Despite promises to the contrary, the National Republican Senatorial Committee jumped into the Florida primary and picked moderate Crist over other qualified candidates who have proven their conservative mettle through support for the core issues of life, marriage, faith, and family. There are even rumblings that the NRSC is looking for a candidate to challenge conservative Pat Toomey in his bid to take defector Specter's seat.

Unfortunately, this is vintage GOP Establishment. For years, the Republican Party gravitated toward moderates over fidelity to the GOP's core principles. It's a longstanding pattern that I've seen up close. The Republican leadership in Washington appears to be on a path that will turn what could have been two or three terms in the minority into a lengthy sojourn in the political wilderness.

The sad thing about this is the assertion that the GOP does this sort of thing to the Right all the time ... and yet the Right remains doggedly committed to the Republican Party nontheless. 

Maybe it is time for the Right to start considering the possibility that this "longstanding pattern" exists in large part due to the fact that the "GOP Establishment" knows full well that, while the Right complains about it a lot, they never seem to actually do anything about it.

The GOP may very well spend two or three more terms wandering around in the political wilderness ... and the Religious Right will still be following right along, complaining the whole time.

Ben Smith reports that right-wing groups met with several Republican Senators yesterday to plot strategy on how to defeat President Obama's Supreme Court nominee:

Leaders of some of the social and judicial conservative groups planning an all-out fight over the Supreme Court nominee met with Republican Senators yesterday, a source says, passing on a couple of the items that came up in the meetings.

Centrally, it remains unclear how broadly the Republican leadership will commit to a fight, particularly on this first nominee, and so that's the question currently being arbitrated.

One of the conservatives talking points was money. Conservatives are telling the GOP that a court confrontation will be great fundraising, saying the NRSC raised some $200,000 at a breakfast yesterday with wealthy conservative donors, with the court issue dominating discussion, and that the key outside groups have raised some $1.2 million in advance of an expected fight in recent weeks, on top of money that other top conservative legal warries [sic] like Leonard Leo and C. Boyden Gray have been raising toward this cause over the last few months.

The groups are also hoping to reverse what has generally been positive press for most of the mentioned possible nominees, and there were calls to "take off the gloves, " and talk of a video being released on a call with 60 conservative groups tomorrow.

One other tidbit from the meetings: Republicans could raise objections to Elena Kagan's nomination because of the possible delays in getting documents related to her service in the Clinton Administration from the Clinton Library.

Of course, right-wing groups like the Judicial Confirmation Network and the Committee for Justice (who were presumably involved in this meeting) are raising millions of dollars to prevent President Obama's nominee from getting confirmed, even though they were founded in order "to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States." But only under President Bush, apparently.

And why exactly are there calls to "take off the gloves"?  Against who?  There hasn't even been a nominee yet.  

It's good to see that these groups, which once existed to ensure that President Bush's nominees received fair treatment and an up-or-down vote, are now fully committed to savaging and defeating President Obama's nominee ... even before they have any idea who it is.

Just when it seemed like the fringe right-wing protesting at Notre Dame couldn't get any more ridiculous, we come to find out that some anonymous donor has now handed Rick Scarborough a thousand dollars so that he could join the fray as well:

Today a gentleman entered my office and donated the $1,000 needed to pay for my trip to South Bend, IN to join Alan Keyes and Randall Terry in protest of Obama's commencement speech on Sunday at Notre Dame. This came after much prayer seeking God's direction and financial provision concerning whether or not I was to say yes to their request to join them and many others facing potential arrest tomorrow for standing for life on the Notre Dame campus.

...

I will be arriving in South Bend Thursday to join them. It is my privilege to stand for truth and with courageous men and women, going to jail if called upon, to bring awareness to our nation that this madness must stop. Please be in prayer as we choose to take our stand for the sanctity of life.

Now, it was at least understandable that Keyes and Terry would target Notre Dame with protests claiming that the Catholic University is violating Catholic teachings by inviting President Obama to speak, because both men are Catholic.

But Scarborough is a Baptist, so what exactly warrants his participation in these protests? 

The whole "controversy" here is that a Catholic University had invited a pro-choice president to address its graduating class ... and it is predominantly right-wing Catholics who are upset about it (while most other Catholics hadn't even heard about it and those that had largely support it.)

Scarborough seems to be going to just protest Obama's pro-choice views ... but why he needed a $1000 to fly from Texas to Indiana to do that is beyond me because he probably could have saved himself considerable time and money if he had just gone and protested at Arizona State University where Obama spoke last night.

• Steve Benen congratulates one of the few conservatives who have the courage to at least suggest that perhaps Rush Limbaugh is not the face the Republican Party needs if it ever hopes to regain its relevance.
• Sarah Posner smartly points out that "only 33 percent of white evangelicals thought it was proper for Obama to speak at [Notre Dame] -- that's about half of those who think torture can be justified."
• Good As You got Focus on the Family to admit that the claims in the Cornerstone poll are "not accurate."
• Finally, several things from Media Matters: Glen Beck suggesting that ACORN may kill him for his coverage of them; a good collection of conservative media figures saying that marriage equality will lead to "triads," interspecies marriage, and pedophilia; and Pat Robertson saying he'll support marriage equality "when two men get together and make a baby"

Despite the fact that most Catholics haven't even heard about the University of Notre Dame's decision to invite President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement (and, of those who have heard about it, a majority support it)  Alan Keyes and Randall Terry have spent the last few weeks camped out there, protesting, and loving every ego-stroking minute of it.

Both have already been arrested and have generally being making spectacles of themselves, with Keyes declaring yesterday that Obama's speech "is as great a crisis for the Catholic church as the crisis that occurred some years back with the abuse."

Never one to be outdone, Terry piped in today with his own hyperbole:

In South Bend, former Operation Rescue leader Terry has set up shop, scheduling rounds of protests. Followers stand at the university gates, holding up signs with photos of aborted fetuses. Last week, Republican gadfly Keyes was among 22 protesters arrested on trespassing charges.

"We want this to be a political mud pit for Obama," Terry said. "Our mission is to tar him with the blood of the babies so he can never shake it between now and 2012."

And now Keyes, Terry, and others are portraying themselves as martyrs as they seek to go over Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins' head and demanding a meeting with his superiors in the Holy Cross order demanding a meeting regarding Jenkins' "abuse of authority" for having them arrested in violation of God's law:

"We are writing to seek redress of grievances we have suffered at the hands of a member of your order by abuse of his authority as President of the University of Notre Dame."

...

1) He has scandalized us and other members of the community of the faithful by his role in the decision taken by the University of Notre Dame, in defiance of the explicit direction of Church leaders, to extend a scandalous commencement speaking invitation and honorary degree to Barack Obama, who has become the focus of abortion evil in the world today;

2) To cover this scandalous decision, he ordered the University Police to prevent us from fulfilling our obligation, under God's law and the Church's teaching, to witness to truth so that young souls affected by his scandalous action would not be lost through obstinate commitment to the sins it encourages;

To address these grievances, we respectfully request that you:

1) Immediately grant us a hearing so that we may formally detail the moral and material harm we have suffered at the hands of a member of your order;

2) Request and require that Father Jenkins, and any others of your order who may be involved with him in this matter, appear at the said hearing to respond to our charges against him;

3) Render judgment and immediate relief from the harm done to us, and others of the community of the faithful acting as we do, including but not limited to the immediate, public and complete withdrawal of all charges brought against us by the University before the civil authorities and the immediate cessation of all acts that persecute individuals witnessing to truth in accordance with divine law and the teachings and direction of the Church.

We have known for some time now that the Right was targeting Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, for defeat.  But what we weren't aware of, until reading this post from the Family Research Council's Tom McClusky, was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to get her confirmed:

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is now telling reporters he does not have the votes to confirm Dawn Johnsen for Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department. Ms. Johnsen has been a long time advocate for abortion rights groups, comparing pregnancy to slavery. She has also been outspoken on counterterrorism measures.

Of course, if you read the article he links to, you find out that Reid didn't say he doesn't have the votes to confirm Johnsen - what he actually said was that he doesn't have the votes to prevent a Republican-led filibuster of her nomination:

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moves to ease a backlog of executive branch nominations, he suggested on Tuesday that he does not have the votes to bring up President Barack Obama’s pick to run the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“Right now we’re finding out when to do that,” Reid said, responding to a question about the status of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to the Justice post. “We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60.”

As Reid explained elsewhere:

“We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60," Reid added. And it's just a small number, maybe two or three. But at this stage, I don't have all the Democrats. I have virtually all, but not all. And remember, we have 59 Democrats, and that's not enough to do it."

Reid has more than enough votes to confirm Johnsen if she can get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, which is exactly what Republicans are trying to prevent with a filibuster. 

According to his bio, McClusky has a long history of working in politics, including a stint as a political analyst for the Republican National Committee, so presumably he knows about Senate procedure and the difference between a confirmation vote and a cloture vote.

In fact, I 'm pretty sure that he does, because just a few years ago, he signed onto a letter calling on Senators to ensure that Bush administration nominees received an up-or-down vote on the floor:

If you cannot support a particular nominee, vote him or her out of committee without a positive recommendation, or vote against confirmation. But please do not deny the nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.

Is it too much to ask that the Vice President for Government Affairs at the Family Research Council not hypocritically and purposely mischaracterize what is going on regarding Johnsen's nomination and the GOP's obstruction efforts?

Apparently it is.

• Good As You smartly notes that at least some marriage equality opponents are now "coming out and admitting the truth: That rallies designed to keep gay folks from legally marrying are NOT 'protect marriage' rallies -- they are ANTI GAY RALLIES!"
• A new Media Matters analysis finds that in the week following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement, significantly more Republican members of Congress, especially on Fox News, participated in daytime cable news discussions about or touching on the Supreme Court than did Democratic members of Congress and Obama administration officials.
• Also via Media Matters, we have to wonder just what the deal is with Bill O'Reilly's obsession with "interspecies marriages."
• Rob Boston tells Bill Donohue to calm down because "Angles and Demons" is only a movie.
• Eric Boehlert chronicles how, since switching parties, Arlen Specter has been getting a taste of the GOP Noise Machine.
• Finally, I have to say that I am rather surprised that the Illinois Family Institute actually issued a correction after Box Turtle Bulletin pointed out that they were wrong about the APA's definition of "sexual orientation."

Last week Alan Keyes got himself arrested for trespassing at the University of Notre Dame during a protest regarding President Obama’s upcoming commencement speech. After he was released from jail, he vowed to return to the campus and reportedly plans to get himself arrested once again.

Why all the grandstanding and hullabaloo, you ask?  Because, says Keyes, this planned speech by Obama is as grave a threat to the Catholic Church as any it has ever faced, including the sexual abuse scandals that rocked it a few years back:

Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who ran against Obama for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004, also criticized the university's decision to honor Obama.

"The invitation was in and of itself a scandalous action," Keyes told FOXNews.com. Keyes announced that he is planning to go to Notre Dame this weekend and be arrested if necessary for protesting Obama's appearance.

"Scandal, as you know, induces others to sin," he said. "This is as great a crisis for the Catholic church as the crisis that occurred some years back with the abuse."

On a related note, now all of those Notre Dame students who don't want to be in the audience when Obama speaks will have an alternative event to attend - a prayer rally with militant anti-choice activist Frank Pavone:

Notre Dame students who don't want to attend a graduation ceremony involving pro-abortion President Barack Obama put together alternate plans. Today, they announced that Father Frank Pavone, the director of Priests for Life, will lead prayer at a pro-life prayer vigil.

The Class of 2009 Vigil for Life will be celebrated at Sunday's commencement ceremony at the same time as the graduation event.

“In standing with these students, I am standing with the true spirit of Notre Dame: a pro-life spirit, in harmony with human reason and Catholic Faith," Father Pavone told LifeNews.com on Monday.

"The scandal that has been generated does not represent what Notre Dame is all about," Pavone added. "It represents a radical betrayal of what Notre Dame is all about."

...

Pavone told LifeNews.com he thinks pro-life students should exercise their right not to attend the graduation ceremony, where President Obama will give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree.

"One final response to this scandal is fully in the control of each graduating senior: don't show up. Don't participate in an event which will only serve to obscure rather than highlight the Church’s pro-life teaching and the true spirit of Notre Dame," Pavone continued.

"The seniors who do this are manifesting the real meaning of commencement: they are carrying out the witness to truth and service that their hard-earned degrees have prepared them to give in the world," he added.