John Roberts

Unable to comprehend why Chief Justice John Roberts found the health care reform law to be constitutional, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is now calling for an investigation into whether “whether Roberts was bribed or blackmailed into precipitously turning tail and casting his lot with the socialists.” Maybe the money came from Iran, as Klayman earlier claimed that “Iran has paid off Obama with campaign contributions to win the next election.”

What explains Chief Justice Roberts' conversion from one who had decided to strike down Obamacare to a justice who dishonestly twisted and perverted the law to uphold it as constitutional? Was it simply a desire, as some political and legal pundits have speculated, to allegedly "save" the institution of the court by caving in to the left — which in recent years had railed against the conservative majority — and kissing the derriere of President Obama himself? In this way was Chief Justice Roberts painting "his" court as the court for all people, be they left, right, black or white ? Or was it something more sinister? Given real-world realities, you have to ask whether Roberts was bribed or blackmailed into precipitously turning tail and casting his lot with the socialists.

Decades ago, no rational person would have even dared to think such a thought. But with each passing decade since the 1950s — which it now appears were the pinnacle in America's post-war rise to power and greatness — the ethics, morals and honesty of our public officials in particular have decayed into the slimy free fall the nation now finds itself in. So why is this such a far-fetched proposition?

Was Chief Justice Roberts was bribed, blackmailed or just playing political games with his Obamacare change of heart? As the old proverb goes, "Where there is smoke there is usually fire." Since judges and, in this case, justices should not be treated as royalty, and certainly are not above the law, is it not reasonable for Roberts to be thoroughly investigated over his lawless actions?

Instead, it again turns to We the People to investigate and, if Chief Justice Roberts was bribed or blackmailed, mete out justice. As I have been writing about in recent weeks, one way to do this is through the Citizens Grand Jury, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us to use in trying times like these.

As Kyle has been documenting, there is no shortage of rhetorical excess from right-wing leaders upset about the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.  But the response from Rick Joyner, head of MorningStar Ministries and the dominionist Oak Initiative, has to be among the most unhinged. Joyner has a penchant for apocalyptic rhetoric, warning of demonic threats and natural disasters facing an unrepentant America.

Joyner is embraced by other right-wing leaders, appearing at the Awakening conferences organized by the Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation, a Religious Right super-group of which Joyner’s organization is a member.  Sen. Jim DeMint spoke earlier this month at a “Freedom Congress” organized by Joyner.

In a “special bulletin” appropriately titled “Dazed and Confused,” Joyner goes after Chief Justice John Roberts with literally hellish relish.  Roberts’ reasoning, he says, “could potentially open the biggest gate of hell into our nation and culture by the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade” and “has potentially released the most evil hounds from hell against the American people.”

Joyner even suggests that Roberts is, quite literally, on drugs:

It is understandable that some are now making the assertion that Chief Justice Roberts’ medication used to control his epilepsy has taken a toll on his mental abilities and reasoning. Nothing else has come forward as an adequate explanation for why he would be the one to free Obamacare like he did to become the biggest grab of totalitarian power over America in history.

“This decision,” says Joyner, “has deepened our national crisis, and jeopardized our Constitution at a most inopportune and dangerous time.”

It now seems that the American Republic is under unrelenting attack from every possible direction. Let us not faint, but keep in mind that the greatest victories only come when there are great battles. No doubt this will wake up many more Americans to the battle we are in. Great souls run to the sound of battle, not away from it. America still has many great souls who will fight regardless of the odds against them, and who will stand and never surrender for the sake of the freedom that was their birthright. This Supreme Court Decision has only increased the volume of the alarm and we can expect many more to hear it now.

Joyner had much kinder words for Mitt Romney, quoting the candidate’s response to the ruling and his “resolve” to repeal the health care reform law.

Only a writer for the ultraconservative WorldNetDaily would believe that the Religious Right is too soft on the issue of gay rights.

WND’s Josh Craddock of the Institute for Cultural Communicators claims that the reason more Americans support marriage equality is because social conservatives haven’t fought gay rights or attacked the LGBT community enough. Responding to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly’s recent claim that the Right Wing “probably lost” the debate over equal marriage rights, Craddock alleges that organizations like Focus on the Family simply didn’t fight gay rights hard enough.

He points to the case of the campaign for Colorado’s Amendment 2, the unconstitutional law that barred anti-discrimination ordinances from covering gays and lesbians, protections that anti-gay activists said granted “special rights” and ceded too much ground to the gay-rights movement. Craddock argues that Religious Right activists should have more vigorously and forcefully opposed the decriminalization of homosexuality and letting anyone who was gay or sympathizes with gay rights from serving in public office:

Rewind to 1992's Colorado campaign on Amendment 2, designed to ban homosexuals from receiving special rights based on their sexual orientation. It was then that Dr. James Dobson and the vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, adopted the unwise but politically opportunistic pro-Amendment 2 campaign slogan "Equal rights, not special rights." If homosexuals are entitled to "equal rights," then why should homosexual couples be prohibited from marrying? Focus on the Family lost the gay-marriage debate in 1992 when they broke with 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian history and sided with Hillary, Hollywood and the humanists by legitimizing homosexual behavior.

Incidentally, that victory was short-lived. It was overturned in Romer v. Evans (1996) with the help of a prominent Washington, D.C., lawyer who specialized in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Less than a decade later, Dr. Dobson actually supported that attorney's bid to become the nation's next chief justice. In 2005, John Roberts was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Most recently, Focus on the Family announced that they wouldn't oppose a homosexual nominated to the Supreme Court over sexual orientation. A spokesperson for the organization commented in 2009 that the nominee's sexual orientation "should never come up" because "it's not even pertinent to the equation." Not even relevant to know if an individual appointed for life to the highest court in the nation has a traditional view of the family, or is a self-avowed homosexual? Where did that come from? Certainly America's Founding Fathers would be shocked, since they followed lock-step with Christian Western tradition that criminalized homosexuality.

Today's conservative Christian leaders believe what was scandalous just 30 years ago: that homosexuality should be legal. Back in the Dark Ages, way back in 1986 when the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law, Christian leaders actually believed that homosexual behavior should be criminal. Their beliefs have changed rather quickly with the culture, preferring to garner social acceptance through a moral fluidity that reminds me of Groucho Marx's quip: "If you don't like my principles, I have others."

Despite victories for traditional marriage in states across the Union, social conservatives are losing because they've missed the heart of the issue. Same-sex marriage is a diversion. The real battle is over the morality of homosexuality itself.

A few months ago I ordered a book entitled "The Reformer's Pledge" which consists of a bunch of essays written by people like Cindy Jacobs, Jim Garlow, Chuck Pierce, Lance Wallnau, C. Peter Wagner, and others.

Among the essays is one written by Lou Engle on "creating a culture of life" and I just want to highlight a few key passages ... like the section where he urges Christians to have more children because they are being out-bred by Muslims and it will help in terms of winning elections:

With deep sadness and inward frustration, I see the encroaching Muslim movement bearing offspring with about an 8 percent growth rate in America, rolling in over the once Christianized nations of the West ...

While the secular society is aborting their children, the Church imbibes the same humanistic lie that children are an inconvenience. We should obey the biblical culture plumb line that says "Children are a heritage of the lord ... Happy is the man who have his quiver full of them" (PS. 127:4-5). Instead, we have adopted the lie that ta large number of children born into a family were a blessing only for our past agrarian society. Rather than limiting our children to one or two per family, we could have shot four to ten God-given arrows into the heart of the voting booth. If we had, today there would be no pro-abortion leaders or judges in our government. We would have voted them out before there ever was a Roe v. Wade.

Let me speak clearly to my fellow reformation-minded brothers, sisters, and Christian leaders. If you believe that the Church is to exercise dominion in the earth, then I challenge you to repent and proclaim the unrescinded biblical mandate: Be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth with godly offspring.

Elsewhere, Engle indicates that there is a young person within his army of spiritual warriors that he believes will one day become President:

I'm praying for a young man that I believe will be the President of the United States some day. If you heard his prophetic history, you would know why I have such faith. Believe me, he's pro-life.

And finally I just want to take note of the section in which Engle explains how, after the 2004 election, he set up a House of Prayer in Washington DC to pray for control of the Supreme Court, which God gave them with the confirmation of John Roberts:

After the elections, we launched a House of Prayer with up to 70 young people praying day and night facing the Supreme Court building. A week before President George W. Bush was to appoint a Justice to replace William Rehnquist, one of our young women, knowing nothing, dreamed that a man named John Roberts would become the next Supreme Court Justice. Those kids prayed. Don't you think they were baptized in confidence before God when the president nominated John Roberts for the position of Supreme Court Chief Justice?

We believe that through intensive, focused, day-and-night prayer and fasting, principalities and powers were shifted, and God got His pro-life man on the top of the Supreme Court Mountain.

That sounds pretty amazing ... at least until you remember that Roberts had actually been nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in July of 2005 but was tapped by Bush to replace Rehnquist after the Chief Justice passed away months later.

Can I point out that this man lived with Sam Brownback for seven months ... and that Brownback is now the Governor of Kansas.

I have to say that this op-ed from Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition alleging that there has been some sort of double-standard in the treatment of Elena Kagan and Harriet Miers might just be the dumbest thing that anyone has written during this entire confirmation process: 

The parallels between the nominations of Kagan and Miers — their similar legal background and connection to the presidents who nominated them — makes the various reactions from the right and the left stand in stark contrast. While Miers was harassed and criticized by both sides of the aisle until she withdrew her name from consideration, Kagan has faced relatively mild opposition, and this coming almost exclusively from the right.

Why the deferential treatment for the current nominee? It seems as though Kagan’s friends in the executive and legislative branches have no problem with her aforementioned disqualifications. Harriet Miers’s close connection to President Bush was unacceptable to many, but Elena Kagan’s connection to President Obama and her political ties to many left-wing causes is permissible, according to those who would like to give her activist tendencies new life with this increased power.

What on earth is Lafferty talking about? As she freely admits, it was the opposition of conservatives that caused Miers' nomination to be withdrawn by President Bush.  It was right-wing leaders who screamed and yelled that Miers was insufficiently conservative, which made her unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

Lafferty claims that Miers was forced to withdraw due to opposition from "both sides of the aisle," which is just laughably false, as it was the concerted efforts of conservative activists who organized opposition campaigns that took out Harriet Miers:

According to “WithdrawMiers.org,” a coalition formed by the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, Fidelis, and others for the sole purpose of opposing the nomination: “Miers’ … few published writings offer no real insight or assurance of a judicial philosophy that reflects a commitment to the Constitution.” And on issues where Miers had something of a record, WithdrawMiers.org was not impressed: “Ms. Miers fought to remove the pro-abortion plank in the American Bar Association platform, yet fought this Bush Administration in ending the ABA’s role in vetting judges which is known to be biased against judges whose judicial philosophies reflect a clear commitment to the Constitution. She donated money to a Texas pro-life group, yet helped establish an endowed lecture series at Southern Methodist University that brought pro-abortion icons Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi to campus.”

Like WithdrawMiers.org, Americans for Better Justice sprang up simply to oppose the Miers nomination. Founded by ultra-conservatives like David Frum, Linda Chavez, and Roger Clegg, ABJ was unconvinced that Miers shared its founders’ right-wing views and began gathering signatures on a petition demanding Miers’ withdrawal: “The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy … The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues … For all Harriet Miers’ many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person.”

The right-wing magazine National Review had, in many ways, led the charge against the Miers nomination from the very beginning. Its writers called Miers “a very, very bad pick,” declared her nomination “the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency” and complained that the Right had been forced to endure “an embarrassingly lame campaign from the White House, the Republican National Committee, and their surrogates.”

What caused this gnashing of teeth was the fact that, according to the National Review’s editorial board, “There is very little evidence that Harriet Miers is a judicial conservative, and there are some warnings that she is not … neither being pro-life or an evangelical is a reliable guide to what kind of jurisprudence she would produce, even on Roe, let alone on other issues.”

Others on the Right were just as dismayed by the nomination. American Values’ Gary Bauer explained: “[Harriet Miers] has not written one word, said one word, given a speech, written a letter to the editor on any of the key constitutional issues that conservatives care about and are worried about and want to make sure the court does not go down the road on."

The Wall Street Journal called the nomination a “political blunder of the first order,” lamenting that “After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution.”

Stephen Crampton of the American Family Association said Miers is a “stealth candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court [and] is an unknown with no paper trail,” while the Christian Defense Coalition blasted the president, saying his supporters “did not stand out in the rain for 20 hours passing out literature or putting up signs for the President to have him turn around and nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. A nominee in which there is no record of their judicial philosophy or view of the Constitution.”

Back when John Roberts was preparing for his confirmation hearing, Concerned Women for America was praising him as a “highly qualified nominee with extraordinary personal integrity who has proven himself worthy to sit on our nation's highest court.” CWA said “Senators should ignore the ridiculously inappropriate litmus tests and document demands of the radical left” and that Roberts “should receive overwhelming bi-partisan support and confirmation.”

This is in stark contrast to the stand CWA took on Miers: “We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers’ record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy … We do not believe that our concerns will be satisfied during her hearing." In calling for her withdrawal, CWA revealed their real objection: “Miers is not even close to being in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised the American people.” They demanded that the president give them a “nomination that we can whole-heartedly endorse.”

It was right-wing leaders who vehemently opposed Miers over concerns that she not conservative enough ... and now Lafferty is accusing the Left of being hypocritical for supporting Kagan? 

Nice try.

As the questioning in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing finally gets underway, right-wing groups are busy releasing statements and reports claiming she is everything from a "clear and present danger to the Constitution" to a sign of the end times.

The Judicial Crisis Network's first day write-up is particularly confusing, as they seem convinced that Kagan is trying to "disguise herself as the next John Roberts" 

The Senate Judiciary Committee just concluded the first day of Elena Kagan's hearings to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Our summary of Day 1: She may not be a Constitutionalist, but she sure plays one on TV.

As we expected, Kagan followed in Justice Sotomayor's footsteps and disguised herself as the next John Roberts, and Democratic Senators did their best to help her hide from her record of extreme activism on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, and the scope of government power. According to Kagan, "what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint." In the immortal words of The Who, "Don't get fooled again."

Seeing as it was John Roberts who "disguised" himself as a umpire who would just call balls and strikes and then, once confirmed, revealed himself to be a blatant judicial activist, that is a pretty ironic criticism for JCN to level.

But at least the JCN's complaints are at least coherent, unlike those of Gordon Klingenschmitt:

Chaplain Klingenschmitt has contracted with a team of investigative journalists including Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera to investigate and report breaking news about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's administration demanded and forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to cover sex-change operations as an "equal right" paid benefit, harming gender-confused students, as confirmed in 2006 and 2008 by Harvard Crimson newspaper articles.

Kagan also offered sympathetic ear to lesbian group Lambda's Transgender Task Force demand to force all women to share public bathrooms and locker-rooms with cross-dressing men, which is now part of Harvard's dormitory policy, according to the report.

"This is further proof Elena Kagan cannot be trusted to impartially rule on Obamacare or bathroom bills like ENDA, since she believes sin is a Constitutional right," said Chaplain Klingenschmitt, "but rights come from God, who never grants the right to sin."

Because if anything is going to clarify these confirmation hearings, is a report written by a bunch of militantly anti-gay activists like Klingenschmitt, Camenker, and LaBarbera ... and now that is exactly what we have:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

But that is actually quite reasonable compared to this statement from Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall claiming that Kagan "presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis" and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times:

First, if she becomes a Supreme Court justice, she could be the all-important fifth vote in favor of interpreting our Constitution, not according to the vision of our Founding Fathers, but from an international law standpoint, a concept that would have seemed treasonous to our Founders. Three justices on the Court have already relied on foreign law in their opinions: Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. Recently-installed justice Sotomayor has praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's penchant for international law, so we can assume she will be a legal globalist as well. Five justices create a majority and with Kagan on board they could begin radically steering us away from view of the Constitution that honors our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding.

Second, if this happens, it will usher America into a new age of global law. With Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, international legal standards could well be imposed on Americans by the High Court's legal globalists, even without the Senate approving a specific international treaty. In our new novel, Edge of Apocalypse, we show how this trend might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians. We need only to turn to Genesis chapter 11 to see how God opposed the ancient attempt at global unification: the Lord declared the tragic result that would follow if a centralized group of fallen men were to consolidate an unlimited, unrestrained power over the planet.

Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court's view of global law. It could be one of the most telling 'signs of the times.'

• Rather than allow a lesbian student to attend prom with her girlfriend, a Mississippi school has decided to cancel the prom entirely.  Pathetic.
• Apparently, Chief Justice John Roberts thinks it is "very troubling" for the President to criticize his rulings. Boo hoo.
• "Founder of Christian Apparel Maker 1M4JC (1 Million for Jesus Christ) to Run for US Congress." Awesome.
• The Family Research Council is calling for an investigation into the Eric Massa scandal.
• Finally, the AFA's Bryan Fischer goes after VA Gov. Bob McDonnell: "Bob McDonnell won the governorship of Virginia last November by campaigning as a social and cultural conservative, and pledging to uphold conservative social values. That pledge lasted about 54 days, shorter even than the shelf life of most of President Obama's empty promises."

Nothing says "welcome to Washington, Senator Brown" like arriving in town only to be met by Religious Right activists such as Rev. Rob Schenck who will inform you are not a very good Christian:

In the hours since Mr. Brown won the Super Bowl of special elections, a lot about him has come to light. In yesterday’s post I told you about the Senator-elect’s family church. Well, it looks like it may indeed be more of his family’s church than his own. A source that once worked for Mr. Brown in the state legislature described him as a “non-church-going Protestant.” Apparently, Mr. Brown has the reputation of doing something other than worship on Sunday mornings.

Even if Mr. Brown taught Sunday school every week, it wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s a “good Christian,” nor that he understands Christian doctrine or moral instruction–and it appears he’s quite deficient on at least the latter. He explicitly recognizes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision de-criminalizing the killing of pre-born children, as “the law of the land.” (Before coming down too heavily on him for that, though, remember “pro-life” Chief Justice John Roberts said the same thing during his confirmation hearing.) What betrays even more his lack of good Christian moral formation is Mr. Brown’s support of so-called “civil unions,” which has as a consequence, whether intended or unintended, of granting social sanction to immoral behavior.

A few of my readers have concluded that because of these serious deficiencies, Mr. Brown is either a fake or a uselessly flawed individual that shouldn’t occupy this seat any longer than necessary. Well, I’m not quite so condemnatory or dismissive. What Mr. Brown appears to me to be is a Massachusetts politician. He may or may not be a Christian, but that doesn’t change his profession.

Elsewhere, Schenck reports on his meeting with Brown and his own vow to help him develop a conscience:

"He comes off as humble, genuinely interested in what he is doing and the people he will serve. My concern is for his interior moral formation. I told him he can count on our prayers and our pastoral advice. My first impression is that there's nothing guaranteed with Scott Brown, but it seems he has a conscience, and I intend to work on developing that conscience."

Now that Sonia Sotomayor has been confirmed by a vote of 68 to 31, it's never too early for the right-wing groups that vehemently opposed her nomination to start claiming victory:

The final vote was “a triumph of party unity over some of the interest group politics that you would have expected to play a bigger role,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which opposed Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation.

But that is nothing compared to the spin contained in this lengthy memo that the Judicial Confirmation Network released before the final vote was even taken, proclaiming its opposition campaign a monumental success by making Sotomayor the "most unpopular confirmed Supreme Court nominee ever," "refuting the liberal judicial activist philosophy of the President," and, most importantly, frustrating liberal left activists:

Although Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, it was not a resounding victory for the liberal view of the Court: in fact, just the opposite. Because she failed to uphold the liberal view of the Constitution and judging, she has made it more difficult for future Obama nominees who would attempt to be more intellectually consistent and honest. President Obama, the darling of the liberal left, failed – when he had the greatest capital to spend on a nomination of his choosing – to put a powerful and unabashed liberal lion, in the mold of Justice William Brennan, on the Court.

This has unnerved the liberal left and put President Obama into a box. Judicial restraint has won, and judicial activism has lost. Some who voted for Judge Sotomayor, such as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), specifically did so because he concluded she was “not an activist.” Although Sen. Nelson plainly made an analytical mistake, at least he had the right goal in view. Accordingly, future nominations promise to focus on the nominee’s actual adherence to the practice of judicial restraint. And future liberal activist nominees who have not penned the inexplicable, analysis-free opinions that Judge Sotomayor generated in important cases may find their records harder to hide from.

31 “no” votes in the U.S. Senate.

It’s remarkable, and a real show of strength for proponents of judicial restraint, that the negative vote on this nomination was so high. The “historic” nomination of the first Hispanic nominee to the Court, made by the purportedly “post-partisan” President Obama, who at the time enjoyed high personal popularity and was still in his post-inaugural honeymoon, with a commanding 60-vote supermajority of Democratic votes in the Senate, could not muster even close to the 78 “yes” votes that Chief Justice John Roberts received. The 31 votes against Judge Sotomayor are the highest “no” vote on any Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic president since 1894.

And this record opposition to a Democratic nominee occurred on a straight up-or-down vote, following a nomination process that Judge Sotomayor herself said was fair and respectful; Republican Senators never stooped to the common Democratic tactics of personal attacks and obstruction. They asked tough questions, reflected thoughtfully, and discharged their constitutional job of “advice and consent” promptly.

So, despite the Right's relentless attack campaign, Sotomayor was confirmed by a 2 to 1 margin and will now take her place on the Supreme Court?

Well then, by all means, congratulations on your resounding victory, JCN.

UPDATE: The Committee for Justice has released its own equally delusional statement:

“The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle. Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story. As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

“By adding a large and influential constituency to the coalition opposing the nomination of judicial activists, the Second Amendment issue has forever changed the political dynamics of the judicial confirmation process.

...

“Republican senators should be proud not only of their votes today, but also of the tough but fair questions they asked Sotomayor during her hearings and of the powerful floor statements they made in opposing her. As a result, Americans got the teaching moment they deserved. For the first time since the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, the confirmation battle saw a serious debate about judicial philosophy and the proper role of judges, rather than just an argument about case outcomes.

...

"[T]he living Constitution is now dead as a defensible judicial philosophy outside academia. There is no doubt that judicial activism will live on surreptitiously in the courts, but it is doubtful we will ever again see a Supreme Court nominee who has openly espoused it, no less one willing to defend it during his or her confirmation hearings.

“Finally, it has been a bad summer for the purveyors of identity politics. Not only was the President forced to beat a hasty retreat from his old-school, victim-based take on last month’s incident in Cambridge, but his Supreme Court nominee denied any knowledge of the race-base theories of judging she and other liberals have long championed. Meanwhile, Democrats failed miserably in their attempt to convince Republican senators that they opposed a Hispanic nominee at their ‘own peril’ (quoting Sen. Schumer). Polls showing that Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites shared the same unimpressive levels of support for Sotomayor generally, as well as the same levels of specific concern about her Second Amendment record, dealt a further blow to identity politics. Those of us who believe that racial favoritism has no place in law or politics should celebrate.”