Mainstreaming extremism

Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice, which is a good thing.

There's a cloud in the silver lining, though. Only nine Republicans could bring themselves to support her, despite these facts:

1. She's obviously a moderate, both temperamentally and judicially.
2. She won't change the balance of the Court at all.
3. She's diabetic and thus sadly unlikely to stay on the Court into her eighties.
4. She represents now the aspirations of the fastest growing large ethnic demographic.

We are a deeply divided nation, and the Republican Party is committed to deepening those divisions. Had they simply acquiesced to the craven logic of Sotomayor being the very best option for them, they could have pointed toward greater political unity. Instead, they chose to trash her for, in essence, one decision and one comment.

Update (8/8): Now it's official.

Why liberals think Republicans harbor racists

Because they do.

Point of privilege

Click image for full Signe Wilkinson cartoon.

Who's gonna stand up for a white fellow?

This is really, really funny.

(h/t John on Eschaton)

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mocking mock Latin while mocking the Senate's confirmation follies. Yeah!

Click image for full Matt Wuerker/Politico cartoon.

Splainin'

I was all set to defend Republican Senator Tom Coburn. Sure, he's way out there on everything, but the first clip I saw of his Ricky Ricardo moment when questioning Sonia Sotomayor seemed to be discussing a hypothetical and legally suspect response by someone other than Sotomayor to a less than immediate threat. I was all set to take the media to task for trimming the quote to make it worse.

Uh, no. He did indeed direct his comment at Sotomayor.



Of course, it was bad enough even when I thought he only happened to retreat to stereotype.

If we're replaying the past

Mitch McConnell says the threat of a Republican filibuster against Sonia Sotomayor is just payback.

So he wouldn't mind if the Democrats in the Senate threatened to go nuclear.

Sure he wouldn't.

A good piece of hickory

So what if gets Sotomayor's ethnic heritage wrong!

Click image for full Clay Bennett/Chattanooga Times Free Press cartoon.

Fry an egg on Newt's face

Even backing off of the phrase "new racism," Newt's not embarrassed enough to make a sincere apology. He just chose a word that was too strong, no biggie.

Jeff Sessions is making a virtue of the tiny little climb-down Newt did manage by touting Newt's supposedly unusual willingness to admit error.

That's the GOP for you. Throw out the red meat for those in their constituency for whom white privilege isn't large enough, then whisper to the dogs to stop barking.

Identity politics

Since I'm outsourcing today to Atrios's outsources, here's something from TAPPED:

What people like Taylor find so offensive about Sotomayor's statement is that it properly exposes the perspective of white, Christian heterosexual men as specific to their experience, rather than the omniscient eye of G-d they're used to presenting it as. Does anyone seriously believe Dred Scott or Plessy v. Fergueson would have been upheld by any court that had the remotest idea of what it was like to be black or a slave? Or similarly that the court would have held in Minor v. Happersett that being a citizen didn't mean you had a right to vote if you were a woman? Do we really believe that judges in these cases were "simply upholding the law" in the absence of the cultural and social prejudices of their times?

Ends justify the means

... for the unprincipled Republicans.

Here's what's clear: The Republicans in the Senate believe they need only 51 votes to pass their program, while the Democrats need 60.

Not only is it time to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, it's time to seat Al Franken. Enough bowing to threats from the likes of John Cornyn.

(h/t Atrios)

Tea leaves

There's a certain kind of journalism that calls itself analysis. Sometimes it's useful for setting the background and the imperatives the actors are acting from.

Then there's this kind of piece from Peter Canellos. It strings together a few slightly inside-politics tidbits with a few quotes such as this:

"If [Sotomayor's confirmation] takes a month, it does bump things up against the adjournment time," said Dartmouth College political scientist Linda Fowler. "The worry for Obama is less the loss of bipartisan spirit than the time constraints. An acrimonious nomination fight just eats up a lot of time."

There was an opportunity here put in perspective the previous two Supreme Court confirmations:

• Samuel Alito - "Samuel Alito is gliding toward confirmation as a Supreme Court justice after a week of hearings..."
• John Roberts - "The White House swearing-in ceremony took place three hours after the Senate voted 78 to 22 to confirm Roberts."

There are two possible explanations:

• Republicans are much nastier and more focused in these fights.
• Many journalists are eager or at least willing to adopt the Republican narrative.
  

Just for a moment, I'm going to hold in abeyance my natural suspicion of both Republicans and pundits.

I bet there were analyses just like Canellos's before Alito and Roberts, and those fights hardly amounted to anything. Now, there are sixty Democrats (or should be), and the Sotomayor confirmation will most likely take place with keening, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but it will still happen quickly.

And the analyses will continue unabated and unabashed.