From WaPo:

More than a third of the advertising tied to the presidential race has been funded by nonprofit groups that will never have to reveal their donors, suggesting that a significant portion of the 2012 elections will be wrapped in a vast cloak of secrecy.

The bulk of the secret money spent so far has come from conservative groups seeking to propel a Republican into the White House, advertising data shows. Millions of dollars in additional spending from both sides has poured into legislative races, such as the Senate contest in Massachusetts, that could help determine which party controls Congress in 2013.

The flow of funds is part of a wave of spending by outside groups that has quickly come to dominate the 2012 presidential contest, particularly by so-called “super PACs” that have few limits on their activities.

But unlike super PACs, politically minded nonprofit groups are under no obligation to disclose the corporations, unions or wealthy tycoons bankrolling their advertising, much of which is almost indistinguishable from regular political ads run by campaigns. (more…)

• Rory McElroy put the pedal to the metal and got an early lead at the U.S. Open. By Saturday, it was clear that he was going to win if he did not have another Masters-like meltdown. He did not. He rose to the occasion and cruised to victory. His meltdown at the Masters was really hard to watch. I am happy that he was able to get his mental game together. If he can avoid injuries, if he can keep his mind right, this young man has an opportunity to dominate golf for years to come.
• Finally, continuing on the topic of sports, Serena Williams has made a comeback at Wimbledon. She hasn’t played competitive tennis for almost a year. She won her first match, but it wasn’t easy. It is probably time to say that Serena is the best female tennis player of all time.
• A little bit more on Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas seems to have some ethical problems. I have a problem with his wife involved with a Tea Party organization and a lobbying firm. Unless somehow she can prove that money given to her lobbying firm does not flow to her husband, this seems to be a conflict of interest. This whole thing just seems to smell funny.
• The fact that 93% of all top congressional staffers are white males is not really news. It proves that the more things change…
• In Libya, NATO bombs have gone astray, again. What is our goal here? To save innocent civilians?

• 18 months ago, I was standing in Athens with my wife. It was an incredibly peaceful, warm and inviting place. Now there are huge demonstrations as Greece is being asked by the European Union to tighten their belt.
• Suicide bomber kills 27 in southern Iraq. Six soldiers were killed two weeks ago in a rocket attack.
• In an announcement later on today, it is expected that President Barack Obama will announce that we’re pulling out of Afghanistan. I just wonder if this is going to be one of those symbolic pullouts or we really going to get all the troops out.
• We don’t need any new warnings on cigarette labels. This isn’t 1975. We all know the problems with smoking. Having pictures of some guy struggling to breathe in a facemask is not gonna stop people who smoke from smoking. Instead, we need for people who smoke to pay higher premiums because of their higher incidence of heart disease and pulmonary insufficiency. If cigarettes are going to be legal in this country, we’ve done all we need to do to inform the public of the dangers of smoking.
• Senator John McCain blames the huge Arizona fires on illegal immigrants. Now, it is true that we need to control our border. We need to know who’s coming and going in order for all of us to be safe. It is also true that there’s absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants had anything to do with this huge, devastating fire. All I can do is shake my head. The senator knows better.
• Jon Huntsman has announced that he is running for president. In my opinion, several of these people, GOP candidates for president, are running now to set up a “real run” in 2016.

Clarence Thomas, Virginia Thomas, Anita Hill from NYT

From WaPo:

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” said the message left this month, according to a transcript provided by ABC News. “I just want to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometimes and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

According to the poorly thought out article, “it remains unclear who was lying” Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill (I think it is very clear who had the most to gain by lying). Let’s think about this just for a second. Anita Hill had a promising career. She was an assistant professor at Oklahoma University if I’m not mistaken. She was a graduate of Yale law school. She had worked at the EEOC under Clarence Thomas. What would have been the motivation for her to lie. First of all she could have been put up to it by some left wing group wanting to derail Thomas and Bush’s right wing agenda. This isn’t my wild speculation. Clarence Thomas said this to Biden during questioning. There is no evidence of this. None. Secondly, she could have simply hated Clarence Thomas for some reason that we don’t understand. In my opinion someone with that much hatred should have a pattern of getting on people’s bad side. Professor Hill should have tried to professionally ruin the careers of others but again we haven’t seen that pattern. So what could have been her motive for lying in front of the whole country?

Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill. People who sexually harass females rarely do this once. There is a pattern of behavior. So, what do we see when we investigate Judge Thomas’ past? Well, there is Kaye Savage who was going to testify in the same hearing as Anita Hill about Clarence Thomas harassing her but then she backed out at the last minute. As it turns out that she was pressured by Republican supporters. Now, Judge Thomas’ old girlfriend has turned up. She states that Thomas was addicted to porn. What a minute? Old girlfriend? Yep. An old girlfriend. Lillian McEwan, the girlfriend who has written a memoir which I think will now be published soon, thinks that “Hill’s allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar.” “He was obsessed with porn,” she said of Thomas, who is now 63. “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

So, Virginia Thomas decided to open up the can of funk that had been sitting in the corner for 19 years. It was sitting there. Her husband had become a Supreme Court Judge. Life really can’t have been better. Then she decided to open up that can. She decided to kick the sleeping dog. As more and more information is available, I think that it is clear who the liar is in this case. I also think that Virginia Thomas should have left well enough alone but I think I know what the problem was/is. During those hearings, 19 years ago, Virginia Thomas saw something that she never saw before. It was a picture of her husband that was completely foreign to her. How could she have been so wrong about her husband? That’s the question that had been nagging at her – day after day, year after year. The man that slept next to her every night was a stranger if she was wrong. In her mind, she couldn’t have been that wrong. Never. Never in a million years.

I guess the real question is why were we, as Americans, are willing to accept the word of Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill. I think that says something about us as a people and I’m not sure that it is a good thing.

More from Political Animal:

• China rattles global investors: “China’s central bank unexpectedly announced Tuesday that it would raise interest rates for the first time in nearly three years, apparently in the hopes of dampening inflation and cooling off this country’s hot property market.”
• Violence at the Chechen Parliament: “Heavily armed gunmen burst into the Parliament of Chechnya in southern Russia on Tuesday morning, killing at least three people and wounding more than a dozen others before they were killed by police or by their own explosives, officials said.”
• Someone shot at the Pentagon shortly before 5 a.m. this morning, possibly using a high-powered rifle. No one was injured, and for now, authorities are considering this “a random event.”
• As of this afternoon, U.S. military recruiters are required to accept the applications of gays and lesbians who wish to join the military. Those same recruiters will have to inform those joining, however, that DADT may be re-imposed fairly soon.
• A far-right group hoping to deliberately suppress the Hispanic vote in Nevada will not be able to purchase airtime on Univision.
• With undisclosed millions poised to deliver huge gains for Republicans, there’s a reason Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are laughing at their critics.
• Extremist Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) thinks terrorists have entered the U.S. through Canada. That’s completely wrong, and Canadian officials aren’t happy about Angle’s ignorance.
• Repealing health care reform really isn’t as easy as the right might think.
• Students with cerebral disabilities are enrolling in colleges in greater numbers, and even if they don’t get a degree, the education will help these young people be more competitive in the job market.
• Juan Williams is afraid of Muslims on airplanes. He seemed unembarrassed about saying this on national television.

What’s on your mind this morning?

From Jurist:

The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Mondaydenied certiorari [order list, PDF] in Arar v. Ashcroft [docket; cert. petition, PDF], a case concerning the US government’s extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive] policy. Canadian citizen Maher Arar [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] asked the court in February to overturn a lower court ruling [JURIST report] that he cannot sue the US government for damages based on his detention in the US and his detention, interrogation and torture in Syria after he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist. Arar was attempting to challenge the government’s extraordinary rendition policy under the Torture Victim Protection Act and theFifth Amendment [texts] of the US Constitution. The court declined to hear Arar’s appeal without comment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sat on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] when the case was decided en banc, took no part in the decision. Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights [advocacy website] who represented Arar expressed disappointment [press release] with the court’s decision.

Arar was appealing a November 2009 ruling [JURIST report] by the Second Circuit, which held he could not sue the US government for damages. The appeals court, sitting en banc, dismissed Arar’s suit, finding that a civil remedy for harms endured as a result of extraordinary rendition must be created by Congress alone. The 7-4 decision affirmed a 2006 ruling [JURIST report] by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website], which dismissed Arar’s claims. The Second Circuit agreed to rehear Arar’s case en banc after a three-judge panel initially dismissed his appeal [JURIST reports] in July 2008. Arar, a Syrian-born engineer, immigrated to Canada with his family at the age of 17 and became a citizen in 1991. He was detained by US authorities in September 2002 after flying to New York from Tunisia on his way home to Canada. The US government deported him to Syria in 2002, where he was tortured despite Syrian assurances that he would not be. Canadian authorities have since cleared him of all suspicion, officially apologized and paid him damages. US lawmakers apologized [JURIST report] in 2007 for his arrest, deportation and torture at the hands of Syrian officials.

I watched the President’s speech last night with great anticipation. I was almost salivating. I was hoping the president would boldly do something, anything. Now, I’m not one of those who has been criticizing the president for not fixing the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. I know that he is not an engineer and does not have a degree in oceanography or hydrodynamics. He is the president of the United States, however, and he should have and could have introduced some programs, to be reimbursed by BP, for the Gulf Coast residents. He could have and should have asked Congress to introduce legislation to restore the Superfund. This fund would be used to clean up toxic spills like this. The fund would be paid for by taxes and fines on industry. He did none of this. Basically he said nothing new. I found it extremely disappointing.

Let me get back to civil liberties — out of all the issues I had with the Bush administration, this was the worst. The Bush administration claimed that the president had the power to detain somebody indefinitely, without trial. The Bush administration claimed that to protect the United States they should be able to snatch somebody and take them somewhere without any judicial oversight — renditions. All of this has been endorsed by the Obama administration. As a matter fact, in court, the Obama administration has been arguing to keep all of the Bush administration’s transgressions in place. I was hoping that Barack Obama would slowly and steadily phase out these transgressions. Not only has he not phased them out, he has aggressively embrace them. Mister President, as one of your biggest supporters, I ask you to stop this.

Glenn Greenwald has a lot more:

When ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero last week addressed the progressive conference America’s Future Now,he began by saying:  ”I’m going to start provocatively . . . I’m disgusted with this president.”  Last night, after Obama’s Oval Office speech, Jon Stewart began his show with an 8-minute monologue on Obama’s executive power and civil liberties record which, in essence, provided just some of the reasons why Romero’s strong condemnation is so justified.  None of this will be remotely new to any readers here, but it’s still nice to see its being distilled so clearly by a voice which even the most hardened Obama loyalists have decided is a credible and trustworthy one (at least when he’s mocking Sarah Palin and exposing Fox News; we’ll see what reaction this provokes from them, if any).  One point:  contrary to the blatant strawman incessantly raised by those loyalists, note that the criticisms here are not grounded in complaints that Obama has failed to act quickly enough to usher in progressive policies — let’s repeat that:  the vast bulk of criticisms of Obama are not grounded in complaints that he has failed to act quickly enough to usher in progressive policies — but are insteadbased on horrendous policies which Obama himself has affirmatively and explicitly adopted as his own, many of which directly contradict what he vowed to do as President (speaking of which:  see this NYT Editorial today lambasting what it describes as the Obama administration’s disgraceful and inexcusable conduct in the Maher Arar case):

Supreme Court cases are usually interesting to lawyers, scholars, and those directly affected. Occasionally, a decision makes the news for a few days before disappearing from the public eye. But sometimes there’s a game changer-a decision that is so clearly wrong that it becomes a rallying point. David Cobb, former Green Party presidential candidate and longtime activist on corporate personhood, points to Dred Scott v. Sandford as one such decision. Citizens United, Cobb says, is shaping up as another.

The two cases are mirror images of error. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision said that a flesh-and-blood human being had no constitutional rights because he was black. On January 21, 2010, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, used Citizens United to declare that corporations-legal entities with no human attributes-have the same constitutional free-speech rights that humans have.

Dred Scott was the most notorious Supreme Court decision of its time. It was not a groundbreaking case-it simply took existing law to its logical conclusion. But it so clearly violated both logic and human decency that it forced people to look at what slavery really meant. Rather than legitimizing the status quo, as it was intended to do, the decision galvanized the growing abolitionist movement, and set the stage for the end of slavery. But it took the 14th Amendment to overturn Dred Scott.

Citizens United also takes existing law to its logical conclusion. And, like Dred Scott, it is generating tremendous discussion and debate-this time about corporate power and about what role, if any, corporations should play in the political process. (more…)

Let’s start with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As you know it’s been more than three weeks since the explosion, the death of 11 American workers and the subsequent disastrous spill in the Gulf. The exact circumstances of how this happened are not clear. President Obama was 100% correct when he said that there’s enough blame to go around. Newt Gingrich argues that one disaster should not cripple the industry, nor cause us to abandon offshore drilling. He lists a litany of disasters in aviation, nuclear energy and even the levee failure in New Orleans as examples of Americans investigating a disaster and then moving forward. His take-home message is that we should not abandon offshore drilling. We should learn from this mistake and move forward. I viscerally oppose just about everything that Newt Gingrich says. I know he’s not talking for me or people who think like I do. Instead, he’s talking for the corporations. I’m surprised that there is no acknowledgment that cleaner, less destructive forms of energy exist.

Suppose in 1980, when Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, he had embraced alternative energy. Where would we be now? If Ronald Reagan had poured federal resources into the development of more efficient solar cells, wind power and even tidal power on the coasts, would we have affordable alternative energy by now? You figure that 20 or 30 or even 40% of our energy could now come from alternative renewable sources. Oil would not be eliminated, but oil consumption would have been reduced. How could have been a bad thing? Would we have invaded Iraq? I doubt it. I see America’s consumption of oil as the equivalent of a cocaine addict’s addiction to crack. We have to put down the crack pipe. So, I have no problem with safe offshore drilling (I just think it’s an oxymoron at this time). We need to focus on alternative energy.

Watch the Video:

Newt Gingrich says Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan should be disqualified because she did not allow military recruiters on campus. The case went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled with the military. I’m not sure why this should disqualify her. Newt Gingrich couches his comments in patriotic rhetoric. “We’re fighting two wars.” My answer would be — so? If it is wrong to have military recruiters on campus in peacetime, it would still be wrong in wartime. Therefore, the context is not important. What is important is the reason why Elena Kagan, as Dean of Harvard Law School, opposed having military recruiters on campus. Those recruiters could not guarantee that some students would not be discriminated against. I’m beginning to like Dean Kagan more and more. With conservatives opposing her, maybe I need to crank up my support of her nomination. (To be honest, I’m ambivalent. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that we really should have some idea of how she feels about the major issues of our day. I do not believe that anything that will be said in a Senate hearing will be truly indicative of how she feels. Instead, I suspect what will be said in the Senate Judiciary hearing will be just enough to get her confirmed, but not enough to get a true grasp on many of these issues.)

So today, President Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Let the fighting begin. Discussion is healthy. We didn’t have this type of discussion over Sonia Sotomayor because she was such a perfect nominee. Solicitor General Kagan has never been a judge. We don’t know her opinions on the important progressive questions of the day — what does she feel about executive power? Does the president have the power to label an American citizen an enemy combatant and hold that person without trial indefinitely? What is her feeling on Roe versus Wade? What about illegal wiretaps? We do not have any significant record of her thoughts on these or other important matters that are going to come before the Supreme Court. Glenn Greenwald, progressive blogger, has argued against the unknown. He believes that she’s a terrible nominee because there are so many unknowns. Others have argued that Barack Obama really has not led us too far off the path. Let’s see how she answers questions in the Senate hearings and then pass judgment. Who’s right?

Personally, the former Dean of Harvard Law School doesn’t do much for me. I was looking for the President to nominate someone who is so liberal that it would shake up the Senate. I really would like somebody on the Supreme Court to balance out the craziness of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. I wanted to see Senator Jeff Sessions grab his heart like Fred Sanford because the Supreme Court nominee was that liberal. Of course, this is my twisted pipedream. In reality, I know that it is in Barack Obama’s DNA to compromise. He will avoid confrontation if possible. Therefore, I knew that he was going to nominate someone who is fairly middle-of-the-road. Kagan is in the middle. (I was looking toward Judge Sears or Wood.)

Let’s continue the discussion. I don’t have any more insight into Elena Kagan than anyone else. I like the discussion. I think it is healthy. I know it is healthy. It shows the diversity of our progressive movement. I continue to look forward to our discussions on financial reform and immigration reform. Damn it, this is what democracy is about. It isn’t about a few guys in the back room deciding what the talking points for the whole movement should be. It’s about throwing ideas back and forth. It is about us being open-minded enough to begin to coalesce around a single idea or concept and then push our politicians in the right direction.

I know that several progressives are not going to be happy with this choice. Then again, it appears that President Obama is not going out of his way to please progressives. Instead, he seems to be doing exactly the opposite. Right now, my only advice is to wait and see.

You can read more on Ms. Kagan here.

I’m not sure that past performance is any guarantee for future Supreme Court voting. Conservatives have whined about John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor. These were judges who were thought of as conservative but supported many liberal ideals while on the court. Plus, once you are on the court you might have different motivations than you did previously. An appointment for life to the highest court in the land can change one’s outlook on life and the law.

Ms. Monk has talked about the need for more consensus on the court. We need fewer 5-4 decisions. She mentions in a recent article on HuffPo that this kind of 5-4 decision “merely prolongs the dispute and creates more work for lawyers and political fundraisers.” I think she is right. Earl Warren worked to gain consensus on the Court. The Court stood united on some of the most contentious issues of the day. In my opinion, this is exactly what we need. We need someone who is used to mixing it up with conservatives and liberals, someone who can work the politics of the court and bring folks together. Ms. Kagan did help bring conservatives and liberals together at Harvard. This is a fact. Are 7-2 and 8-1 decisions possible with Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas on the court? I don’t know. I do know that Kagan is well qualified. She maybe the prefect person to bring the court together. But whomever Obama chooses for the Court will not be the Chief Justice. Roberts has that job and he seems to have little or no interest in consensus.

I think that there are a few other things to consider. I do think that there needs to be a far left Supreme Court Justice to balance out Scalia. Almost nobody is to the right of Scalia on any Supreme Court decision. The left needs its own Scalia. Such a person would have to be extremely strong. I’m talking about an attorney for Greenpeace or the Sierra Club who drives a hybrid or, better yet, rides his/her bike to work and gives 50% of his/her money to a homeless shelter. I think that Obama’s aversion to confrontation and his willingness to find the middle of the road will make such a nomination very unlikely, but this is my post and that’s one of the things that I would like to see.

I would love for Emory graduate (I’m an Emory graduate) Leah Ward Sears to be on the Supreme Court. She is a former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. A very conservative Democrat, she was originally appointed by Zell Miller. Someone who can be appointed by Zell Miller and supported by liberals has to be very savvy. She was elected to the Georgia Supreme Court in a statewide election – twice. I think that there is something very special about Leah Ward Sears. I don’t think, though, that she has has a chance of being nominated. Obama is not going to choose a black woman. I just don’t think he wants to go there. Not now. Maybe late in his second term if he has the opportunity.

I think that Obama will need to choose a senator. I think that a senator might have the best chance of being confirmed without a bruising battle. The problem is that most senators who are even concerned as outsider candidates come from states that have Republican governors – Shelton Whitehouse (RI) and Amy Klobachar (Mn). I like Klobachar better. She is relatively young and politically smart. She has a great background. I think that she would do very well in the back room discussions that the Supremes have.

So, in summary, I think that Glenn is arguing over something that is not reality. I don’t think that we can predict how a Supreme is going to vote on a given issue. This is my two cents. Both Glenn and Linda are lawyers. They both have studied this issue more than I have. I would like to look past the front runner to an outsider. I really like Klobachar and Sears. I think that either one can and would do an excellent job on the Supreme Court.

• The third round of the Masters has started. Lee Westwood, who has been playing some really good golf over the last two years, is tied for the lead. My golf instructor told me to watch Fred Couples. He had problems yesterday with 16, 17 and 18 and had a disappointing round of 75. Today he is three under through eight holes and is in fourth place. Not bad for a 50-year-old man. Tom Watson is in 11th place and he is 60. Everyone is watching Tiger Woods, who is playing the kind of up-and-down golf that he sometimes plays. He is clearly in the hunt. The weather is perfect. There should be some great golf today.
• With Judge John Paul Stevens stepping down from the Supreme Court, SCOTUSBlog had a really nice piece yesterday discussing on how the “Kennedy court” will be shifting.
• When is the Catholic Church going to simply hold a press conference and come clean? When are they going to stand up for the people they say they serve?
• I hope that everybody realizes that the health-care debate is not over. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done.
• There’s an excellent article in the New England Journal of Medicine about the public opinion of healthcare reform at the time that reform passed. It’s kind of interesting when you drill through the numbers. 90% of the population thought that is a good idea to have tax breaks for small businesses to help cover workers and make healthcare more affordable. 36% of Americans thought it was a good idea to reduce Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. Of the stuff that was asked but not in the bill, 69% of Americans thought that was a great idea to allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. By the way, where was that in the final bill?
• Finally, a lot of Americans are really upset over the individual mandate. I’m not sure I understand their objections, but their argument goes something like how can Congress force me to buy a product? The problem with healthcare is that if you do not have health insurance and get sick it is possible for you to run up a bill that you can never pay off ($500,000 – $2,000,000 in some cases). That’s the problem. To me, the individual mandate forces us to join the largest insurance pool possible. This in turn drives down costs for all of us. I guess you can look at it the other way. Suppose you are a 20-year-old healthy male and decide that you’re not buying into any insurance plan. In your early 30s you develop hypertension but don’t take your medication and still don’t go to a doctor or join a health-care plan. In your 40s, as your kidneys begin to fail, should you be allowed then to join the health-care pool? Individual mandate should help premiums stay low for all of us.
• Has anybody seen any new movies? Anything good out there?

Update

• Phil Mickelson powered behind back-to-back eagles is six under today and has taken the lead at the Masters. Tiger Woods started off strong but has been struggling most of the day.
• When is Sarah Palin‘s five minutes of fame going to be over? Snake oil science? Did she go to school? I mean, did she even go to high school? Man, I find her irritating.
• Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, died in a plane crash. Wow, this is weird.
• Michael Steele holds the key to the Republican hopes in November, or so he says. Do you think that he has a head injury? Is that why he acts the way that he does?
• Republican restraint and fiscal responsibility. Don’t laugh.
• Is it legal for the President of the US to order to have someone killed? What if that someone were a radical Muslim cleric living in Yemen? What if this cleric were an American citizen with ties to two people who were known terrorists?

Antonin Scalia is guilty of initiating the theft of the 2000 election from Al Gore through a stay he issued forcing the stop of the State Court ordered recount in Florida, and his subsequent coordination a 5-4 majority to annoint George W. Bush as President.

But as of just yesterday, August 17th, he also added state sanctioned murder to his list of crimes.

Scalia was one of just two written dissenters (along with his puppet, Clarence Thomas), who ferociously challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should ensure that an innocent man not be put to death.  That’s right, Scalia — in common sense terms and not the legal mumble jumble that he dazzles the likes of Harry Reid with (BuzzFlash once wrote an editorial about how Harry Reid thought Scalia so brilliant he might consider voting for him for Chief Justice at the time — such is the sad mindset of our Democratic Majority Leader) — asserts that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an innocent person from being executed.

No, we are not making this up. Scalia — although he uses arcane justifications of state vs. federal jurisdiction and that tidy trials shouldn’t be challenged — argues that the governmental legal system is not prohibited by the federal Constitution from killing the wrong person, in the name of — excuse me while I throw up a little in my mouth — “justice.”

BuzzFlash will let Scalia speak for himself in his dissent of the appeal for lower court review of the highly questionable conviction of high profile death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis. Says Scalia in his dissent (which also bears the name of Clarence Thomas):

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence” claim on the merits, denying his extraor-dinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

People like Harry Reid are just so damn impressed by phrases like “constitutionally cognizable” — no wonder the Democrats almost always pull defeat out of the jaws of victory in the Senate.

But back to Mr. Scalia. A legal website noted:

The Supreme Court, over two Justices’ dissents, on Monday ordered a federal judge in Georgia to consider and rule on the claim of innocence in the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis (In re Davis, 08-1443)  The Court told the District Court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence.”

In short, if attorney for Troy Anthony Davis can establish his innocence, he should be freed not put to death. Makes sense, right? Not for Mr. Scalia (or Mr. Thomas).

They have a lot of posh parties and social gatherings in D.C., and the powerful ruling class exchange bon mots and try to dazzle their fellow D.C. elites with their brainpower.  Scalia is known to impress people with his ability to bring a legal argument to such a high clould level of wordy claptrap that people don’t know what he is talking about and mistake his gift of hubris and pugnacious verbal bravado for genius.

But, every person must be responsible for his or her actions — that is what the law is all about, isn’t it? — and when it comes down to Scalia as a man, he’s just an accessory to murder wearing a black robe.

Tried by a D.C. jury, the guy would do less harm to the nation and innocent Americans if he were put behind bars himself.

From WaPo:

Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in Saturday morning as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court in a brief ceremony that completed a remarkable ascent for a Puerto Rican girl from the South Bronx.

Sotomayor, 55, rested her left hand on a Bible held by her mother and raised her right hand as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered a pair of oaths that made her the 111th justice to serve on the nation’s highest court. She pledged to “administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.”

The chief justice had slightly flubbed the wording of the oath of office when he swore in President Obama in January; this time he held a piece of paper containing the oath for Sotomayor. Occasionally Roberts looked down as he recited the words. (more…)

Republicans were going to oppose anyone that Barack Obama had chosen. Their goal is to obstruct, obfuscate and delay. They could not delay or obstruct this nomination although they tried. Instead, the Republicans think they have changed the rules of the game. Now, they believe that no Supreme Court nominee can be empathetic. In my opinion, the Republicans painted themselves into a corner. I think it will cost them at the ballot box for years to come. They painted Sotomayor as dumb, stupid, a racist and a feminist. Minorities and women will not reward them for smearing her. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what she said outside the courtroom as long as her opinions and rulings were solid. They were solid. There is no doubt that they were. This is why the Republicans attacked her on her public statements.

Watch the video:

What’s next? This is one of the things that I’m concerning myself with at this time. Who is Barack Obama’s next choice to sit on the Supreme Court? I think that there is a lot to consider. Most importantly, unfortunately you have to take this into consideration, what will the Senate look like. If the choice is between now and the midterm elections, I would suspect that Barack Obama would pick someone who is a strong moderate. Again, I think you would pick someone who is relatively low profile. If the Democrats pick up a few more seats in 2010, I would look for Barack Obama to choose someone who is more liberal than Sonia Sotomayor. This would make things very interesting.

Here are a few names to keep in mind Elena Kagan, first woman to serve as solicitor general and was the Dean of Harvard Law school, Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law school, Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. I look for Obama to lean more towards women. Women are clearly underrepresented on the Court.

There are a few other names that are floating around which would include Janet Napolitano, former governor of Arizona and now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and Governor Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan. Although both of these women would be great I think they would have a hard time confirmation. The process has become so politicized and politicians are filmed constantly. I’m sure there’s some footage of each one of these women saying things that will inflame and incite conservatives. There’s no reason to go down that road.

Anyway, from Political Animal:

• At the start of a two-day summit between the United States and China, President Obama emphasized the fact that the relationship between the two countries will shape the 21st century. The U.S. delegation for the talks will be led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
• New home sales in the U.S. far exceeded expectations last month, showing the largest increase in more than eight years.
• Images from intelligence satellites of Arctic ice bolstered the evidence of global warming. The Bush administration kept the images hidden; the Obama administration has released them.
• Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have announced their opposition to the Sotomayor nomination. No big surprise.
• The $644-million Community Stabilization Program in Iraq has been suspended due to alleged widespread corruption.
• Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in what I believe is a first, seems to be hitting the campaign trail, hoping for a second term.
• How can policymakers pay for health care? John Kerry’s idea about imposing an excise tax on “gold-plated Cadillac” insurance plans seems to be generating quite a bit of support.
• In the wake of the controversy surrounding Skip Gates’ arrest, racial slurs at The Root have become a real problem.
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is real sorry he suggested last week that the U.S. needed to prepare for a possible military confrontation with India.
• It was a pleasant surprise to see Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) acknowledge that United States has detention facilities that could safely hold Gitmo inmates. Alas, he’s still wrong about the policy.

• Rick Santorum apparently can’t read health care legislation. After all those years in the House and Senate, Santorum really should have learned a little more about the process.
• Yet another far-right, “family values” Republican has been caught up in a sex scandal. The latest is Tennessee State Sen. Paul Stanley (R), a married Sunday school teacher, ardent anti-gay lawmaker, and proponent of abstinence-only education, who acknowledged his adultery after his mistress’ boyfriend tried to blackmail him. The boyfriend, apparently, had video of the state senator in a “compromising” position.
• Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), never accused of being the sharpest crayon in the box, argued today on the Senate floor that burning oil doesn’t cause pollution. He wasn’t kidding.
• One of the guest hosts of MSNBC’s “Countdown” this week will be none other than Howard Dean. That ought to be fun.

This being said, she was cool under fire today. Still, I marveled at her ability to remain on point and pleasant throughout the day’s proceedings. I posted over at Jack & Jill politics that I kept waiting for her to jump up, put her hand on her hip and say, “Look here, papi. Whatchu see is whatchu get, right?” In my soap opera, she goes all Rosie Perez a la Do the Right Thing with Sessions as Mookie. Much as I would have enjoyed that, that’s exactly what they want to see. They want to see a loud, gum-smacking, neck-rolling, “spicy Latina” breaking them off a piece of her mind. Not gonna happen.

Today they re-dredged the “wise Latina” question and tried to get her to say that she was an abortion-loving rabble-rousing radical terrorist. Um yeah, it didn’t work. She stuck to the jurisprudence and referenced logical standards of impartiality for every wackadoodle scenario they threw at her. It was so off the wall at one point that I expected Jack Lemon and Walter Mathau to come out and announce that this was all a gag promoting Grumpy Old Men 3 – They’re back and elected to public office!

Let the record reflect that had it been OneChele in front of them today, the conversation would’ve gone a little differently:

“Ms. Chele, thank you for appearing in front of us today.”

I smile. “Umm-hmm, no problem. Anything for Barry, so what’s on your mind?”

“Ms. Chele, can you share with us your opinions on abortion?”

Frowning, I answer. “That seems rather personal. I think we should let grown folks handle grown folks’ business.”

“So you refuse to answer?”

“I gave you the answer I’m going to give.” I put on the stern face.

“That’s not acceptable.”

“What are you going to do, arrest me for unacceptability?” Insert OneChele hair flip here, “Next question.”

“Share with this panel your thoughts on reverse discrimination.”

“No such thing, there’s discrimination and hateration, everything else is some nonsense ya’ll made up.”

“Seriously, you don’t think there are instances where the majority has been overlooked for an Affirmative Action hire?”

“Lookie here, if you are playing a football game and the home team is up 48 – 3, are you really begrudging the away team a field goal scored at the end of the game?”

“I don’t take your reference.”

I suck my teeth, “Exactly, next question.”

“Right. Can you tell us if you own a gun?”

“No, I don’t but the longer I sit here, the more enticing the purchase sounds… where’s the closest Wal-mart?”

“Is that a threat?”

I shrug. “I’m just sayin’.”

“So you are an advocate of gun rights?”

“Do guns need rights? Are you being funny?” I sip my water. “By the way, can someone bring me a Venti White Mocha please?”

“Ooo-kay, how about this – what are your thoughts on the right to bear arms?”

“If you have the biceps to pull it off, I have no problem with sleeveless clothes in the summertime like before Labor Day.”

“Are you being deliberately evasive?”

“Are you being deliberately condescending?”

“Ms. Chele, do you understand that we need to understand what will make you a fair and impartial judge on the Supreme Court of the United States of America?”

“I get that, do you understand that the Nordstrom’s Anniversary sale is this week and it’s a 44-minute drive to Tyson’s Corner on a good day?”

“I think we’re done here.”

Me, standing up and placing handbag on shoulder. “I think you’re right. Let me know when it’s time for the first fitting.”

“Fitting?”

“Oh yeah, I need my black robe looking right.” I exit, stage left.

Stick with Sotomayor fellas. According to Robin Kar, who clerked for Sotomayor from 1998 to 1999, Sonia is a “warm, extraordinarily kind and caring person.” Nice as I may be, I don’t stand for the brand of yada-yada nonsense the Republicans are dishing out. Hang in there, Sonia – you’ll be on the SCOTUS in no time.

From AP: Witnesses accused Sessions of calling a black lawyer a “boy,” of describing church and civil rights groups as “un-American,” of agreeing with a statement that a white civil rights lawyer was a “disgrace to his race,” and of saying he thought the Ku Klux Klan was all right until he learned members smoked marijuana.

So, Senator Sessions launched an all-out assault against Judge Sonia Sotomayor because she … Well, you decide, why.

From DK:

All Congress-watching eyes are expected to turn today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they begin their consideration of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. And the Committee, aware of the intense interest, will be live streaming video of the hearing, which they’re wisely making available in blog-embeddable format. So that’s exciting in itself. They know where the interest lies.

Thinking of popping some popcorn and watching the proceedings? If it’s Sotomayor you want to hear from, make sure you get lunch first. And maybe a nap. Because although the hearings are expected to be gaveled into session at 10 a.m., the first order of business is opening statements. From the Senators. Nineteen of them. For up to ten minutes apiece. Plus statements of introduction from home state Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand.

That’s Washington for you. Three to four hours of opening statements — plus a lunch break — before the person you’re supposed to be talking about even gets to say anything. And then, once she makes her own opening statement, they’ll adjourn for the day. It will take an entire day to “open” things with statements. You want to see someone ask a question? Come back tomorrow.

Meanwhile, some resources:

Interested in embedding the video in your blog? Judiciary Committee Dems have made it easy. Just follow this link, choose your format, and (theoretically) you’re good to go. Video clips, highlights, etc. to be made available throughout the day here.

Plenty of good previews circulating online, too. (And if you find any more good ones, throw us a link in the comments.)

Why not start here, with Adam Serwer of TAP?

And perhaps something from Daniel Schuman of the Sunlight Foundation?

Myths vs. Facts, from Ian Millhiser at the Center for American Progress?

And a host of left jabs, hooks and crosses from Media Matters:

• Myths And Falsehoods Surrounding The Sotomayor NominationThe media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sonia Sotomayor. In addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose President Obama’s nominee for political purposes, no matter who it was.
  http://mediamatters.org/…
• Conservatives Smear Sotomayor As “Racist,” “Bigot” Over “Wise Latina” RemarksNumerous conservative media figures have misrepresented remarks Judge Sonia Sotomayor made during a speech at Berkeley in 2001 to smear her as a racist and a bigot.
  http://mediamatters.org/…
• The “Extraordinary Rebuke” MythIn covering the Ricci case, reversing Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s decision, media should not promote the myth that the reversal represents a “historic rebuke” or that Sotomayor’s Supreme Court reversal rate is “high.”
  http://mediamatters.org/…
• Boehlert: The Press, Sotomayor And Riccihttp://mediamatters.org/…
• Politico Ignored Roberts, Alito Record In Claiming Ricci “Could Tarnish Sotomayor”A Politico article about the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano promoted the myth that a Supreme Court reversal is unusual. However, the court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year since 2004.
  http://mediamatters.org/…
• CQ Ignored Sessions’ Previous Call For Speedy Supreme Court Confirmation ProcessCQ Today reported that Sen. Jeff Sessions said Republicans “might throw up procedural roadblocks to delay” Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, but did not note that Sessions reportedly called for fast action on Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation process.
  http://mediamatters.org/…

From AP:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (more…)

Update: One thing is clear. The Supreme Court did nothing to clarify the situation, but instead muddied the waters. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if you did not intentionally discriminate, then no discrimination exists. This must be just my overly simplistic way of reading this decision. This is obviously a false hypothesis. It’s clearly possible to discriminate against blacks, women and other minorities without doing it “intentionally.” Proving intent would be nearly impossible in most discrimination cases.

This case also points out some of the problems I have with some conservatives who say that judges need to “interpret the law.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that you cannot discriminate based on race but then it goes on to say when an employer can discriminate based on a “protected trait.” So how do you balance these things? The mantra, “interpret the law,” rings hollow.

The Supreme Court focused on a test that was given to these firefighters. Now we know from years of testing students that some tests can reveal racial bias. We know from an elegant study by Stanford researcher that minorities will perform worse a particular test if they are told that this is a test of intelligence. If minority students are told that this is a problem-solving test these students do perfectly well. Their scores are as good as their White counterparts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s arguments seem to be solid when she states, “In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.”

Finally, the Supreme Court has breathed just a flicker of hope into the anti-Sotomayor crowd. Over the next 24-48 hours, some conservatives will try to move quickly to capitalize on this momentum. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, they’ll say, is somehow unfit for the Supreme Court because she has a ruling that’s been overturned. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement. Nonetheless, I suspect conservatives will try to push this and get as much mileage out of this is possible. As Glenn puts it — In light of today’s ruling, it’s a bit difficult — actually, impossible — for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor’s Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel’s ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices — including the ones she is to replace — agree with her.

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it’s definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

Update II: Balkination has more technical questions about this Ricci decision and how will it affect the Voting Rights Act.