Remember the whole "Is he or isn’t he?" brouhaha over Alito’s membership in "Concerned Alumni for Princeton (CAP)?" 

With it’s subsequent Mrs. Alito subtle moment in the sobby spotlight during the Alito confirmation hearings? The one that Sen. Lindsey Graham conveniently engineered to bring out the bad news about CAP’s racist tendencies while attempting to make Alito look more sympathetic to the public, despite his creepy opening statement?

Because I do.

The tap dance and refuse to deliver act that the GOP put on to keep Alito’s "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" info out of the public eye was a shameless stonewall maneuver from start to finish.

Jane and I spent weeks trying to pry any substantive, on point information out of people on the Hill, as did Sen. Ted Kennedy:

And the Republicans know this CAP stuff is toxic. They’ve been stonewalling any legitimate inquiry into creepy Sam’s history with the group, and Specter is either so ignorant of what’s going on within his own committee that he’s in no position to be chairing it or he’s just a lying shill for the Bush administration when he says those documents were never requested.

Think Progress has a video of the dust-up with Ted Kennedy.

This is a history of the back-and-forth with the Kennedy office, according to Kennedy staff:

November 30, 2005: Senator Kennedy requests Congressional Research Service to ask Rusher’s permission to examine CAP documents at Library of Congress.

Week of December 5, 2005: Rusher turns down CRS request.

December 22, 2005: Senators Kennedy sends letter to Senator Specter asking for Committee request of Rusher documents. Delivered by hand to Judiciary Committee.

Date unknown prior to 1/5/06: Kennedy staff and Specter staff discuss December 22 request.

January 5, 2006, 7:29 pm: Kennedy staff request status report from Specter staff on request regarding Rusher documents.

January 5, 2006 7:50 pm: Specter staff replies that they are not inclined to grant request because they are personal documents. (more…)

Jane said it all here, but I’m risking a repeat:

Boy, does this sound familiar:

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

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

That’s exactly what NARAL did when Sandra Day O’Connor retired…

And when NARAL and others pulled their penny ante sideshow wimpery? We called them on it, day in and day out, for months on end. And took heaps of shit from Beltway insiders for being publicly honest about what everyone knew was privately going on: milk the base and cynically rebuild the coffers for the next election cycle PR, while doing nothing substantive about judicial nominees whose philosophies honestly threaten choice.

What are right wing bloggers and pundits doing about their version of frothing, fundraising hackery?

Playing along and hoping to reap some payback reward out of their lockstep shilling for the moneyed few.  Some of them enjoying it far too much, frankly. (more…)

Steaming kettle via JustABigGeek.

The American Constitution Society recently held a discussion regarding SCOTUS nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  It was moderated by the wonderful Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, who had her hands full.

My favorite part of the back and forth was the discussion regarding real world, life experience versus, as Ed Whelan condescendingly describes it:

…indulging your experience in an improper way.

If ever there were a "pot, this is kettle" moment for the former Scalia law clerk, this is it.

Especially given his latest fit in a long line of piques.

You can watch the entire back and forth at the ACS website, as well as selected excerpts.

Political pundits, electoral operatives and former elected officials are like the undead: just when you think they’ve been buried, they rise up again from the political graveyard. No matter how craptastic their myriad sins may be — stealing from public coffers, ethical lapses out the wazoo, being a race-baiting bigot, whatever — they continue on your teevee and in print.

There are plenty of questions that need to be asked an answered on legal grounds about Sotomayor before confirmation. She’s well-qualified, well-versed in the law, and more than capable of explaining her rationale on any number of those opinions in open session in the Senate.

And they should be asked, by Senators of both parties, based on her actual words and writing.

Well, why not just come out and say what you are really insinuating, NYTimes?Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr.

An anti-Sotomayor ad has hit the airwaves and it piqued my interest on who was really behind it.

It’s an odd ad, edited narrowly to portray a very stilted picture of Sotomayor — in short, it’s a classic political hit piece. Watch for yourself:

It’s from the Judicial Confirmation Network, headed by Gary Marx and Wendy Long.

From hurling labels of racism to claims of Sonia Sotomayor being an “affirmative action hire,” it’s been a show of dismal stupidity the last day and a half from far too many in the GOP. That the contradiction between the two epithets isn’t patently obvious makes it all the more ludicrous.