Lots of good stuff out there, so I offer this for your consideration:
Bret Stephens explains how Obama’s approach to, well, just about everything seems to derive from the a South Park episode involving some gnomes who had a goal, but were a little unclear on how to achieve it.
Here are several posts about Sandra Sotomayor’s past performance as a judge all of which, at most, damn her with faint praise: Power Line quotes from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary; Hot Air has a compilation of Sotomayor’s own statements about her role as a judge; Jeffrey Rosen writes a moderate indictment of Sotomayer in The New Republic (no friend to conservatism);and Jeffrey Rosen provides a follow-up to his first indictment. [UPDATE: Stuart Taylor, one of the best analysts of the legal system there is, looks at identity politics and Sotomayor.]
Apropos Rosen, he opens by saying her life story is compelling, as do many other people. It’s sad that her father died when she was young and that she has diabetes. But what’s compelling about someone who got affirmative actioned into Ivy League schools and then spent the rest of her life working government jobs in the the legal system? She’s about as compelling as a rock.
The Scotus Blog talks about the predictable political dynamic of her nomination (and praises her to high heaven along the way). Rick Moran talks about the politics of the nomination too, although without the high praise.
Apparently Netanyahu did not leave Obama’s exalted presence with the happy belief that Obama’s unconditional talks with Iran would automatically ensure Israel’s continued safety. Instead, Netanyahu headed home feeling isolated, and, despite some promises of help and support from Obama, believing that Israel is on her own — and needs to act to protect herself. (And if you’re wondering why Netanyahu reached this conclusion, despite the One’s promises, this might help explain.)
I’ve been enjoying the Obama-Cheney faceoff, especially considering that Obama was a fool to get into this fight in the first place. The Wall Street Journal editors explain just why it is that Cheney’s been so effective.
Donna Reed, the archetypal Hollywood Mom was once a WWII pin-up girl. She saved many of the letters she received, and they provide a moving look into the past.
UPDATE II: I’m thinking a little bit more about Rosen’s article, especially this paragraph (emphasis mine):
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
Doesn’t this make Sotomayor actually sound like the perfect liberal justice for the Supreme Court? She’s so intellectually unstable that she won’t be an effective counter to the conservative justices. Given that a liberal Supreme Court justice is inevitable, isn’t it better to have one who is ineffective, than one who is effective?
Of course, as someone who has been forced for decades to read Supreme Court opinions, I would argue that it’s not coincidence that Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are the best writers, whether you want fireworks, humor or pragmatism.
Unlike those liberal justices who write practically incoherent opinions (Stevenson, Ginsberg, Souter, etc.), the conservatives can be straightforward because they’ve got nothing to hide. They look to the Constitution and to American precedent.
The liberals, however, in order to keep the traditional Supreme Court opinion format, while creating law out of whole cloth, have to go through extraordinay verba contortions to render to an opinion with their desired outcome. It makes for appalling, illiterate reading — and I’m sure even the best liberal justice won’t be different.