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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17conserve.html?ref=politics

The GOP will enlarge its tent by providing a coherent alternative to Obama's view of the world and convincing voters it is the better view.

The Sotomayor hearings will be a good place to start. Call it a “teaching moment” - and Republicans have as much to learn as anybody else.

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090528/EDITORIAL/905280347

Vision America President Dr. Rick Scarborough said President Obama's nomination of 2nd. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court "should be a teaching moment for the American people on the dangers of a runaway judiciary."

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/3221810484.html

William Kristol: The debate over her confirmation could be an interesting "teaching moment"--a politically important teaching moment--for constitutionalists who would beg to differ from Sotomayor's vision of the appropriate role of the federal judiciary.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/kristol_on_sotomayor_the_supre_1.asp

And in spite of his conviction that conservatism "stands unequivocally against justice as empathy -- and unequivocally for the principle of blind justice," this is Krauthammer's advice to Republicans (from the article Glenn links to):

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: a judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

She may not get the chance...

The Obama Administration has decided to go to the Supreme Court — if Congress does not act first — to stop public disclosure of an array of U.S. Army photos that apparently show severe abuse of terrorist detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Shortly afterward, the Senate took up legislation to block the release — the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act [cosponsored by Lieberman and Graham] — by changing the language of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Senate adopted that provision May 21 as part of a new government funding bill. The House version of that bill does not include the photos provision, but the Senate has asked for a conference with the House to work out the differences between the two bills — an action expected to occur early in June.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-plans-appeal-on-abuse-photos/

The Open FOIA Act is different from the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act. Leahy and Cornyn introduced it in March. More here: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200903/031709c.html

It's in the appropriations bill - scroll past the Detainee Photo section: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2346/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:700

Open FOIA Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.612:

To amend section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act) to provide that statutory exemptions to the disclosure requirements of that Act shall specifically cite to the provision of that Act authorizing such exemptions, to ensure an open and deliberative process in Congress by providing for related legislative proposals to explicitly state such required citations, and for other purposes....

P.S. Executive Orders aren't bipartisan and are too "Bush-like." Obama can't have that.

If the president already had the power to block release of the photos by issuing an Executive order, and if the new law specifies a procedure by which he can do that without an Executive order, then the new law doesn't actually "vest [the president] with brand new secrecy powers" but, instead, vests the president with a brand new and slightly less embarassing procedure to exercise secrecy powers.

He's been ordered by the court to release the photos, and might not win a Supreme Court appeal. I don't know that an Executive Order at this point would change that.

I think the legislation might satisfy this and prevent the court from ruling against him:

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.

JACKSON, J., Concurring Opinion, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZC2.html

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker upheld summer legislation protecting the companies from the lawsuits.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/judge-tosses-telecom-spy-suits/

Also in Judge Walkers court this afternoon: Al-Haramain Order To Show Cause Hearing.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/obama-says-government-sanctions-unwarranted-in-spy-case/

Here's a better link to the story and it includes Judge Walker's order.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/telecom_suit/

The EFF intends to appeal. There's still Al-Haramain and also the cases against the government. More can be found on most of those here: http://www.eff.org/cases/att

N/T