I think a lot of the anonymous stuff in the Rosen article that Greenwald and others have complained about comes from Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. The comments there indeed would give me pause as to her temperment. I think you can take the comments at face value -- those comments there weren't asked in the context of her possibly being a SCOTUS nominee, they represent what those who practice in front of the 2nd Circuit actually think. Not everyone has the same opinion of Sotomayor, but you don't see ANY comments like that for, say, Judge Dianne Wood in the 7th Circuit, another person whose name has been put out there for the nomination).

Of course as to her intellect, we can all read her opinions for ourselves. Personally, I think her opinions are good, but nothing particularly great, and combined with her temperment on the bench I think she is the wrong choice. Not if we want a new Brennan.

Also, Judge McConnell stepped down from the 10th Circuit and is to take over the ConLaw center at Stanford. Kathleen Sullivan is the head of that at the moment -- reading the tea leaves, might that mean she is headed elsewhere, say the Supreme Court? She or Elena Kagan I think would be excellent choices.

As long as at least one network is showing it, good enough. This isn't the State of the Union address or anything. The cable networks could cover it, and like I said, at least one broadcast network should be covering it to make sure it's available to non-cable/sat subscribers.

Having it on all four networks always seemed completely pointless to me. And I can understand Fox not wanting to give up a Tuesday or Wednesday this time of year as their flagship moneymaking show (American Idol, which I don't watch at all), which I believe they broadcast live, airs on those nights.

So now it's only being unnecessarily broadcast on two channels instead of three.

This suit won't make it past a 12(b)(6) motion.

Most of the commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy, no bastion of lefties to be sure, think so as well. It's a frivolous suit, and the court ought to issue sanctions because it is objectively baseless. There is no cause of action for government criticism.

Not to mention they probably have no standing because the harm they complain of is entirely speculative.

The government should move for Rule 11 sanctions in addition to its sure to be forthcoming motion to dismiss.

We were rather disappointed to see that Spike has already signed on for a Pirate Hunter reality show. See, we had come up with the idea, but it was a bit different.

-- Issue letters of marque to unemployed rednecks with guns

-- Give them boats and tell them to have at the pirates

-- Arm the rednecks further if need be so that they're not outgunned by the Somali pirates

-- Pay the rednecks with a small part of the inevitable huge advertising dollars generated by the record-smashing ratings of Bubba Johnson: Pirate Hunter

Seriously, it'd be way more entertaining than Deadliest Catch or American Idol.

Jimmy Kimmel had a running segment that ran on his show called "The Fatchelor", which was basically The Bachelor except with an overweight guy.

Instead of roses, at least on one I saw, each woman had a plate of fries and to signal that he was keeping them he would dump a ladle of chili on the fries.

How exactly does "slut culture" make married women have low desire for sex with their husbands? It's not increasing their "number", it's not "sleeping around", it's not "slutty". So what the hell does that have to do with it then? Some sort of bizarre version of Catholic guilt as to sex period, even in marriage?

I know why my wife has low desire (the combo of birth control -- cruel joke, eh, preventing pregnancy but lowering desire to do the act that leads to it too? -- and her anti-depresant meds largely kill it, especially since it seems the meds have made it virtually impossible for her to get off), but I fail to see how "slut culture" would have anything to do with it. At all. If anything, marriage would allow a woman to finally express whatever desire she might have without fear of any sort of negative stigma, no?

There is no problem here with "capitalism" or whatever anyone will spout about this salary cap. The banks have two choices.

1. Don't take any government money. You know, be fully capitalist. They can then pay their people whatever they want.

2. Take the government's money and accept the conditions the government puts on it.

And frankly, capping the salaries should give these guys some incentive to get off the bailout train. Give them stock options or something that can only be cashed when the company is off the government teat. If these executives are so great that they deserve millions of dollars, let them earn it by rescuing these banks from the holes that were dug by other allegedly great (but obviously not) executives that were paid tens of millions.

But no one is forcing these banks to take money from the government. If they want privatized gains and socialized losses, then they can deal with the government demanding that they not blow so much money on executive salary. If they want to be fully capitalist and not take government money at all, then they can do whatever they want.

Seriously, mom jeans? Good lord, she's only in her 20s. Unless she's trying to look more "country" by looking like some 40 year old trailer momma, in which case, mission accomplished.

And yeah, considering the only talent she's really been selling the last 5 years or so is her appearance (it sure as heck ain't her intelligence), it can't be that surprising that the celeb-obsessed media prints an article about her gaining weight.