Famous get-away state with attractive ski resorts and gambling centers seeks business executive with deep pockets and Democratic sensibilities to mount primary campaign for US Senate seat against prominent incumbent. Must have spine and functioning brain.

If the Republicans were serious about halting the "march to socialism" they would come out in favor of eliminating Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

What's that? Those are popular programs and voters would hound every last GOP officeholder into obscurity if they did that? Golly. You mean most folks here in the US are perfectly fine with socialism if you actually explain that it doesn't mean the Russkies are gonna take over?

Damn.

OK, then, how's this: Look, Nancy Pelosi's had a face lift!

What a bunch of boobs.

The overnight flight to Europe is the only way to go.

While you can't get solid, tucked-into-bed sleep, I've always managed to get some substantial napping. And while you may not be able to check into your hotel, you can always drop your bags at the desk. This way you can spend a little time getting familiar with the neighborhood in which you're staying and have a late breakfast or early lunch. Circle back to the hotel for check-in, take a short nap and maybe a quick shower, and back out for an early dinner. Get to bed early that night and you're all set.

So much better than wasting prime sight-seeing daylight hours on a plane!

As you've noted, the reality of Sotomayor's record and qualifications is irrelevant to a party who's most recent leader was wholly disinterested in reality, and proud of it.

This is the same group of people that have taken to describing Arlen Spector as a left-wing radical.

There is still a sizeable minority out there that lives by the gospels of Rush and Fox, and no amount of actual fact will stop the emails about the danger Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will visit upon the country. I can predict them now: "Sotomayor in favor of allowing quickie abortion clinics in local CVS stores;" "Sotomayor in favor of work-release for GITMO prisoners;" "Sotomayor has ties to FALN." These folks have their own reality, and you can send them rebuttal arguments 'til you're blue in the face. You will be dismissed as someone with an obvious liberal agenda, peddling lies to cover up their own distorted "truth."

In the end, however, Sotomayor will be confirmed. And if it's any consolation, they'd be doing the same thing to whomever Obama nominated.

It appears that Obama has picked a moderate to replace a moderate. Actually, a quite good strategy, since it is highly likely he will get to make other picks in the next 3+ years. There is no point in picking a fight now with all of the other issues facing the country.

What is most important is who he nominates if looking for a replacement for one of the more liberal or conservative justices in the future. Would he replace one of the more liberal justices with someone of similar disposition? More importantly, would he replace one of the more conservative justices with a moderate or liberal, thereby actually changing the current balance of the Court?

This actually may be a brilliant piece of strategy. It is clear that the GOP is over-reacting to Sotomayor. If they continue in this vein, they may be seen in the future as the boy who cried wolf when Obama finally picks someone who is a real "radical left-wing activist".

“I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn’t let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions.”

I'm sorry, but starting with your very first moot court lesson in law school you are told that no matter how much you prepare your opening statement, you can be sure that at some point one of the justices will interrupt you and drag you way off your intended path. My experiences with ACTUAL appellate courts suggest that this is, in fact, common practice. Frankly, its RARE that you DON'T get interrupted!

Alas, poor Ricci, a victim of unfairness.

I'll concede that Ricci was treated unfairly if you concede that the minority group whose members were given jobs ahead of him were treated unfairly for generations.

Affirmative action is a messy, "unfair" way to remedy the systematic "unfair" descrimination inflicted by units of government over an extended period of time, causing great damage to entire classes of people, not just one guy. If you can figure out a better way to right that wrong, I'm happy to listen.

However, if you are just whining because you think Ricci got shafted, I suspect your concern is more about your own ox getting gored than any real sense of "fairness."

I'm glad you can at least agree that there was a damaging level of prior descrimination against minorities in this country.

But you missed my point when you answered my question with one of your own. I repeat: what's your solution? Am I to assume you think we just tell everyone to "move along folks, nothing to see here, go about your business"?

I don't think promising not to be so bad in the future quite does it. I'm not convinced that Affirmative Action, or at least the manner in which Affirmative Action has been administered, is the best solution either. But I'm unable to formulate a better way to address the issue.