9 out of ten. 90%. That’s like an A- !

∙ Last Tuesday, Republicans lost another Congressional seat in a special election — their third such defeat in two months.

Correct!

∙ The Republican Party is clearly in bad shape . . . .

Really really correct.

∙ In two public tracking polls, by Gallup and Rasmussen, he’s basically even with Barack Obama; other polls have him slightly behind.

Correct.

∙ On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points.

True.

∙ I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin.

Correct. He just said he couldn’t find one. And he meant one that wasn’t “essentially uncontested.” Double true.

∙ With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Yeah, okay, twisted but true.

∙ Obama’s campaign issued a statement that its candidate “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.”

Obama did say that.

∙ Defense of Marriage Act, which says a state is not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and which was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. McCain voted for and supports it. Obama opposes it.

Correct. Not, there are many correct things squeezed into this one sentence.

∙ From 1968 through 1988, we had six presidential elections.

Correct. Not easy math here.

∙ Last week’s developments — in West Virginia, Sacramento and Jerusalem — have increased the odds of such an outcome.

Incorrect. The second development was in San Francisco (which explains a lot! And adds to the point!).

You may be right that the SOLE CONSIDERATION a court should have when determining whether a law violates a constitutional right is "whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections"---look at the provisions themselves, and the cases interpreting them, and so forth, and there will be an answer. Perhaps. But in your tone you act as if there is no other option, no other reasonable take on what it is the court does, or should do. But there are many scholars who argue convincingly that political considerations are always important to courts. Indeed, there is the whole political question doctrine, crafted by judges and repeatedly invoked, which is premised on the fact that there are some constitutional questions that are best worked out by Congress, the Executive, or the people (while granted to my knowledge the doctrine has rarely or never been invoked on individual rights questions). I too disagree with Wittes's argument. But it is not a ridiculous statement on jurisprudence to argue that the California Court should have abstained from the gay marriage questions because the legislature, the executive, and the people had been working hard to resolve the issue.

Reading Dailykos's comments on the Rahm thread, you don't see a falling-in-line kind of response across the board. In the first fifteen comments I read, seven expressed mixed feelings for the choice, three disliked the choice, three expressed other comments, and only two expressed unvarnished positive thoughts. I think this is a healthy reaction -- can you even imagine commenters at a right wing blog showing such measured responses to Andy Card, back in 2000? I agree that we should not defer to Obama or any other leader; to the extent people do, they should be called out. That said, the commenters on dailykos, generally, are not that type. I am as against and apalled by the growing CW as anyone, but that comment thread does not exemplify it.

I think that the Brennan story was a politically masterful manipulation. First, by appearing to cave to their demands, Team Obama gave credence to the "bloggers." Then they installed (maybe) an even worse choice to the position. The bloggers are left to feel at once empowered and wondering if they should be careful what they wish for. Thinking of opposing Obama's supreme court choice? Well, your opposition may make a difference -- and lead to the appointment of a right wing ideologue.

It's a slapdown. One need be careful when criticizng this administration. They view those that oppose them on the left as worse than a nuisance.