6/30: Reeejected!

Conservative bloggers are portraying the SCOTUS' 5-to-4 ruling in the Ricci case -- which reversed an appeals court decision joined by SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- as a sharp repudiation of Sotomayor's legal judgment. While acknowledging that Dems "certainly have the votes to confirm Sotomayor," Ed Morrissey argues that "their big sell -- that she was one of the appellate court's most brilliant minds -- just took a body blow on this decision." Paul Mirengoff declares: "Short of writing 'get whitey,' It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did." Michelle Malkin quips: "Sotomayor = Not so wise now." It's clear that GOP senators will ask Sotomayor a lot of questions about Ricci during her comfirmation hearings, although it still appears likely that she'll get confirmed (as many righty bloggers concede). Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against this latest round of attacks on Sotomayor. Glenn Greenwald writes:

"In light of today's ruling, it's a bit difficult -- actually, impossible -- for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor's Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel's ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices -- including the one she is to replace -- agree with her."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Ruberry, Malkin, Erickson) are buzzing about a "Tea Party" protest that took place outside the district office of Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who was one of the eight GOP Reps. to vote in favor of the climate change bill. Meanwhile, Malkin wants to know what "earmarks and payoffs" these eight Reps. were promised by the Dem leadership in exchange for their votes.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Johnson, Jacobson, Allahpundit) are criticizing Pres. Obama for condemning the military coup in Honduras, which they think was morally justified.
• Liberal bloggers (Cohn, Klein, Yglesias, digby) are discussing the relative importance of including a public option in health care reform.

SOTOMAYOR: Take That, Sonia

Conservative bloggers are portraying the SCOTUS' 5-to-4 ruling in the Ricci case as a sharp rebuke to Sotomayor's legal judgment:

• Malkin: "Sotomayor = Not so wise now."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Those white men and black man on the Supreme Court just didn't have the same experiences as Judge Sotomayor and consequently saw discrimination where Sotomayor saw justice."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "This creates a big problem for Obama and the Democrats in Congress. They certainly have the votes to confirm Sotomayor, but their big sell -- that she was one of the appellate court's most brilliant minds -- just took a body blow on this decision. Most people want to move past the old arguments on race and hiring, feeling that forty years of affirmative-action policies have run their course. Having to defend a jurist who attempted to impose them in a court case will not make Sotomayor seem moderate or reasonable at all, but extreme and perhaps less than competent."
• AmSpec Blog's Doug Bandow: "Although the GOP can't stop the Sotomayor nomination, it should use the battle as an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of choosing responsible jurists who don't believe in enshrining their own views or experiences as the nation's basic law. After all, even white males should enjoy the protection of the Constitution."
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "[T]he Supreme Court's opinion provides senators with a host of questions for Sotomayor during the confirmation hearings, starting with whether the nominee even considered arguments pertaining to the promotional exam's job-relatedness. Given that the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New Haven in relatively cursory fashion, the Supreme Court's Ricci decision is a significant rebuke to how Sotomayor and her colleagues dispensed with the case."
• Power Line's Mirengoff: "Short of writing 'get whitey,' It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did. [...] Judge Sotomayor's work in Ricci should raise serious questions about either her competence or her capacity to handle difficult civil rights cases (essentially the only kind that make it to the Supreme Court) impartially."

Although the SCOTUS justices split 5-to-4, several conservative bloggers (Long, Whelan) are arguing that the opinion offered a "unanimous" or "9-to-0" rejection of the specific reasoning that Sotomayor employed. National Journal's Stuart Taylor Jr. makes this argument in a column that is receiving a lot of praise from conservative bloggers (Whelan, Bandow, Mirengoff, Goldfarb).

Naturally, liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Yglesias, publius) dispute this argument. MyDD's Jonathan Singer writes:

"With Sotomayor coming to a conclusion reached also by the four liberal members of the Court, including Justice David Souter, whom she was nominated to replace, her position falls squarely within the mainstream of judicial thought. The outcome could have been worse, no doubt, had the four liberal Justices voted to remand, making what inherently is a 5-4 split on the issues look more like a 9-0 rejection of Sotomayor's position. In the end, it's hard to see how today's ruling doesn't help, rather than hurt, Sotomayor's already strong chances of being confirmed by the Senate."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Kinds Of Television

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf:

"Okay, here's a puzzle for you: I'm going to put some television shows into Group A and others into Group B. See if you can figure out what metric I used to split them into their respective groups.

GROUP A: Friends, Gossip Girl, The OC, House, Desperate Housewives, 30 Rock, Grey's Anatomy, Entourage, The Gilmore Girls, CSI: Miami.

GROUP B: All in the Family, Good Times, Sanford and Son, Three's Company, Family Ties, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, The Flintstones, Roseanne.

I submit that Group A shows render economic concerns in a wholly unrealistic fashion -- unlike real life, money rarely if ever imposes an obstacle to actions taken by the characters, and mostly they are shown living well beyond the means actual people in their situation could manage. In contrast, Group B shows make some attempt at dealing with scarcity, or at least portraying its characters living relatively realistic lives given their occupations and circumstances. My sense is that as time has gone by we've begun to see more and more shows that fit into Group A, and fewer and fewer suited for Group B."

LEST WE FORGET: Kids Say The Darndest Things!

From Overheard in New York:

Four-year-old girl: Daddy, you love your Bourbon, don't you?
Embarrassed dad: Sh, sweetie...daddy's car is called a "Suburban."