Judging Sonya

Dahlia Lithwick previews several ways in which the confirmation hearing of SCOTUS nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor will likely take shape.

Given her lengthy track-record of providing reliably keen insights concerning the subject, it’s more than probable that Lithwick’s assessment will arrive in fairly close proximity to the actual course of discussion that unfolds during what promises to be a relatively uneventful, slam-dunk hearing. (This sadly doesn’t preclude a lot of wrangling over identity politics, wild-eyed partisan hysteria, and complete zaniness coming from the voluble right-wing peanut gallery for the duration of her public vetting.)

The funny thing is that despite all the talk from the usual suspects of Sotomayor being a dangerously “activist judge” with a “radical liberal” agenda and so on, the fact of the matter is that the case law in question doesn’t support this ridiculous argument by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, she’s quite a reasonable moderate, a judicial minimalist… rather conservative even, some might say.

Balls & Strikes Update: So far, so predictable.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Amidst his rather more idle thoughts about President Obama and the ceremonial rolling of Easter Eggs* ProfMTH points out a frustrating conundrum in the twisted logic of bigots as applied to homosexuals. I won’t blather on further as the video explains the problematic mental confusion quite clearly.

*Not sure if you caught this on the news last night, but it was refreshing to see the interaction of Obama with kids at the White House “Let’s Go Play” Easter festivities. Interesting to contrast the current POTUS reading from Maurice Sendak’s classic picture book “Where The Wild Things Are” with the former occupant’s recitation of “The Pet Goat” story just prior to, during, and for several painful minutes after the attacks of 9/11 — traumatic events that would help shape the remainder of his term in office.

Trivial Pursuit

As reported by the CP in the Globe and Mail yesterday, it seems that Warren Kinsella, “a private citizen who is a volunteer for the Liberal party and nothing more” (a risible description proffered by his legal team), has filed yet another high profile libel suit; this time, against the Tories for insinuating that he’s “unsavoury” and “dishonest” and, furthermore, a “disgraced Chrétien backroom organizer.” The story also mentions Kinsella’s allegation “that Tory MPs have abused their Parliamentary privilege by making ‘defamatory’ comments in the House of Commons, where they enjoy legal impunity for their remarks.”

Hmmm. While I suppose there’s some perverse enjoyment to be derived from seeing the Tories get a taste of their own medicine when it comes to filing nuisance lawsuits against their political enemies, it’s hard not to conclude that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that “what goes around, comes around” — an expression that could perhaps be applied equally to each of the parties here. Too bad they can’t both come out of the affair as losers and be forced to pay for having wasted everyone’s time with their malicious, self-serving antics.

Your Lying Eyes

What a completely remarkable concept! Striving to make the process of witness identification more objective and less susceptible to the vagaries of perception and the nonsensical influence of third parties. Can you imagine?

Why on earth specious, so-called “eyewitness” testimony still has rock-solid credibility remains something of a confounding mystery. Hasn’t everyone seen My Cousin Vinnie for goodness sake? Or for that matter, the inquiry into the officially sanctioned murder of Robert Dziekansk…