Advertising News

Sonia Sotomayor, Pres. Obama's pick for the SCOTUS, heads to the Hill tomorrow for meetings with members. Per the WH, here is her busy itinerary:

Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Kim Jong Il has named his youngest son, Kim Jong Un as his heir. Writing for The Washington Post, Blaine Harden reports that the younger Kim is a great fan of former basketball player Michael Jordan and action movie star Jean-Claude Van Damme. Like father, like son, I suppose. Kim Jong Il is known to be a movie buff himself, the Imelda Marcos of DVDs with a collection reportedly numbering some 20,000 films.

The implications of this news for U.S. policy are fairly obvious. President Obama, a fellow baller, should name Michael Jordan head of the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks. The Belgians, led by Van Damme, should take Russia?"s place in the negotiations. And if we can convince the Chinese to appoint Jackie Chan as their representative, the Kim clan will be positively giddy. We?"ll call it a ?Scelebrity surge,? and in their rush to get autographs and photographs with the stars, the Kims will quickly agree to whatever MJ asks for.

Could this really be any less effective than the six-party talks have been? Wooing Kim with Hollywood, I think, has real promise. And with celebrities leading the way, the American delegation might actually voice some real concern for human rights in North Korea. Wouldn?"t that be something?

Michael Mazza is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick had a very interesting column this weekend cautioning her fellow liberals against smearing Justice Clarence Thomas as they mount their defense of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

The temptation to smack back and argue that we deserve to seat Sotomayor because Thomas was a lousy affirmative-action pick who turned into a third-rate justice is hard to resist. But it's flat wrong. Liberals achieve nothing by suggesting that Thomas' elevation to the high court was preposterous on its face or that his tenure there has been a disgrace....

Claims that Thomas is too stupid to ask questions and in constant peril of embarrassing himself at the court are just not that different than claims that Sotomayor is mediocre. Nobody who has followed Thomas' 18-year career at the Supreme Court believes him to be a dunce or a Scalia clone. Whether you accept Jan Crawford Greenburg's claim that Thomas' constitutional theories are so forceful that they have shaped Scalia's or you believe the more common view that Thomas has a deeply reasoned and consistent judicial philosophy that differs dramatically from those of the court's other conservatives, accusations that he's been a dim bulb are just false. They also reveal that the name-calling that originates now, during the confirmation process, engenders a mythology that can never be erased.

It's nice to see Lithwick make this point (even if she has done a little name-calling of her own). Whether you agree with his opinions or not, Thomas has quite obviously proven himself on the Court. Yet the ridiculous idea that he's less capable than his fellow justices still persists, even among people that ought to know better.