No one thought it could go the other way, but C-SPAN confirms that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has the votes to win Senate confirmation. The tally of commitments so far shows only six Republicans planning to vote for her and 27 against (including Sen. John McCain's announcement that he will oppose her, claiming that she is an "activist" judge).

With 16 vacancies on U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals and one Supreme Court vacancy, President Obama is picking up the pace of nominations. Follow his progress with Judge Tracker on CQ Politics.

If one television ad means anything, health care overhaul might have a chance this time -- and not just because Harry and Louise switch sides, but also because of who's paying for it.

Two actors who were hired by the insurance industry in 1993 to play a white, middle-class couple griping about the Clinton health plan are now pitching for change - for new bosses.

The new Harry and Louise ad is funded by a team of former rivals -- Families USA, a nonprofit group advocating affordable medical care, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, a trade group representing drug makers.

If drug companies and reform activists can get together, perhaps the politicians they influence can do the same.

New "Harry and Louise" Ad (2009)

Old "Harry and Louise" Ad (1993)

Bill and Hillary Clinton Spoof "Harry and Louise" (1995)

Video: A Look Ahead at
This Week's Big Stories

• Pivotal Week Ahead for Health Bill
• Rangel: Higher Taxes Needed To Make Health Plan Work
• Confirmation Seems Certain for Sotomayor

Republican senators who pandered to their party's ultra-conservative base during Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing probably think it made political sense. They do get validation from their insulated world of the like-minded.

It's called preaching to the choir. But for the GOP, the choir is shrinking -- even if it grows shriller by the day. Indeed, the political wasteland facing this once-dominant voting bloc is provoking some ominous calls to arms.

Consider this little threat on Wednesday from a Republican legislative candidate in Virginia, Catherine Crabill: "We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box... That's the beauty of our 2nd Amend rights."

(Courtesy, Not Larry Sabato)

In what was described as a "clarification" of her remarks, Crabill, 52, told the Washington Post, "Those are my convictions. I am a full-blooded, freedom-loving American, and what we're seeing in Washington is domestic terrorism at its worst."

Crabill, the GOP nominee for the state's House of Delegates seat representing Virginia's Northern Neck, assures us that she has "no desire to see this country erupt in any kind of violent revolution. I don't even own a gun."

What a relief.

President Obama is free to go hard left with his next Supreme Court appointment. That's the lesson of the failed attacks on nominee Sonia Sotomayor during this week's Senate confirmation hearing.

Racially-tinged inferences, snide liberal bashing and the shameless pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment that once won the day for Republicans are now falling flat. The Sotomayor nomination has proved to be yet another test case for the efficacy of traditional conservative attack lines.

Republicans might have hoped to use this hearing to put limits on how far the President can safely go in picking liberals for future openings. Instead, they showcased just how narrow and out of touch their political base has become.

It is stunning that the GOP did not learn this lesson in the election of Barack Obama. Until Republicans get past calling 1-800-HATE there will be fewer and fewer voters on the other end of the line.

Whether liberal, conservative, or something in between, Supreme Court nominees should be obligated to be more forthcoming about hot button issues. On Wednesday, Sonia Sotomayor dodged a pressing round of questions about her views on abortion rights.

This business of refusing to say anything about issues that might come before the court is a relatively new phenomenon. It started with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's silence on more than 30 questions during her 1993 confirmation hearings.

Known as the "Ginsburg Rule," this convenient evasion of politically sensitive questions is imperfectly based upon an American Bar Association ethics rule that is not as obvious as nominees make it sound. The ABA ethics rule (Canon 5) prohibits a prospective judge from making "pledges, promises or commitments" on "cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court."

The wording of the rule would allow broad statements, even opinions, so long as a nominee avoids "pledges, promises or commitments." In non-binding commentary accompanying this rule, the ABA tries to broaden the language to prevent any "statements" on upcoming cases or issues, but that's not what the Canon actually says.

In other words, nothing in this rule prevents nominees from saying they are personally pro-choice or pro-life on abortion -- so long as they vow to keep an open mind when applying law and precedent to the facts of specific cases.

How To Comment on Trail Mix

Anyone smart enough to be nominated to the nation's highest court surely would possess the skill to give the public a sense of their views without promising to vote a certain way. They do not do so because their strategy is to say as little as possible on controversial issues in this age of partisan fights over judicial picks. As a result, neither side of the partisan divide really knows what they're getting.

And what's the perceived damage to the court's integrity if a nominee expresses broad personal views? Answers in a confirmation hearing could easily be fashioned to avoid pre-judging particular cases. No, the greater loss is in putting people on the court having no idea what they really think about major questions of the day.

The only reason that nominees since Ginsburg get away with dodging vital questions of public policy is because the Senate lets them do so. It is yet another example of acquiescence to the Executive Branch that has dramatically weakened the constitutional powers of the Legislative Branch. The Senate has every right to withhold confirmation until certain questions are answered.

Too many senators have accepted this tortured invocation of the ABA rule, denying the American people critical information about potential justices in what amounts to the one and only opportunity that these powerful lifetime appointees ever have to answer a question.

For the latest thread on Trail Mix every day,
bookmark this.. http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

In this Trail Mix Web Cam video, Craig touts Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's empathy for the broken-ankled.

Watching Lindsey Graham's gotcha grin as he needled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with disingenuous and rhetorical questions you had to wonder what was so funny.

Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing?

How To Comment on Trail Mix

It is not that the Republican inquiries were out of bounds in legal terms. But a confirmation hearing like this is a political forum.

Even if they vote for her, the fallout for Republicans could reach well beyond Hispanic voters. They are coming across as a bunch of snarky and bitter old white men who cannot bear the thought of their kind losing power.

The impact of this story on the political scoreboard should give Democrats much more to smile about.

 

Craig's Web Cam:
Sonia's Broken-Ankle Empathy

Sotomayor Dodges the Tough Stuff, But . . . 
Senators Can Demand Answers to Politically Sensitve Questions

For the latest thread on Trail Mix every day,
bookmark this.. http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

I think Sonia Sotomayor meant what she said and ought to just stand by it. Of course, her background and ethnicity would add new perspective to the Supreme Court and surely it will affect the nominee's decisions if she is confirmed.

But under questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama the New York appeals judge is insisting that her off-bench comments about the value of a Latina woman's perspective were misinterpreted. "I don't stand by the understanding of that statement," she said.

Why do we talk about putting women, African-Americans, Italians, Hispanics and others on the court if we expect them to render decisions that are in no way informed by their life experience or ethnic background?

If diverse justices are supposed to come to the same conclusions as the white males who've dominated the bench for generations, then there is not much point in worrying about diversifying the court.

Listen carefully, citizens, never again will Sonia Sotomayor have to answer any questions. Once confirmed, Supreme Court justices are above answering for anything they say or do.

As the Judiciary Committee questioning of Sotomayor begins today, following Tuesday's senatorial talkathon, will the country be able to learn anything meaningful? Confirmation hearings can be rare opportunities for spotlighting the great constitutional issues of our times in a high-profile setting.

Sadly, Republican senators seem determined to derail this hearing into a time-wasting indulgence of their supposed outrage at Sotomayor's claims that her Latina heritage gives her a worthy perspective for deciding cases. So what if it does. After generations of the white male heritage informing justices -- which her GOP detractors apparently consider to be acceptable -- moving toward a court that looks more like the whole country does not seem so threatening.

Both sides are playing the race card in the confirmation fight over Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination.

Democratic senators issued veiled threats of crying racism against vigorous opposition to the Hispanic judge's confirmation. "Let no one demean this extraordinary woman," Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said during today's hearing.

For those too dull-witted to get the hint, Leahy added a provocative comparison to anti-Semitism. "The confirmation of Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish-American to be nominated to the high court, was a struggle ripe with anti-Semitism," Leahy said. "Likewise, the first Catholic nominee had to overcome the argument that, as a Catholic, he'd be dominated by the pope."

Still, GOP senators struggled to find ways to play a race card on behalf of white men, bolstered by her oft-repeated comment that she hoped a "wise Latina" would reach better conclusions than a white male who lacked the same life experience.

"Your 'wise Latina' comment starkly contradicts a statement by Justice O'Connor that `a wise old woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case,'" said Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Win or lose, Sotomayor's confirmation quest seems likely to leave a legacy of race baiting on both sides.

Sotomayor: In Her Own Words
For weeks, Democrats have been touting the hardscrabble life story of Sonia Sotomayor. Today, she got to speak for herself. 

Confirmation "Hearing" Only Begins
When Nominee is Allowed to Talk

You wonder how Sonia Sotomayor can sit there silently taking such abuse from Republican senators. Only the Supreme Court nominee's rapidly fluttering eyelashes reveal any hint of the emotion she might be harboring inside.

With her hands firmly planted, usually palms down, on the table in front of her, Sotomayor sat nearly motionless through hours of senatorial bluster all morning. Now that's what you call judicial temperament. It was a stunning display of physical discipline - except for the constant blinking.

The New York appeals judge has every reason to remain calm. Even Republicans who complained about her past acknowledged that they do not have the votes to block her appointment. Which makes you wonder why they want to risk angering the Hispanic judge's ethnic and ideological following.

So far, the GOP senators are trying to have it both ways, essentially saying 'we respect you while we trash you.'

This won't become a "hearing" until senators actually start listening to the nominee. While senators are only talking to themselves, instead let's just call this a "talking."

As we approach the mark of more than a trillion public dollars flowing from the Federal Reserve to major financial institutions under a cloak of privacy dating back to Woodrow Wilson, more Americans and their lawmakers are demanding to see the secrets of the temple.

Close and questionable relations between the nation's biggest banks and the Federal Reserve have long been tolerated -- until recent bailouts provoked growing scrutiny of this mysterious world.

The Government Accountability Office would audit the Fed under the pending Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (HR 1207 and S 604). Currently the Federal Reserve is exempt from GAO oversight.

Thanks to the American News Project, here is an informative primer on this important topic (in just eight minutes).

"The Fed Under Fire," Lagan Sebert and Harry Hanbury
(American News Project)

How To Add Your Comment on Trail Mix

CQ Politics' Look Ahead
Reporters discuss the big stories they'll be following this week: Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court hearings, a special election in California and health care on Capitol Hill.

What To Watch For At Sotomayor's Hearing
The Supreme Court nominee will be trying to deflect Republican efforts to portray her as ideologically extreme, and she will have to defuse attacks on her off-the-bench speeches, previous associations and extensive rulings during 17 years on the federal bench.
(CQ's Keith Perine)

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor might as well immediately explain her 2001 comment that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee will certainly be looking for an explanation at her confirmation hearings.

So far, the White House -- and the President himself -- have muddled things and stirred more debate on an issue that might have been best left alone until the hearings. A written explanation from Sotomayor, or even something through a spokesperson, could quickly rob conservatives of this overblown controversy. The longer she waits, the more contrived her response might seem.

White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs suggested last week that Sotomayor would  "say that her word choice in 2001 was poor." However, Gibbs acknowledged that he had not heard that from Sotomayor. Instead, he said he had learned it from people who had talked to her - but he did not indentify those people.

President Obama also tried to explain away the Sotomayor statement. "I'm sure she would have restated it," he said on Friday, but gave no clue how he knew that.

White House damage control has not been convincing because Obama and Gibbs were just speculating about what Sotomayor would say. Now, it would be helpful to hear what she has to say.

The Week in Review: Memorial Day Recess
(CQ Politics Slideshow)

Congress was in recess, but Trail Mix was busy as ever keeping up with Memorial Day events, continuing fallout in the Gitmo debate, visiting foreign leaders, France snubbing Queen Elizabeth, President Obama's Supreme Court pick, a declaration of cyber war, and another meltdown with embattled Illinois Sen. Roland Burris.

Court Watch

• Obama Calls for Quick Action on Sotomayor in Radio Address
• Dodd, Sotomayor Have Thorny Court Case in Common
• Discrimination Case Could Pose Problems for Sotomayor
• Senators Vetting Sotomayor, Exploring Confirmation Schedule
• Supreme Court: Filling a Vacancy Can Take Months
• Commentary (Richard L. Connor): Obama Gets It Right With Sotomayor Selection

Speaking as a white male, I'm tired of nuts representing my kind. "Identity politics" is the latest war cry from the angry white male camp led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and George Will.

During the last presidential election I was chatting with a white male friend who was planning to vote for Barack Obama but asked, "How can a black man with such a weird name ever get elected?" I replied, "Because we don't run this country by ourselves anymore."

Nobody called it identity politics when only white males had the power -- like when they wrote our originally racist and sexist Constitution (which could explain why the white male crusaders are so fond of "strictly interpreting" the Constitution as it was originally intended).

So what if President Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court because she's a Latina who happens to be qualified? On the Supreme Court, as we've seen in the White House and beyond, it is about time for some politics of diverse identities.

• Analysis: Newt, Rush and 'Nutty White Man Talk
• Senators Vet Sotomayor, Explore Confirmation Schedule
• CQ Politics Online Discussion
• Poll Tracker: Public's First Reaction to Sotomayor is Positive

How long does it usually take to confirm a new justice?
See Supreme Court Tracker

What I like most about Sonia Sotomayor's style so far is what appears to be a spirited nature to match Justice Antonin Scalia's aggressiveness. The court needs a fresh voice and a fierce debater to challenge Scalia's ultra-conservative passion behind the scenes, where decisions are hammered out.

For the sake of balance in oral arguments, Sotomayor's reputation for energetic questioning would provide a counterpoint to Scalia's outgoing performances.  Most justices act like they'd rather be at a funeral.

Scalia has his detractors on the bench, such as Justice John Paul Stevens. Their attacks on each other in written rulings and dissents reveal signs of deep conflict. But like so many of his colleagues who often disagree with Scalia, the aging Stevens is essentially a laid-back personality type.

It's time for a justice who gets in Scalia's face. I just wish we could see it when it happens.