Sometimes you just can't use your ammo.

I was a panelist on the McLaughlin Group this past weekend. One of the topics was Gitmo and the Obama administration's move to release some of the detainees (such as the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs) or to transfer others to the United States for further detention and, in some cases, trial. As I did my research for this segment--yes, I do prepare--I came across a craven editorial that had recently appeared in The Daily News. The New York paper's editorialists were whining about the administration sending Ahmed Ghailani, a Gitmo prisoner accused of participating in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, to New York for trial in federal court:

Compare the way Washington has approached New York with its wooing of Palau, a tiny Pacific island state that has magnanimously agreed to resettle 13 Chinese Muslims, called Uighurs, who were picked up in Afghanistan and later found not to be enemy combatants.

Palau is in line for $200 million in U.S. aid - more than $15 million per detainee - although all parties insist there is no connection between the funds and plans for the Uighurs.

The question that must be asked is: Where's ours?

Where's ours? Were they kidding? Ghailani is accused of participating in a murderous plot that blew up US property and killed 224 people. Patriotic Americans ought to want this guy brought to justice and, if found guilty, locked away for life--just like four of his compatriots who are already imprisoned at the supermax facility in Florence, Colorado. But The Daily News' editorialists were suggesting that Ghailani ought to be tried in Manhattan only if New York City receives a payoff from the feds. (By the way, the detainees who may end up in Palau were found not to be enemy combatants after spending years at Gitmo. Comparing them to Ghailani is silly.)

This was another version of the demagogic argument that GOPers and some Dems have been making against the Obama policy of shutting down Gitmo. They've been screaming about bringing these terrorists--they never say "suspected terrorists"--to the United States, as if these detainees are superhuman evildoers who will escape custody and engineer the destruction of your neighborhood.

As I've noted elsewhere, a number of terrorists (some affiliated with al Qaeda) have been successfully tried and imprisoned in the United States. And several have been convicted in federal court in New York City. By sending Ghailani to Manhattan for trial, the Obama administration was just doing what's been done by past administrations.

So why go on about this vis-à-vis the McLaughlin Group? One of my fellow shouting heads on the show was going to be Mort Zuckerman, the owner of The Daily News. I prepared to challenge him about this editorial during the Gitmo segment. I was ready to go: "Mort, do you think that New Yorkers should be demanding a bribe in order for the feds to apply harsh US justice to terrorists who kill?" But when that part of the show arrived during the taping...the opportunity never came. The conversation simply did not go in a direction that provided me an opening. Oh well. Maybe another time.

I'm out of town, so not much posting. But if you didn't see it, check out my colleague Stephanie Mencimer's piece on one problem with Judge Sonia Sotomayor: her writing skills. It's no a deal-breaker, but Stephanie describes the Supreme Court nominee's inelegant writing style and explains why that matters:

As a Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor has a lot going for her: a stellar judicial record, a Yale Law School pedigree, a compelling personal history, and more trial experience than any other sitting justice. But while she's clearly a bright and talented lawyer, she unfortunately lacks one of the key qualities of a successful Supreme Court justice: writing skills. To put it bluntly, Sotomayor doesn't write very well. Reporters have sort of danced around this problem. The New York Times' Adam Liptak charitably described her opinions as models of judicial craftsmanship that are "not always a pleasure to read."

Liptak's analysis is something of an understatement. Sotomayor's opinions read like she's still following a formula she learned in college and show little of the smart narratives employed by the federal judiciary's brightest lights. Sotomayor's impenetrable legal opus stands in striking contrast to much of the work produced by the court she aspires to. Supreme Court opinions, the best ones, are words for the generations. There's a reason that so many Supreme Court justices are still quoted long after they've died. (Think of Robert Jackson, Obama's hero, who wrote in a 1950 opinion, "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.")

I've heard from some that this is nitpicky point. It isn't. But read Stephanie's article and let me know what you think. Full piece here.

Also, I see that he latest attack from the right on Sotomayor is that she once dared to suggest that there was racism in the United States. The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network has sent members of the Senate judiciary committee a letter huffing about a 1981 memo Sotomayor and other members of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund sent in 1981 to Hugh Carey, then the governor of New York, opposing the death penalty. She and two colleagues wrote, "Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society."

Stop the presses--or the confirmation process! Not. There are numerous studies--and more since 1981--that have shown a racial bias in the imposition of capital punishment. But are the rightwingers now going to attempt to depict her as a race-obsessed America hater? Let 'em try. But this latest stab--or pinprick--indicates that some are digging wherever they can in the hope of finding anything, just anything.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I'm still looking for signs that President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will split the right. Earlier, I reported that conservative strategist Grover Norquist was happy with Obama's choice because it has united conservatives in opposition. Longtime rightwing poohbah Richard Viguerie has said the same thing, and he's been calling for an anti-Sotomayor crusade. But so far Senate Republicans and Michael Steele, chair of the GOP, have refrained from beating any anti-Sotomayor drums. And that means Norquist, Viguerie and the conservatives could end up being disappointed if Senate GOPers decide not to go after the first Latina nominated to the highest court.

In an email, I asked Norquist if he thought the Senate Republicans share his enthusiasm for opposing her. His response surprised me a little. He wrote:

It's Sotomayor Mania!

I'm watching Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch being grilled by David Shuster on MSNBC for claiming that Judge Sonia Sotomayor would put her "feelings" above the law. Shuster demands proof of that. Fitton refers to when she once said that a "Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Fitton accuses Sotomayor of racism. And other conservatives are latching on to this quote to denounce President Barack Obama's selection of Judge Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Fitton also is saying, "Conservatives...expect Republicans to oppose this nomination in large numbers."

Well, they can expect all they want, but....Elsewhere I note that the Sotomayor pick could lead to a split on the right. Obama has handed Senate Republicans a tough choice: they can attack Sotomayor, the first potential Latina Supreme Court justice, and risk alienating Hispanic voters (and possibly women, too), or they can yield to Obama and tick off social conservatives who want blood. What to do?

One sign of this dilemma was the first reaction from the Republican Party. On Monday morning, the GOP zapped out a press release noting that when Howard Dean was Democratic Party chair, he immediately blasted the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito Jr. But, the release noted, Michael Steele, the current GOP chair, was not prejudging Sotomayor and was now calling for "thoughtful discussion" of her judicial record. So here was Steele using the moment to proclaim, "Hey, I'm no bombthrower."

That might help Steele, given that he's developed the reputation of a shoot-from-the-hip politico. But such let's-be-reasonable rhetoric must not hearten Tom Fitton and other conservatives ready for an ideological charge against Sotomayor. They want a fight. As of this early moment, there's no sign their Republican pals will give them that.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.