Fast-forward to the 1:05 mark to watch a great moment in local news.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fz5z4ddy5E&hl=en&fs=1]

Galley Friend B.W. sends us this story about a pair of LA realtors suing CSI for defamation.

I don’t know much about defamation law (specifically, how it’s different from libel law), but I wonder if realtors who advertise extensively, using images of themselves, count as public figures.

The Harriet Miers nomination was one of the few bright moments for conservatives during the Bush administration. Nearly every conservative intellectual outside the precincts of Townhall.com stood up to oppose Miers–not because she wasn’t conservative enough or reliable enough–but because she was, by any reasonable standard, neither smart enough nor accomplished enough for the job. Her nomination was the worst of mix of identity politics and cronyism. And for the first time since 9/11, conservatives were willing say, Hold on–I didn’t sign up for this.

Clearly, the left has not gotten to that point with Obama. Because if they had, they’d be jumping off the Sotomayor bus rapido. The problem with Sotomayor isn’t her politics. She’s a lefty. So is Obama. He won and the Dems control the Senate, so that’s their prerogative. The problem is that she’s a grievance warrior with ideas about race and racialism that are supposed to be out of bounds. Absolutely nobody is making the argument that she’s the most intellectually qualified person in America for the gig. And there seems to be at least some evidence that her temperament leaves something to be desired.

President Obama can appoint–and probably get confirmed–anybody he wants. So why not pick a devastatingly smart lefty? Was Elena Kagan busy? Was Cass Sunstein out of town? Shouldn’t the left demand as much from Obama? After all, nearly anyone can give you the vote you want. It takes a good deal more to advance or defend an agenda. If I was a liberal Obama supporter, I’d be pretty despondent right about now.

(Mind you, there’s one other possibility: It could be that the left sees identity politics itself as the core of their intellectual belief system. In which case they could rightly view the Sotomayor nomination as a victory, the medium being the message and all that.)

But all the evidence suggests that the left is in for a penny, in for a pound.

Obama keeps disappointing them–wiretapping; no Iraq withdrawal; an escalation in Afghanistan; support for torture; no movement on gay issues; little transparency–and they keep rolling right along with him.

Of course, on the one hand, you dance with the one that brought you. On the other, take a look at the GOP to see what loyalty in the face of mistakes gets you at the end of the day.

If you’ll recall, liberals were thrilled with the idea of Harriet Miers being on the Supreme Court. They were prepared to pound the table and vote against her, but they thought she was the best they (if not the country or the law) could hope for. Conservatives are now in a similar position.

PS: The Gormogons note that in his introduction to Sotomajor, President Obama said that SCOTUS judges have to interpret principles first more on paper “20 centuries ago.”

It sure is great to have a con-law scholar as president.

Update: Hugh Hewitt–pro-Miers and pro-Sotomayor! Paint the map red!

Sotomayor’s “wise Latina woman” > “White male” remark is getting all the attention (and why a White “male” and not a White “man,” by the by?) but this is what snapped my head around:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” [emphasis added]

Isn’t that viewpoint normally beyond the pale? (So to speak.) Or is it only career-destroying when Steve Sailer brings it up?

Update: For all her bravery in bringing racialism, it’s pretty easy to “terrify” Sotomayor.

Also, I understand that the position of Supreme Court Justice is slightly higher on the prestige meter than Attorney General of the United States, but to argue that “to Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark” seems to completely forget AG A.G., no?

Or maybe the real lesson is: Only Democrats get credit for diversity hires.

If the Denver Nuggets meet the Orlando Magic in the Finals this year, would you give up all conspiracy-theorizing about the NBA? I might.

Can you name five less gracious journalists than Mike Kinsley? Journalism being what it is, this should be easy, but I can only think of two or three off the top of my head.

Oh, in case you don’t have time to click through the link, Kinsley wants you to know how much he hates his former boss at Time–and how stupid the guy is! Which is weird, right, because Kinsley was such a class-act when he took job.

From Riding Giants, just for Galley Friend P.G.:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcaZarxilJQ&hl=en&fs=1]

So you better get out of the way!

Who will be the first to read the new V as a critique of Obama-ism?

I don’t know. But it would make a fantastic bookend to any LoTR-as-defense-of-Bush exercise . . .