Eric Boehlert writes:

Kristol writes:

Here’s a highlight of Purdum’s reporting: “More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . . . Is there any real chance that "several" Alaskans independently told Purdum that they had consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? I don’t believe it for a moment.

[MORE . . .]

So sez the Minnesota Supreme Court:

– A unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Democrat Al Franken should be certified the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for the former Saturday Night Live comedian to be seated after an almost eight-month fight.

Coleman concedes. It's over.

So writes Time magazine this week:

Alas for countless pundits and inspirational speakers, it is apparently not the case that the Chinese word for crisis is spelled by joining the characters for danger and opportunity. But that common fallacy nevertheless captures an important metaphorical truth: whatever the perils it brings with it, a crisis can be a grand opportunity. Among those who have understood that truth was Franklin D. Roosevelt. . . . [T]he crisis of the 1930s also provided an object lesson in the relationship between economic danger and political opportunity — a lesson Barack Obama is now trying to follow. Obama, too, came to office in the midst of an economic crisis, and in the solutions he has offered, it appears he has often looked to the example of F.D.R., whose presidency — and the very idea of activist government that it represents — is very much back in the public mind this year. Roosevelt pushed through policies that aimed not just to deal with the immediate challenge of the Great Depression but also to benefit generations of Americans to come. Pulling off a similar feat will require Obama to persuade Americans to see opportunities in the present crisis as well.

Not bad. But it also provides me an excuse to link again to my first post at TalkLeft in the summer of 2006, What Obama Needs To Learn From . . . FDR. Probably my best post here. It's all been downhill since then.

I think I have written enough about Ricci to last a lifetime.

Let's talk about something else. What's on your mind?

This is an Open Thread.

What's funny about that clip? Joe Scarborough acts as if the phrase has never been said before. Of course he never heard it applied to judicially activist conservative jurists before. He was nonplussed. Pretty funny. Good job Chuck Todd!!

Speaking for me only

Doug Kendall writes today:

In an unbelievable post today, Wendy Long of the ironically-named Judicial Confirmation Network claims that the Supreme Court's bitterly divided 5-4 ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano was actually a 9-0 slap in the face to Judge Sotomayor . . .

But that is what one would expect from Wendy Long. And sadly, now that is what one expects from Stuart Taylor, Jr.. But this is the road Taylor has chosen to travel for a long time. For some reason he is treated as a serious legal journalist - with perches at the National Journal and Newsweek.

Rather than wondering what they are doing embracing blatant judicial activism by the Gang of 5, Taylor and his Limbaughian "Lunatic Fringe" cohorts are too busy disingenuously distorting Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci (just weeks before this same lunatic fringe was complaining that Justice Ginsburg was "endorsing" Judge Sotomayor.) Even Fred Hiatt's crew decried the judicial activism of the Ricci majority, in an editorial that stated the Gang of 5 had "Flunked the Test":

My guilty pleasure - 2 hours of Family Guy on TBS starting at 8.

Please note that Olbermann still has the dull Turley to comment on legal questions. This fellow simply does not understand legal issues very well. Read this ill informed analysis of Ricci from him. It's like he never actually read Title VII, the amendments thereto, Griggs or Albemarle. For some actual legal analysis of Ricci, here is the ACS blog. Olbermann needs someone better on these things. Back to Family Guy.

Speaking for me only

Update (TL): I am watching The Bachelorette (of course) and hoping to see country music singer Wes, who is not a bad guy despite how ABC is editing him, move on to Spain.

This is an Open Thread.

I've written below urging the Congress to act to overturn the SCOTUS' judicial lawmaking in Ricci. The National Women's Law Center notes that the Obama Administration can also act. NWLC President Marcia Greenberger said, in part:

[W]hile today’s ruling diminishes employers’ ability to comply with anti-discrimination law, it does leave the door open for employers to act responsibly. As the Court recognized, employers are still obligated to take steps to remove both intentional discrimination and unjustified practices that adversely impact individuals based on their sex, race, national origin or religion. We call on the Obama Administration to issue guidance for employers on how to ensure that they offer fair promotional and job entry exams.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Good thinking from the NWLC. The Obama Administration also has a significant role it can play to dampen the effects of Ricci.

Speaking for me only

The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin makes a good point about today's Ricci decision:

The bottom line is that the business interests were among the big losers [in Ricci.] The Court's ruling makes it difficult for employers to use race-conscious measures to avoid disparate impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. . . . Although Ricci addressed promotion decisions by a government employer, the same Title VII standards apply to private employers too.

Below, I post about Arkansas AG Dustin McDaniel making the point that Ricci is damaging to government employers. Somin points out that it is also damaging to private employers. So on top of all the other serious flaws in the decision, add the fact that it hurts businesses to the list.

Speaking for me only

Not interested in Ricci or Madoff? Here's an Open Thread.

This is an Open Thread.

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel states unequivocally in a conference call organized by People For the American Way that the SCOTUS "made new law" today in Ricci. McDaniel argued that the Ricci decision made it difficult if not impossible for states and localities to attempt to address discrimination in the workplace, their own and private workplaces.

Marge Baker of PFAW states flatly that the Court engaged in "judicial activism" today.

More . . .

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) just held a press conference on the SCOTUS' Ricci decision announced today. The major points:

SCOTUS sets forth a NEW interpretation, overturning 38 years of understanding of the law.

Sotomayor unaffected by this. (This is an obvious point imo. But I guess it needs to be said.) You know all the talking points.

Andy Pincus, counsel for the National League of Cities spoke and made the strong point that today's Ricci decision makes the position of municipalities virtually untenable. The conflict created by Ricci puts municipalities (and States) in a position where it will be sued by one group or another. In short, the decision is a disaster for States and municipalities. So much for the "dignity" that once so concerned Justice Kennedy.

More . . .