Morning Must Reads

Her biggest cases – like striking down firefighter promotions because not enough minorities passed advancement exams or siding with baseball players against owners – have been on the Left, but not anything other than what the majority of liberal judges would have done. The piece suggests that she would be in the mold of retiring Justice David Souter.

Republicans looking for anything exotic will be disappointed, In fact, Bravin and Koppel found that Sotomayor even passed up a few freebies.

“Judge Sotomayor isn’t always a reliable vote for employees. In 1999, she ruled against a black nurse who claimed she had been fired from a New York hospital due to her race and age, as well as a debilitating injury. Judge Sotomayor ruled that the plaintiff, Wendy Norville, could move ahead on her disability claim, but tossed out the race and age claims.

‘There was ample evidence that the hospital had accommodated white nurses with similar disabilities,’ said Glenn Greenwald, who represented Ms. Norville and is now a columnist for Salon.com. ‘She rather coldly dismissed what I thought were good claims.’”
 
Washington Post — First Latina Picked for Supreme Court; GOP Faces Delicate Task in Opposition

 
Writers Shailaigh Murray and Michael Shear explore whether or not Republicans can resist their dark, vaguely racist, impulses and not attack Sonia Sotomayor.

But as they do so, and without apparent irony, they happen to provide some useful insight about the sales job the Obama administration has done – including the construction of intolerant Republican straw men.

Particularly helpful – but strangely buried underneath the “GOP tries to deny inner monster” stuff – is the timetable for how and when the administration foresees the nomination process playing out.

“Senior White House officials said the key to what they hope will be a 72-day campaign to confirm Sotomayor by Aug. 7, the start of the Senate’s month-long recess, is to ensure that they retain control over the story line of the judge’s life and career. A senior White House official said the administration had mapped out four distinct phases of what officials hope will be the path to an easy confirmation: the first 24 to 72 hours of the rollout; the period between the rollout and the start of Sotomayor’s Judiciary Committee hearing; the hearing process itself; and the period between the hearing and the Senate floor vote.

‘We have to keep control of the narrative, to make sure that her story doesn’t get told by someone else,’ the senior aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy.”
 
New York Times — Antitrust Laws a Hurdle to Health Care Overhaul
 
Writer Robert Pear looks at how anti-trust laws have prevented health care cost cutting in the past and may do so again in the Obama era.

The president already took a hit when it came out that he vastly overstated the savings the medial industry honchos he brought to the White House on May 11. They said 2 percent decrease in price increases. He said 2 percent decrease in costs. But hey, what’s $2 trillion anymore.

But even their more modest pledge may run afoul of laws preventing companies from colluding on prices since setting maximal prices when there is only a handful of providers can hurt consumers and actually have the perverse effect of raising costs.

“Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group, said he was wary of such joint efforts.

‘When companies that control the health care system get together to change it, there is a serious risk that they are doing it to stifle competition at the expense of consumers,’ Mr. Court said.

The Federal Trade Commission says that while cooperation among health care providers can benefit consumers, it can also increase the bargaining power of hospitals and doctors, making it easier for them to set prices and eliminate competition.”
 
California’s gay marriage ruling signals next step for both sides
 
You would think that a bitter battle over gay marriage would be the kind of thing that a state $22 billion in the hole couldn’t afford to have. But as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was laying out his plan for the first $5 billion in cuts to state programs and services and warning of new taxes, gay marriage backers and foes were taking to the streets to protest/celebrate the state supreme court’s decision that the voters were allowed to ban gay marriage but that the 18,000 homosexual couples already married could stay that way.

More importantly, though, both sides were gearing up for an even more brutal showdown next year.

That is sure to change the electoral calculus for the folks who inexplicably want to follow Schwarzenegger as the next contestant in the political version of “The Running Man.” San Francisco’s Gavin Newsome may be helped by big gay turnout while Republicans might benefit from backlash against the aggressive social agenda of Newsome’s supporters.

What is sure is that there will be no rest for the beleaguered residents of the crumbling Golden State for the next 18 months.

“… gay rights activists, who had widely expected to lose, indicated after the ruling that next time they intend to be far more inclusive in their quest to sway Californians. During the last election, the No on 8 campaign was sharply criticized for not reaching out enough to black and Latino voters.

Accordingly, gay activists summoned the media to the Lucy Florence Cultural Center in Leimert Park in the heart of Los Angeles’ black community for a news conference chaired by Ron Buckmire, an African American mathematics professor who is also president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, a black gay rights group in Los Angeles.

Then they made sure that Southern California’s first post-decision protest rally was held in East Los Angeles, in the region’s historic center of Latino culture.

At that event, more than 100 people gathered outside the L.A. County office building on Cesar Chavez Avenue chanting slogans such as “Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage is a Civil Right.” Three gay couples then occupied the marriage license office, saying they would not leave without a license to wed. County officials refused to give licenses out — but also refused to take the demonstrators into custody. About 3:45, the demonstrators left.”
 
Chicago Sun-Times — Burris on tape: Promises to ‘do something’ for Blagojevich
 
Sen. Roland Burris continues to hang like a millstone around the neck of the Illinois and national Democratic parties. New audio tapes released by a federal judge reveal that in November Burris did make some shady-sounding promises to the organization of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich in exchange for consideration for the soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat of Barack Obama.

But as writer Natasha Korecki points out, the problem is that Burris probably won’t be indicted or removed as a result. Instead, he will continue to hang on in the political shadow world between infamy and legitimacy. It also means he will continue to remind voters of the breezy corruption that is so common to Illinois’ Democratic political machines.

“Burris, a Chicago Democrat who Rod Blagojevich appointed to the Senate seat Dec. 30, can be heard repeatedly expressing worry that a donation to the governor would look like he’s trying to buy the seat. Burris tells Robert Blagojevich: “I’m in a dilemma right now, wanting to help the governor.”

At another point, Burris said: “I am trying to figure out how to deal with this and still be in consideration.”

During the conversation, Burris says “I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright. OK, ‘cause Tim is not looking for an appointment, OK?”

Wright is a lawyer now representing Burris.”