UPDATED: See Politico for how the law has nothing to do with Sotomayor's nomination or the press coverage. Zero.

Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

As I've been noting all day, it's becoming increasingly clear that the conservative opposition to Sotomayor's SCOTUS nomination has nothing to do with the law or her legal opinions. And I'm amazed the press hasn't pointed that out. Has there ever been an effort to thwart a Supreme Court nomination that had so little to do with the law before?

Anyway, I mentioned earlier a Politico report on the Sotomayor pushback which failed to note the obvious trend. (i.e The law has nothing to do with it.) Now there's an opinion piece in Politico penned by former Republican senator (and current Philadelphia Inquirer columnist ) Rick Santorum. It's headlined:

Why I would oppose Sotomayor

I foolishly assumed that Santorum would spell out why, if he were still in the U.S. Senate, he would vote against the Sotomayor nomination. I foolishly assumed Santorum's media column would highlight what troubled him about Sotomayor's legal record which would make her unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Big mistake on my part. Santorum, in his Politico essay about why he would vote against Sotomayor, never even pretends to present a legal basis for his opposition. None. Zero. Zilch.

This is where the press has allowed the 'debate' about Sotomajor to go in just eight days time: Conservatives don't even bother to articulate a rationale legal reason why Sotomayor isn't qualified, yet the press still takes their opposition very, very seriously.

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.