In a desperate, last-minute ploy to scuttle Justice Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) falsely accused her of perjuring herself before the Senate Judicary Committee:

Later in her hearing, Judge Sotomayor gave the following testimony: “I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statues. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in the situations where American law directs the court.” While this kind of declarative statement would normally provide some measure of comfort, it is belied by words Judge Sotomayor uttered less than three months ago, that judges were “commanded” to look to “persuasive” sources, including foreign law, in interpreting our own law. [...]

It gives me great pause that Judge Sotomayor could say one thing at a public speech earlier this year and say the opposite while under oath before the Judiciary Committee, especially since she never repudiated her speech.

Now, as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is just as certain to be confirmed, Kyl is apparently just as desperate. In what will likely be his final floor speech on Kagan’s nomination, Kyl once again falsely accused a Supreme Court nominee of lying:

In explaining why I could not vote for now-Justice Sotomayor, I said I thought she was disingenuous with the Judiciary Committee. Obviously reaching such a conclusion precludes support notwithstanding other qualifications for the position. Reluctantly, after analysis of her testimony, weighed with her past writings, statements and actions, I have reached the same conclusion regarding Elena Kagan.

Watch it:

Kyl then proceededd to recite a long list of mythical claims about Kagan, and argue that she must have been lying at her confirmation hearing because her testimony does not square with the right’s mythology. “Exhibit A” of his case against Kagan, for example is that she claims to be in favor of gay rights, but she really has no objections to a anti-gay tenets of “Shariah law.” “Exhibit B” is that she claims to not be a judicial activist, even though she had the audacity to praise legal legend and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And so forth.

This tactic did not work when Sotomayor was up for a vote, and it will not work now. Kyl needs to learn that there is nothing “disingenuous” about refusing to confess to an absurd list of trumped up charges again you.

After spending months using gimmicks and “flimsy” websites attempting to convince voters they have fresh and substantive policy ideas, Republicans have all but conceded they don’t have any. Last month, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda” because it could become a “campaign issue.” Just days later, the heads of the Republican congressional campaign committees — Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) — failed to name a single specific policy they support on NBC’s Meet The Press, instead suggesting that Americans intuitively “understand what Republicans stand for.”

This morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appeared on Bloomberg to discuss policy and the GOP agenda. But he didn’t have much to say either:

HOST: Do Republicans need to articulate what you would do in power, as opposed to simply campaigning against what the President’s done?

MCCONNELL: I think we clearly do need to make sure Americans know what we would do and we’re gonna make that announcement in late September so the voters will have an opp…

HOST: But you have an opportunity right here to spell it out.

MCCONNELL: Yeah but I think I won’t scoop myself. We’ll be making that announcement in late September.

Watch it:

It’s unclear why the GOP needs to wait months to announce their policies when it has been working on overcoming its branding as the “Party of No” since last year. In fact, the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), suggested that his committee be eliminated because other “solutions groups” were duplicating its work. Yet the GOP still has no coherent policy agenda – last month, RedState founder and staunch conservative Erick Erickson even told the party to “stop lying” and admit that it’s the “Party of No.”

But it’s not like the GOP has no ideas whatsoever. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) thinks that “all [Republicans] should do is issue subpoenas” if they win the House this fall. And House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who “doesn’t need to see GDP numbers or talk to economists” to determine policy, instead had lobbyists help him come up with a “new policy agenda.” More recently, the House Republican Study Committee issued a jobs plan that is a “huge doubling down on the Bush agenda” and “won’t effectively create jobs.”

Considering the total lack of smart, new ideas in the Republican party, it’s not a surprise that they need a lot more time to announce their agenda while their members are trying to duck scrutiny.

– Charlie Eisenhood

In a floor speech explaining his opposition to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) attacked her for refusing the endorse the frivolous argument that unelected judges should strike down the health care law enacted by elected representatives:

I was also troubled by a couple of other areas . . . One has to do with the power of the federal government and I had mentioned a moment ago. Under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has previously basically given the federal government almost limitless powers and we’ve seen that play here in the debate over the individual mandate in the health insurance bill . . . But Solicitor General Kagan did not seem to recognize that the federal government’s powers are one of enumerated powers delegated by — delegated by the states and by the people.

Just a few minutes earlier, however, Cornyn ranted against judges who have the audacity to substitute their views for those of elected Members of Congress:

­If ­we ­don’t ­like ­the ­way ­Congress ­– ­the ­law ­congress ­makes, ­well, congress,­ of ­course, ­is ­free ­to ­change ­it. And ­if ­we ­the ­people still don’t like the way Congress writes the law when they refuse to respond to the will of the people, we have a right to replace Members of Congress. That’s the way a democracy runs, not by a judge dictating to us what he or she thinks is good for us.

Watch it:

This is not the first time Cornyn set the landspeed record for self-contradiction.  During Kagan’s confirmation hearing, Cornyn insisted that precedents he approves of are sacred, while precedents he disagrees with are a blasphemy that must be overruled.  Moreover, Cornyn’s view that the law and the Constitution mean whatever he wants it to mean is all too common among conservatives.  Most famously, Chief Justice Roberts promised “to have the humility to recognize that [judges] operate within a system of precedent” when he was up for confirmation, only to spend his entire time as Chief Justice ignoring precedents that conservatives don’t like.

In other words, Cornyn and Roberts are taking a page out of Henry Ford’s playbook.  The American people can have whatever kind of laws they want — so long as they’re conservative.