-There is no place that Star Wars can’t penetrate, even Pintrest.

-Why is it so hard to get people to adopt new musical intstruments?

-Go inside John Waters’ house in Baltimore.

-NBC: still not taking my suggestions.

-I would totally watch a show where Justice Sonia Sotomayor solves fairy-tale disputes. Someone call the USA Network!

Sotomayor’s decision, which was reasonably lenient towards Goldilocks, will no doubt spur conservative legal activists into a frenzy about her activist decision that proves Sotomayor’s total disregard for property rights.

Perry defended his error on Fox News this morning, telling host Chris Wallace that he hasn’t “memorized” the names of all nine Supreme Court justices. He went on to claim that voters “are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice, someone that is going to be perfect in every way.” Watch the segment:

Perry also admitted that he misspoke about the number of justices, despite his campaign’s insistence yesterday that the use of eight was intentional. As the Des Moines Register reported, the campaign claimed that Perry was referencing “a 1962 case in known as Abington School District v. Schempp where the court ruled that school-sponsored Bible reading is unconstitutional. The vote was eight to one.”

But I’m prepared to defend the idea that Lady Gaga may be more influential than a Supreme Court justice. She’s a major commercial and artistic force who has also managed to turn her fans into a political base when she wants to, and her influence is international as well as domestic. I tend to think the influence of celebrities is generally overstated, but in this case, I think Gaga isn’t a ridiculous choice.

Welcome to Justiceline, ThinkProgress Justice’s morning round-up of the latest legal news and developments. Remember to follow us on Twitter at @TPJustice.

• A Supreme Court decision requiring California to fix a prison crowding problem that is so severe it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment may wind up saving the state $2.3 billion a year in prison costs.

• New York State Sen. Greg Ball (R) is holding a marriage equality bill hostage until religious groups are given sweeping immunity from anti-discrimination law.

• The New York Times adds much-needed diversity to its senior management and its opinion page.

• Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) targets federal attorneys’ salaries.

• Justices Sotomayor and Kagan agree with each other a lot.

• And, finally, are the Scots paying too much attention to the GOP? Scotland’s Justice Minister disagrees with two court decisions, so he wants to exact revenge by defunding the UK Supreme Court.

Against this backdrop, Justice Sonia Sotomayor confronted California’s attorney with some of the more horrific stories from California’s unconstitutional prison system, and received a mocking response from fellow Justice Antonin Scalia:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, the best interest of the State of California, isn’t it to deliver adequate constitutional care to the people that it incarcerates? That’s a constitutional obligation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely. And California recognizes that.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when are you going to get to that? When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record? When are you going to avoid or get around people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to a point where you are going to deliver care that is going to be adequate?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t be rhetorical.

Listen:

While Scalia’s remark was ostensibly directed at California’s attorney, it was clearly intended to slight Sotomayor.  Earlier in the proceeding, Sotomayor had warned the attorney to “slow down from the rhetoric” when he repeatedly characterized the lower court’s action as “extraordinary.”  So Scalia is suggesting that Sotomayor also crossed an inappropriate rhetorical line when she expressed concern for human beings left helpless in a pile of their own excrement.

One of the most disgusting displays of the last two years has been right-wing lawmakers demanding that all judges must purge themselves of the capacity to identify with and understand another’s situation.  It is nothing less than terrifying that a member of the Supreme Court appears to meet their standard.

Last month, he struggled over U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name.

“Was it Sarah Manor, Sarah Manorgan, Sarah Morgan?” he was quoted as saying by a monthly publication based in Shepherdstown.

In an appearance several weeks ago in St. Mary’s, Raese called U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu by at least two different Asian-sounding last names.

Raese’s failure to remember a name that even vaguely resembles that of a recently confirmed Supreme Court justice calls into question whether Raese has paid attention to the kind of issues he would face as a senator.  If he joins the Senate, Raese will be required to at least take the confirmation process seriously enough that he can tell the difference between “Sonia Sotomayor” and “Sarah Manorgan.”

Justice Sotomayor joined the Court in August of 2009, and Gallup’s data shows a dramatic shift in public approval of the Court among both Democratic and Republican voters at the time of her confirmation:

Apparently, Democrats love Justice Sotomayor, as their approval of the entire Court nearly doubled after she joined it.  Likewise, Republicans must loathe Sotomayor, since their approval of the very conservative Court declined 16 points the minute Sotomayor became a justice.

Both of these shifts bear little resemblance to the actual impact of Sotomayor’s confirmation.  Justice Sotomayor is a center-left moderate who replaced another center-left moderate, Justice David Souter.  And while there are some early indications that Sotomayor may be slightly to Souter’s left on corporate immunity cases and slightly to Souter’s right on executive power, it is diffcult to identify a single case that would have come out differently if Souter were still on the Court.

The “Sotomayor Effect” may also explain why an increasing percentage of Americans perceive the Court as “too liberal” even as the Court marches further and further to the right:

Once again, the data shows an increasing belief that the Court is liberal at the same time that Sotomayor joined its ranks, and a decrease in the number of people who perceive the Court as conservative.  Likewise, the data shows a spike in the number of people who perceived the Court as “too conservative” at about the same time that conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the Court.  In other words, many Americans appear to base their opinion of the overall Court largely on the political views of the last high-profile nominee to be confirmed (Justice Kagan appears to have had a minimal impact on public perceptions of the Court, but most of the nation was distracted from her confirmation by the Gulf oil disaster and other higher profile stories).

Most importantly, this data demonstates the challenges facing progressives trying to educate the public about the harm the Roberts Court has done to American law.  Hopefully, however, the public’s almost universally negative reaction to the Court’s most high profile corporate immunity case will begin to bleed through to public perceptions of the Court as a whole.

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.

Justice Aharon Barak: beloved by Scalia and Kagan alike.

Last year, when Justice Sotomayor was about to begin her confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) took to the Senate floor to warn that, if confirmed, Sotomayor would replace American law with some kind of new world order:

The novel idea that foreign law has a place in the interpretation of American law creates numerous dangers. A number of academics, and even Federal judges, I would say, are seduced by this idea.

Judge Sotomayor clearly shares in that idea. I am somewhat surprised, but it is true, as I will discuss. Her vision seems to be that we should change our laws, or listen to other laws and judges, and sort of merge them with this foreign law.

Sotomayor has been a justice for almost a full Supreme Court term now, and she has somehow resisted the urge to transform America into France.  Nevertheless, the right-wing is already reviving Sessions’ silly conspiracy theory to attack the President’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, for example, the conservative Washington Times, claimed that a curriculum change Kagan presided over while Dean of Harvard Law School somehow reflects contempt for American law.  According to their editorial, “under Ms. Kagan’s leadership . . . Harvard dropped constitutional law as a required course for graduation, while adding a requirement for a course in ‘International/Comparative Law.’”  Such a “de-emphasis on the Constitution itself” the editorial claims, predicts that a Justice Kagan would join with Justice Sotomayor to make all of Sessions’ foreign law nightmares come truly.

There’s only one problem:  the Washington Times got its facts wrong.  As Media Matters points out, Kagan did not “replace con-law with international law.”  Constitutional Law has never been a graduation requirement for Harvard law students in the first place.

Under Kagan’s leadership, Harvard law did add two new courses to its first year curriculum, but these changes were unanimously approved by the Harvard faculty, including conservatives such as former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried.  Moreover, the new course in international and comparative  law was not added as part of some grand conspiracy, but rather in recognition of the fact that many Harvard graduates went on to represent clients with legal issues that cross international borders.   To quote Harvard, a new curriculum was needed to “better prepare our students to enter the current market.”

Right-wing columnist Stuart Taylor also jumps into the conspiracy-mongering about Kagan and foreign law.  Taylor’s evidence that Kagan is somehow outside of the mainstream is a speech she once gave praising former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, the legendary jurist who first held that Israeli courts may strike down an act of Israel’s Knesset when it conflicts with the human rights protected by Israel’s “Basic Laws.” In Taylor’s words, Justice Barak is known for “creativity in advancing liberal causes by overturning elected officials’ policies makes Marshall look almost like a champion of judicial restraint,” and Kagan’s praise of Barak somehow warns that she will try to make America more like Barak’s Israel.

Taylor’s attack, however, might come as a surprise to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.  Scalia recently spoke at an awards ceremony honoring Barak, where he touted his “profound respect for the man, one that trumped their fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements.”  Yet for all his praise of Israel’s most famous progressive jurist, Justice Scalia is hardly known for his “creativity in advancing liberal causes.”

The bottom line is this: conservatives have no case against Elena Kagan, so they’ve resorted to recycling old attacks that didn’t even work the last time around.  Sadly, they can’t even get their facts straight while dig through long-forgotten garbage.

Q: Now as an independent, do you still feel the same way, and would have opposed or supported her nomination? [...]

CRIST: As it relates to Justice Sotomayor, I would have on the same basis. I believe very much in the Second Amendment. [...]

Q: And you would still have opposed Sotomayor?

CRIST: Yeah, because of that. Yes, sir.

Q: What was her position on the Second Amendment that gave you such — ?

CRIST: To be honest, I can’t recall it right now. My friend was kind enough to add the question with evidence that indicated that. It had to be a ruling that she had had previously though. And I’m happy to research it and get it for you.

Watch it:

(HT: The Political Carnival)

In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term “undocumented immigrant,” according to a legal database. The term “illegal immigrant” has appeared in a dozen decisions.

Terms like “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” are considered pejorative and offensive by immigrants rights organizations. (HT: ImmigrationProf Blog)

Now as Sommer Mathis notes, this is a terrible bar:

That Sotomayor went out dancing and sang karaoke in a local bar makes us supremely happy. We have high hopes that the justice will quickly become a visible fixture in our city. But Sonia, sweetheart, the Irish Channel? The last resort of visiting hockey fans and tourists staying at the Red Roof Inn who have no better ideas of where to go? DCist will admit to knocking a few pints back at the Irish Channel in emergency situations, but nearly every time we’ve been chased out by the unmistakable ambiance of lonely desperation (or a painfully bad cover band).

The Irish Channel Pub is, technically speaking, the closest bar to my apartment. Consequently, I not only have at times knocked a few pints back there, but have even been known to lean on people to go there. But this is a really bad bar. The worst bar in the city, I would say. Chinatown features any number of not-so-appealing bars, but they’re definitely all better than Irish Channel.

“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. And it is even inconsistent with an exchange Judge Sotomayor had with Senator Schumer earlier in the hearing, in which she agreed that foreign law could be used for the same purposes as traditional interpretive tools, such as dictionaries.

“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.

No one, including Judge Sotomayor, actually believes that an American judge is bound by foreign decisions, and Kyl is simply lying when he claims that she does believe this.  One of the first things that any lawyer learns in law school is that not all citations are created equal, and so when a judge cites to one source or another they are not necessarily saying that this source is controlling law.  Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently cited to the Talmud in a judicial opinion, and a Seventh Circuit judge once cited hip hop artist Ludacris, but no one thinks that Scalia believes we should be ruled by unelected Rabbis, or that Seventh Circuit Judge Terence Evans believes that U.S. law is governed by unelected rappers.

As a general rule, citations to binding case law, statutes, regulations and the like are generally referred to as cites to “mandatory” authority, because they rely on legally binding materials that judges have no choice but to follow.  Other citations, to law review articles or holy texts or non-binding caselaw, are known as “persuasive” authority.  So when Sotomayor referred to foreign law as “persuasive” she was saying the exact opposite of what Kyl accuses her of.  “Persuasive” is the legal word for a citation to something that is not controlling law, and when Judge Sotomayor states that she relies on persuasive authority, she is endorsing a practice used by literally every member of the United States Supreme Court and taught to every single lawyer in the country.

Indeed, the difference between mandatory and persuasive authority is so basic, most law students are taught this distinction in their first few weeks of law school.  In light of the fact that Senator Kyl spent many years as a litigator before entering politics, it simply defies belief that he would not be aware of this distinction.  If Kyl actually believed that a judge’s citation to a persuasive source like foreign law indicates that they believe foreign law is binding, mandatory authority, it is unlikely he would have made it this far in his career without being disbarred.

Sadly, however, there is a narrow band of Kyl’s conservative base that gets charged up by false claims that liberals can’t wait to transform America into France.  In Kyl’s world, keeping these nuts fired up is apparently much more important than the truth.

The confirmation of this immensely qualified individual, with her long history of public service, is an historic moment for the Senate, the judiciary, the Hispanic community, and each and every American. Her life story is the essence of the American dream. Regardless of our differences, this is a moment in which we can all celebrate the belief that in America, all things are possible. History will recall this time when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor, and when the country took yet another step forward in fulfilling the promise of our great Nation.

Interestingly, while Inhofe is convinced that the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court is consumed by racial animus, he had very different things to say about a fellow Southern white conservative.  After former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) claimed that America would have avoided “all these problems” if it had put a segregationist in the White House, Inhofe quickly came to Lott’s defense:

“In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently,” Inhofe said. “I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday, but I believe he is right to apologize for the words he used. Racism of any type must not be tolerated.

“Many have been quick to criticize Lott, but few have been quick to accept his apology. I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart. He has apologized and appropriately clarified the meaning of his statements. I believe we should accept his apology and move forward.”

In Jim Inhofe’s America, Sonia Sotomayor is a dangerous bigot who must be stopped, but Strom Thurmond is a “great American.”

Bond’s willingness to break from his fellow conservatives may flow from his plans to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term. A coalition of prominent right-wing activists, led by disgraced computer hacker Manuel Miranda, delivered a letter to minority senators demanding that they filibuster Judge Sotomayor just one week after her nomination was announced. 

Right-wing attack dog Ed Whelan recently warned that conservative senators who do not share his views on judges “may discover that the next elections they face have unwelcome consequences for their political careers.” With no risk of a primary challenge in his future, however, Bond apparently feels comfortable voting his conscience, instead of the right wing’s “white voter strategy.”