In a largely partisan vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by a margin of 13 to 6. From the NY Times:

As expected, all 12 Democrats on the judiciary panel voted for Judge Sotomayor, after praising her intellect, character and inspiring personal history. But among the seven Republicans on the committee, only Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor.

The committee action sends the nomination to the full Senate, where her confirmation by a comfortable margin seems to be assured. setting the stage for a full Senate vote next week.

…

Republican critics of the judge expressed displeasure with her rulings as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as well as with some of her public comments. The rulings and comments show that she is a judge who is too “activist” and liberal and has too little commitment to the rights of gun owners, the critics complained.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s leading Republican, said just before the vote that he was compelled to oppose the nomination because in some important cases the judge’s decisions were “unacceptably short” and showed a “liberal, pro-government ideology against the individuals asserting their constitutional rights.”

Pior to the vote, freshman Senator Al Franken (D-MN) pledged his support to Sotomayor, hoping her presence would counter the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

Bill Maher has a politically incorrect visit on CNN today with Wolf Blitzer. Even the police and their “bad attitude” aren’t safe.

Note his play on word’s with “Stupid Country” when discussing Sarah Palin. He’s gonna catch some flack for this…

The Senate Armed Services Committee has agreed to hold hearings on Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell (DADT) this fall thanks to a commitment secured by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who is trying to overturn the policy. The agreement comes on the heels of an amendment floated by Sen. Gillibrand two weeks ago which would have placed a temporary moratorium on discharges under DADT. The amendment was never introduced as Gillibrand failed to gather the 60 votes necessary for passage.

This will be first time Congress has evaluated the policy since it was enacted in 1993 under President Clinton. There are also efforts to overturn the DADT in the House under the leadership of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran.

Senator Claire McCaskill suggested yesterday if a concealed weapons law she had voted against had actually passed, it could have set a precedent for forcing states, like her home state of Missouri, to recognize another state’s gay marriage laws.

Sen. McCaskill says she was not against letting people carry concealed weapons. But she is against requiring one state to accept another state’s laws that might differ from its own. She says it would be a foot in the door that could allow Vermont’s laws on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri, which has a constitutional provision against gay marriage.

McCaskill says many of the supporters of the proposal are advocates for states’ rights, but they want to override states’ rights on carrying concealed weapons.

McCaskill audio available here:

[audio:http://www.missourinet.com/podcast/feed/a6afff9d-c09f-1e1c-6be13276f8998390/article/a39175b5-5056-b82a-37fd2022b5878c0c/audio/a451587c-5056-b82a-37678da2082718e8/macgun.mp3]

Senator McCaskill has since attempted to clarify her position via email.
(via Pam’s House Blend)

“In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

While it is true that Republicans are demonstrating hypocrisy with regards to state’s rights on this issue, based on McCaskill’s original statement, it really sounds like she thinks DOMA is a “good” idea.

PROMO, The Missouri LGBT advocacy group has responded to McCaskill’s comments today:

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [McCaskill] stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”

This is a problem. A state’s rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.

In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield. Please reach out to Sen. McCaskill’s office and let her know while she is an ally, you won’t tolerate being used as a shield. The numbers listed are below for local and DC offices.

Gay Republicans have also expressed particular outrage over McCaskill’s comments, an outrage likely fueled more by the fact that McCaskill is a Democrat and their strong support of the concealed weapons law, than anything about gay marriage.