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.

After losing a lawsuit accusing the city of San Francisco of hostility toward the Catholic Church, Richard Thompson of the Thomas Moore Law Center had some harsh words for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, drawing on the holocaust for inspiration:

“It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco board’s actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung, vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination.”

Filed on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (CLRCR), the lawsuit accused a board of supervisors resolution of violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion. The resolution which originally passed in 2006, denounced an order from the Vatican to Catholic Charities decreeing that adoptive children could not be placed with same-sex couples because it “would actually mean doing violence to these children.” The resolution called the Vatican order “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric” and asked that local Catholic officials ignore it. They did not, and actually stopped placing adoptive children entirely.

CLRCR is headed by Bill Donohue, a rabidly anti-gay, anti-progressive Catholic apologist who regularly appears on cable news networks promulgating his views. Recently Donohue characterized an Irish report detailing abuse of children by Catholic priests and nuns as “hysterical,” even to one of its victims.

Sometimes hypocrisy is subtle, and sometimes it screams from the rooftops. Mr. Thompson, I’d suggest you and the Thomas Moore Law Center refrain from referencing Nazis and the final solution when defending the Catholic faith, particularly when considering the role the Catholic Church played in Nazi abuses during World War II. And Mr. Donohue, don’t you see the irony in defending your church against multiple cases of child abuse, while at the same time participating in a lawsuit which defends your church’s right to accuse same-sex parents of essentially the same thing? Astonishing.

This case unfortunately is far from over. The Thomas More Law Center has asked for a rehearing and will take their case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case on DADT gave Rachel Maddow another opportunity last night to take President Obama to task on his promise to repeal the controversial policy. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey lends a hand, one of the original cosponsors of bill (H.R. 1283) which would overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Watch:

This is hardly a surprise, considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court… From AP News:

Without comment, the nation’s highest court denied a review of an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was in the Vermont National Guard when he was discharged in 2004.

“I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves,” said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. “It’s nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination.”

“The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time,” added Pietrangelo, who now lives in Ohio.

In court papers, the government said a Boston-based appeals court ruled correctly when it threw out Pietrangelo’s case because the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council approved of the court’s actions, “Military service is a privilege, not a right, and anything that detracts from the ability of our service personnel to fulfill their mission should be prohibited.”

This is the first time a case asking to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has ever reached the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has refused to take steps to repeal the ban despite promises made during the campaign, preferring to leave it in the hands of Congress to overturn.