RELATED: Oops: Rick Perry Calls New Hampshire Primary ‘Caucuses’ On Fox and Friends

“Sotomayor,” interjected someone off-camera.

“Sotomayor! Sotomayor…” Perry corrected himself. “And Kagan are both activist judges.”

Later on in the editorial interview, Perry incorrectly referred to the “eight” Supreme Court justices.

“For Washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school is, I think, offensive to most Americans,” Perry said. “I trust the people of the states to make those decisions. I trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected, and frankly, unaccountable judges.”

Watch Perry’s oops moment below via the Des Moines Register:

(h/t ThinkProgress)

After taking the constitutional oath reserved for all federal employees earlier today, Kagan took the final oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts. She will begin serving on the bench on the first Monday in October. The New York Times compiled some interesting facts on Kagan as a Supreme Court justice:

Arguably, she made a mark from the moment she took the oaths on Saturday. Ms. Kagan is the third woman to serve on the current court, joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, She is also the fifth justice, or a majority, to have been born after World War II, at once bringing down the average age on the court to 64 years old, from nearly 69. And she is the first since William H. Rehnquist 38 years ago to join the court without experience as a judge.

Watch Kagan’s swearing in ceremony, as broadcast on Fox News, below:

Noting that “[Justice Sonia] Sotomayor, I’m sorry gang, she’s a radical,” Beck warned that Obama would be choosing another “radical” like her, so rather than make a wish list of people he would want to see on the court, he told his viewers to brace themselves for the onslaught of political correctness that the next nominee was sure to bring: “If [Obama]‘s smart, he’ll find a gay, handicapped, black woman who’s an immigrant. Because that way.. she could be the devil, she could say ‘I hate America, I want to destroy America’…” His logic? The left is bleeding moderates, their “base is becoming smaller and smaller,” and so, to energize the people they have left, they need to evoke “hatred and fear.”

Needless to say Media Matters pounced on the clip immediately, conveniently removing the “if he’s smart” modifier to make it sound like Beck is suggesting he has some sort of inside info on who the nominee is. In reality, Beck’s conditional is absolutely right: historically oppressed groups centered around involuntary personal traits are the sacred cows of politics. Regardless of “radicalism,” which is relative, it is difficult to argue that at a certain level of career success, being of a minority group actually becomes a shield. If Beck is correct that Obama is seeking out a “radical” justice, he absolutely should seek someone out who enjoys the privilege of standing behind every possible barrier against legitimate criticism– just ask Michael Steele.

Audio from Friday’s Glenn Beck Program below:

The walls of Kaufmann Concert Hall at the 92nd Street Y are adorned with the names of some of history’s greatest thinkers: Jefferson, Shakespeare, Maimonides. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined them on stage, she fit right in.

The assembled crowd, overwhelmingly made up of people within Ginsburg’s demographic, gave the justice a standing ovation when she entered, and the palpable excitement never died down. Justice Ginsburg was interviewed by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, her longtime friend. Because of the women’s social connection, the discussion skewed away from technical discussion of decisions and toward personal topics that provided insight into the life of a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s difficult to think of the justices as regular people, but they are. Although Ginsburg expressed her dismay over the court’s recent decision about campaign finance reform, she also added that after the decision’s announcement, all nine justices had lunch together and talked about sports and their grandchildren – not about campaign finance. She also spoke about her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia. Many who follow the Supreme Court would view Scalia and Ginsburg as liberal wing-conservative wing antagonists, but Ginsburg is clearly fond of him. She described him as charming and funny. She also shared an anecdote that sums up the “collegiality of the court,” a term used often by Ginsburg. The night of Bush v. Gore, Scalia called to see if Ginsburg was alright. She wasn’t. But the fact that he cared enough to call her demonstrates unseen inner workings of those who make up the highest court.

Ginsburg, speaking deliberately but engagingly all night, also stressed the importance of having women on the court. She said it was crucial to have more than one woman (she was the sole woman on the court for three years between Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment) so that people don’t think that women are all identical in thought and approach. Having multiple women express different opinions is a way to demonstrate diversity. In an argument for further diversity, she said that during the time she shared the bench with O’Connor, once a year a lawyer would call her “Justice O’Connor” or call Justice O’Connor “Justice Ginsburg.” No one has called her Justice Sotomayor so far.

Much of Justice Ginsburg’s passion stems from personal experience. Despite finishing at the top of her class, she got no offers to work at any big law firm because she was a woman. But she said she is thankful for the experience, explaining that she never would have guessed how it would all turn out for her.

What They Said
“This year it was my colleague Justice Stephen Breyer…he was not as effective as my colleague Justice David Souter – at the first sign, he’d give me a solid pinch.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that the justices have dinner and drinks before the State of the Union address, so she sometimes needs a little help staying awake

“Did they expect that the U.S. would look like what it does? I think they did.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that the founding fathers were planting seeds for ideas they knew they wouldn’t see flourish

“When it was 3:00, I cried. And then it was over.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg got emotional while discussing eleventh-hour pleas in death penalty cases. Her first case was the hardest

“You should have told him to go home and take a cold shower.”
Nina Totenberg’s suggested retort to Justice Scalia’s post-Bush v. Gore phone call where he concernedly told Justice Ginsburg to “go home and take a hot bath”

What We Thought

• Note to all panelists and moderators everywhere: In discussing the Lilly Ledbetter decision, Ruth Bader Ginsburg stopped herself to provide necessary background to the case, making the discussion accessible to all in attendance. Nina Totenberg also provided context many times over the evening. Moderators/ Panelists – If Justice Ginsburg can do it, you can too. Always give background!
• We think of the court as philosophically rigid, not a place where people can have their minds changed. But Justice Ginsburg shared a story (she would not reveal which case) in which she began writing the dissent for a 7-2 decision. By the time she finished, the decision was 6-3. And she was in the majority. She had changed 4 justices minds. That gave us some hope.
• We loved that Justice Ginsburg had the constitution with her and at one point pulled it out to read a section. It’s good to know that she actually cares as much as we would wish her to care.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds Don’t Like…Injustice!
We’d normally let it slide, but we were inspired to fight for rights. So we will speak up for audience rights. The 92nd St. Y collected questions on index cards from the audience, but worse – they also took questions submitted online. Your audience showed up and provided the atmosphere. Let them speak! Let them speak! Let them speak! (You’re all chanting along with us, right?)

Somali fashion, do-it-yourself henna kits, children’s books that draw inspiration from the lives of Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor: it’s not hard to find gifts created for and by people of color this holiday season. Here are some possibilities.

I had to read that twice. Because really New York Times? NYTPicker, who was the first to note the addition thinks there’s no other word for it but racist. I’m not sure I’m willing to go that far. But badly, terribly thought out, bordering on offensive, absolutely. I suspect what actually happened was somewhere in the editing process someone thought they should figure out some way to work Barack Obama (he’s done well for them before!) into the mix and then extended it to Sotomayor and voila, suddenly you have a gift guide that weirdly looks like it’s out of some magazine from the 1960′s except this might not have been kosher in the 60′s (for very different reasons). So mainly just of-puttingly weird. Mostly, I am utterly amazed it made it past the editing process and am baffled why anyone felt the need to separate these gifts from the more generalized categories into which all these items fit, to one based on skin color.

In case you’re interested, some of the “possibilities” include ‘The Mocha Manual to Military Life: A Savvy Guide for Wives, Girlfriends and Female Service Members’; ‘Wise Latina’ t-shirts; and a number of hair and make-up products designed for people of color.

Meanwhile, if they are going to include sections devoted to particular segments of the population why only highlight one based on race? (Why highlight it at all, really … there are plenty of things listed here people who are not black or Latino may want, but anyway.) Why not have a section for the gay people in your life? Or Jewish? The answer, of course, is because it is insulting and offensive and so utterly at odds with how the NYT conducts itself in all other areas of the paper. I emailed the NYT to ask for an explanation behind their thinking, and will update accordingly.

Related: NYT Gift Guide Includes A Separate Section For “People Of Color.” White Readers You May Skip To The Next Page [NYTPicker]

Turns out no journalists were involved. Just politically driven bloggers. They’re, like, the new kind of journalists who work for free because they love the truth so much, I think.

In this month’s Atlantic, veteran print journalist Mark Bowden explains it quite well. Bowden examines what he calls “the daily tide of manure,” which journalists used to sieve and winnow into the truth. Now the stench just rots on the shore. Bowden follows Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ and ‘apellate judges make policy’ sound bites from the deep recesses of the Internet onto the cable news networks — and not just FOX news — and ultimately into the spotlight of the Senate’s confirmation hearing (Meme Watch).

I would describe their approach as post-journalistic. It sees democracy, by definition, as perpetual political battle. The blogger’s role is to help his side. Distortions and inaccuracies, lapses of judgment, the absence of context, all of these things matter only a little, because they are committed by both sides, and tend to come out a wash. Nobody is actually right about anything, no matter how certain they pretend to be. The truth is something that emerges from the cauldron of debate. No, not the truth: victory, because winning is way more important than being right. Power is the highest achievement. There is nothing new about this. But we never used to mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly replacing journalism, leading us toward a world where all information is spun, and where all “news” is unapologetically propaganda.

Bowden unwraps how hobbyist blogger Morgen Richmond, a computer consultant by trade, dug up the sound bite-ready videos, edited them into shocking but digestible segments and posted them on his blog Verum Serum because he knew they were damaging to Sotomayor. From his blog, the videos were picked up by larger conservative sites, like the Volokh Conspiracy and Hot Air. And of course cable news producers, feeding their 24-hour news cycle habit, couldn’t resist once they saw the buzz that the videos were generating online.

Bowden’s piece is nostalgically backward-looking, almost eulogizing the downfall of journalism as he holds up the “the quaint protocols of my ancient newsroom career” to the sad state of affairs today. He ends the piece with the words of H. L. Menken, who called the journalist’s life “the life of kings.”

Bowden writes: “Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth.” But not anymore. The kingdom has been laid to waste.

Sotomayor says that “appellate judges make policy…” at Duke University in 2005:

Fox Coverage, with the clips of Sotomayor:

Gossip Cop reports today that Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony hosted a dinner in honor of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina Supreme Court Justice.

From Gossip Cop:

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony hosted a dinner in honor of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina Supreme Court Justice. The intimate get-together was last night at the couple’s Long Island, New York home. Gossip Cop is told the dinner was preceded by a cocktail party and attended by about a dozen people, mostly political types. Everyone in the Lopez and Anthony camps are remaining mum about the private dinner party.

Gossip Cop rates this a “10” on the Truth-o-Meter, so clearly we can trust this report more than those rumors of Sotomayor hitting the clubs with Paris Hilton and Snoop Dogg.

It was the usual display of Hispanic pride, respect for the accomplished judge and her mother, and the reshaping of the American Dream.

Then NPR’s Tell Me More host Michel Martin asked what Gerson Borrero had to say.

“You’re a columnist, so I think you probably have a little bit more latitude in what you may say,” Martin said, a hint of irony slipping between her words.

“With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues, both of them…” Borrero said – and launched into one of his famous tirades.

Eighty seconds of ranting ensued, with Borrero calling the networks’ programming “ridiculous,” and denouncing “the suits” who ran them for not caring to “educate, illustrate and inform” Hispanics.

After being stopped by Michel to allow a reply from Univisión’s anchor María Elena Salinas, and Telemundo’s reporter Lori Montenegro, Borrero decided to abandon the conversation.

He felt he wasn’t given the chance to fully express his point of view.

Yet it was probably a good morning for Borrero, who seems to enjoy a good controversy as some enjoy a fine bottle of wine.

The Puerto-Rican-born New Yorker has been picking fights over Hispanic issues for decades, most notably when he lost a radio talk show after suggesting that three Hispanic Congressmen lacked political cojones (one of them was a woman, for whom he preferred the term “ovaries”); and when he resigned to the position of editor in chief of New York’s El Diario over a column on education reform in Cuba signed by Fidel Castro.

These days, Borrero is most recognized for his weekly appearances in NY1′s Inside City Hall, where he confronts Guardian Angels’ Curtis Sliwa, and his “Bajo Fuego” columns in El Diario. He has also recently added a new platform for his commentary with the Borrero Report.

In a conversation with Mediaite’s “Meet The Prensa,” Mr. Borrero addressed his position on the political status of Puerto Rico (“occupied”), his upbringing in the Bronx (“it made me tougher”), Fox News (“drive-by racists”), soap operas (“they make people stupid”), Hispanic radio (“full of Howard Stern wannabes”), and his insult-ridden journalistic style.

It was also the first time he addressed his NPR controversy on Univisión and Telemundo.

“As far as I am concerned, they could go out of business tomorrow,” he quipped.

Interview below:

Meet the Prensa #2: Gerson Borrero from josesimian on Vimeo

One line of the President’s stood out as possible fodder for criticism in much the same way Judge Sonia Sotomayor‘s “wise Latina” comment became a conservative talking point.

Here’s the full passage:

That’s part of the African American experience. You are, in some ways, connected to this distant land, but on the other end, you’re about as American as it gets in some ways. African Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience because they don’t have a recent immigrant experience to draw on. It’s that unique African American culture that has existed in North America for hundreds of years long before we actually founded the nation.

The key line, of course, is “African Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience.” Obama did not expand on this, nor did Anderson Cooper ask a follow up. So did Mr. Obama mean that African Americans are more rooted in American experience than other Americans, or more rooted in American experience than the African experience? Or does it really matter?

Perhaps more importantly, will this become a “gotcha” moment? The quote could imply, at least without proper context, something similar to Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment. It could be the calm before the storm – it hasn’t even been a week since the interview first aired. So far it has been picked up only in the context of a discussion on the African American experience.

Whether the line becomes a conduit for a larger discussion on race in this country, or a talking point for the Obama detractors remains to be seen.

The interview is below, with the key passage starting around the 6:45 mark:

—–
• Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Consider the television networks. Univisión regularly has over 3 million viewers in prime time, competing neck and neck with the traditional broadcast networks. NBC’s Telemundo network, along with Azteca América and Univisión’s cable signals Telefutura and Galavisión, add millions of viewers to the mix. Yet their power comes mostly from soap operas, showbiz programs and sports—not news or political coverage.

The lack of a clear standardbearer is more dramatic in the Hispanic press. The largest circulations belong to Los Angeles’ La Opinión (92,289 on weekdays), Miami’s El Nuevo Herald (a spin-off of The Miami Herald, 71,318), and New York’s El Diario (52,780). But however influential these newspapers may be in their respective communities (El Diario‘s recent campaign for Sonia Sotomayor is a good example), their aim seems to be locally-oriented, and their journalistic and political clutch stops at the borders of their respective states. Countless other Spanish publications exist in the country, all following the same local, community-based structure.

This state of affairs may be due to the numerous national groups that fall under the Hispanic umbrella, each with its own slang and cultural references. Of the total Hispanics population living in the United States, 64% are of Mexican background and 9% are of Puerto Rican origins. From the remaining 27%, no country represents more than 3%. Furthermore, these Hispanic factions have gathered in different regions of the country. Thus, while the West and Southwest are largely dominated by Mexicans, Florida has traditionally had a Cuban majority, and New York a Puerto Rican one. From this perspective, then, a national Hispanic newspaper or magazine seems unlikely.

There is yet another obstacle for a unified high standard outlet: the language. As time goes by and Latino immigrants have children and grandchildren born in the United States, many of the new generations are more at ease with English than with Spanish. A 2007 study by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that, even when only 23% of Latino immigrants spoke English “very well,” nearly all Hispanic adults born in the United States to Hispanic parents were fluent in the language.

This language shift in Hispanics creates a paradox for media. Even when outlets can rely on a constantly growing audience due to immigration and a birth rate three times higher than that of general population, many of its potential readers and viewers switch to mainstream English media upon reaching a certain degree of English proficiency and cultural assimilation. Hence, Hispanic media is set to constantly lose some of its more sophisticated audience. In mainstream television, this may explain sticking to basic entertainment; in print, it favors basic coverage of local news, sports and —once again— showbiz. (It is not surprising that the only successful Latino magazine at the national level is People en Español.)

New media outlets are emerging to cater to the young bilingual or English-speaking Hispanic demographic. An interesting example is Guanabee, a growing pop culture website that attempts to give “a fresh glance into the world of Latino affairs without the sentimentality or stereotypes found in other media.” “The Spanish market is well saturated, but no one was talking to people like me about what it meant to be Latino in this country,” says co-founder Cindy Casares, a fifth-generation Mexican-American journalist. (Targeting the bilingual and bicultural Latinos has also been attempted by NBC’s bilingual Mun2 cable station, as well as Latino sections in newspapers like “Viva” in New York’s Daily News, and “Tempo” in the New York Post.)

Something else is missing in this conversation: media criticism. This column will be an effort to give a more detailed account of the achievements and challenges of Hispanic outlets; a modest attempt to bring this immense cobweb of newspapers, TV stations and websites to standards comparable to those of our Anglo-Saxon colleagues.

Mediaite readers, please meet the prensa.

(And while we’re at it, I’ll keep reading the New Yorker for inspiration.)

José Simián is a producer at NY1 Noticias, where he hosts a literature and music interview segment. His writing has appeared in NY Daily News, Huffington Post, Sports Illustrated Latino and Billboard en Español. He will be writing the “Meet The Prensa” column for Mediaite.

The “Most Trusted Name in News” is the only of the big three cable news networks to devote significant time to the coverage of the hearings today, while witnesses testify for and against Sotomayor. We asked CNN why they chose to stick with the story in Day 3.

A CNN spokesperson tells Mediaite, “CNN has been airing the Judge Sotomayor hearings throughout the week because we are a news organization and we cover and report the news.”

It’s a news cred-off.

Fox says they’ve monitored the hearings, and taken it live several times throughout the day. They’re also live now with New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci testifying at the hearing, as is MSNBC. MSNBC told us pretty much the same thing – covering the big story of the day (Ricci’s testimony) and dipping in and out the rest of the morning and afternoon.

CNN’s response is interesting, especially in the context of the previous two weeks, when they were the Michael Jackson network of record.

Maybe it’s less about covering and reporting “the news,” than is it about covering and reporting “events.”

—–

• Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

The newest U.S. Senator spent the first three minutes of his time reminiscing about what apparently was a favorite show of his and Sotomayor’s.

Luckily it all made sense when Franken took it full circle: “Here we are today. I’m asking you questions because you have been nominated to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I think that’s pretty cool.”

When Franken got over how “cool” it was, he turned his attention to the Internet.

By the way, Franken read from his “pocket Constitution” during his Q&A, which sounds like something that may happen if Al Franken was playing “Al Franken” on SNL.

This should be fun.

—–

• Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

News reporters like to catch readers’ attention with a few zingy lines at the start of an article. Sometimes, these so-called “ledes” go horribly wrong. In Today’s Worst News Ledes, we highlight some of the worst offenders:

3. From the Kentucky Post:

While experts say they don’t have a universal description of what makes a Facebook addict, they have come up with a five point test to determine how much it is affecting your life.

“Experts say” is a perennial not-trying-too-hard lede that always raises our eyebrows. But this story ‘takes it to the max’ by a) using the term to refer to highly trained Facebook addiction experts, who at minimum have doctorates in Overcovered Social Network Epidemiology, and b) not actually interviewing anyone, but paraphrasing the bullet points in a CNN medical reporter’s listicle. Journalism!

2. From Reuters’ Front Row Washington Blog:

Today seems a bit like a repeat of yesterday, just with a bit of a twist.

On the healthcare front, action moves to the Senate side with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee due to finish work on and present its version of the healthcare bill. The Senate Finance Committee is still hammering out details on how to pay for a massive healthcare overhaul and holds a closed door meeting before it presents its version of the bill next week.

Twisty! Also, maybe as a special surprise there will be something about this “Sotomayor” character in the last three paragraphs (spoiler: there is), though when most people think of yesterday’s political news, they think about the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

1. From the Chicago Tribune:

In a scene that would have played well in the movie “Bruno,” authorities say a man in his early 20s made off with more than $350 in fragrances from a Deerfield cosmetics store, including two bottles of cologne from one of the gay character’s favorite designers, D&G.

(For the uninitiated, Bruno explains the importance of those two trendy initials after he shows up at an Army boot camp wearing a uniform and a flashy white belt with D&G on the buckle. When the drill instructor angrily asks him what the initials mean, Bruno looks at him in amazement and says, “Dolce & Gabbana, hello!”)

The “this would have played well in Bruno” hook is already questionable enough, but this lede takes the cake for taking an additional paragraph to explain the joke. Helpfully, it mentions that Bruno is a “gay character,” for those who haven’t seen his magazine covers, his TV interviews, or his critical reception. What robbery story has ever explained a pop culture reference so thoroughly?

For those covering the event, this is a big deal — a new voice not only shakes up the court, but has the potential to carve new fault lines along 5-4 majorities and make Antonin Scalia that much less of a scary, scary man. Never mind that, anything can happen at these hearings: Family members can tear up! Pubic hair can appear on cans of coke! Jeff Sessions can get his chance in the spotlight! Confirmation hearings provide some great moments in covering the Supreme Court — so Mediaite thought we’d ask some of our favorite legal eagles to share their thoughts on the process. (We specifically chose the empathetic ones.) The New Yorker/CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, Slate/NYT’s Dahlia Lithwick, CBS’s Andrew Cohen and SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein graciously responded to my questions, perhaps grateful that they were nicer than what the GOP probably has planned for today. Here, for your SCOTUS-tracking pleasure, are their responses (edited for clarity to make them sound smarter, because clearly they need my help).

How many of these confirmation hearings have you attended?

Toobin:  I covered Roberts and Alito in 2005.  Remember there was an eleven year gap between those nominations and Breyer in 1994. During the last dramatic confirmation hearing — Clarence Thomas in 1991 — I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn.

Cohen: This is my third confirmation. I covered Alito and Roberts as well.

Goldstein: I’ve been to all of Ginsburg and Breyer (as Nina Totenberg’s intern) and Roberts, and some of Alito.  We’ve live-blogged Roberts and Alito, if I remember right.

Lithwick:  I covered Roberts and Alito and am at this one. No vacancies before that since I was at law school, I think

Is this a huge mecca for legal media? Going to any fancy lawyer parties? (oxymoron alert!)

Cohen: I have no idea about any parties. I don’t “party” when I cover something like this because I have to work 18 hour days. I have brought my 10-year-old son with me, and he’s excited to be a part of history, and when I’m off we’ll be enjoying DC. I suspect you will be hearing that same answer from most serious journalists who are covering this. It ain’t the Hamptons.

Goldstein: All of the legal media is certainly here — e.g., all of the S. Ct. press corps is here, though some have left.  The legal media doesn’t have much in the way of press jockeying.  Sometimes law firms or law schools will offer up their people, but that’s about it. For this, it’s the political people and interest groups who are jockeying, and they are doing it a ton.  The rest of the media is here, and they make up the great majority of people.  By week’s end, the non-Hispanic media will be pretty much gone.

Toobin: I don’t think it’s a huge mecca for legal media.  A lot of people “cover” a confirmation hearing by watching it on TV.  I am unaware of a single party.  Perhaps I’m not invited.

Lithwick: If there are lots of parties I don’t know about ‘em. Yes every legal journo around is here. I am going to a book party tonight. But if its Court Nerd Sundance Festival I am not on the right lists.

Whose analysis (other than your own) are you looking forward to the most?

Cohen: I enjoy reading Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. Also, Tony Mauro for the National Law Journal. Both first-rate analysts-commentators.

Lithwick: Tom Goldstein’s analysis at SCOTUSblog. Nina and Ari at NPR have been en fuego. Andrew Cohen at CBS. Charlie Savage and Adam Liptak at Times. Jan Greenburg at ABC. I am sure I am forgetting people. I am not looking forward to my own coverage at all. It will be like covering a long sad group therapy session . . .

Toobin: I am looking forward to following SCOTUSblog.com.  Tom Goldstein’s team does an extraordinary job — fair, comprehensive, and rigorous.

[Goldstein's answers were not organized according to question, so the closest I have to an answer for this is, "I have a lot of faith in the S. Ct. press corps.  I am doing an hourly show each night with Nina Totenberg." But I'm sure he loves his co-respondents as much as they love him.]

Do you think the presence of Sotomayor’s mother in the courtroom will have a chilling (or chastising) effect on zealous GOP questioners, a la the teary Mrs. Alito a few years back?

Lithwick: Having her mom here will chill them some but the Tom Tancredo stupidity [calling the National Council of La Raza "the Latino KKK"] will chill them more. Cornyn can’t afford to lose Hispanic voters

Toobin: I think the overall politics of the situation — fear of further offending Hispanic voters — is the bigger check on obnoxious questioning.

Goldstein: I don’t think that the family’s presence will inhibit attacks.  Everyone is playing a role here, and for some that role is to be really nasty.

How much will the current members of the court participate? Do they have any media presence at all?

Cohen: The current members of the Court do not participate at all in this process. It has nothing to do with them. Justice Ginsburg DID do an interview recently which appeared in the Times.

Lithwick: No. The fact that Ginsburg is even talking to papers is amazing.

Toobin: In the confirmation hearing, zero, although I was interested to read Ruth Ginsburg’s interview with Emily Bazelon in the Times.  RBG seems to be stepping up her media presence.

Toobs! As the guy who wrote the definitive SCOTUS book, how do you think she’ll fit into the club?

Toobin: Fine.  Ever since  Rehnquist took over as chief, the justices have made a special effort to get along with each other.  It’s a collegial court.  They fight on paper, but not in real life.

Do you look at the all-day coverage, the frenzy of suddenly caring about this, and think: Where WERE all you people during the election? The SCOTUS pick got virtually no attention during the race, it was really quite amazing to me.

Cohen: I don’t really perceive a frenzy. A CBS poll we just did revealed that nearly two-thirds of Americans don’t have an opinion about Judge Sotomayor.

Toobin: I don’t think it’s a “frenzy.” I think most people regard the result as a foregone conclusion.

Lithwick: My whole life in election years is trying to persuade people that the court matters. They are not persuaded. Then these hearings happen in bad cartoonish ways and i think “maybe its better we didn’t talk about the court during elections.”

Is there a burden on Sotomayor here to be all things to women?

Lithwick: I think there is a burden on her to be  both soft and accessible (i.e. not a bully) and also mechanical and Vulcan (i.e. not “empathetic”)  — that’s a tough line. I think she may have to walk it by being, in effect, less than she is; by just being very neutral and boring.  Women find her relatable in ways they didn’t find O’Connor and Ginsburg. Sotomayor is more human. That’s both a benefit and liability.

So far, the focus has been on her fireman case, and the “Wise Latina” comment. Have you been surprised there’s been so little chatter about Roe?

Lithwick: Protesters in front of senate handing out dismembered baby cards and saying “No on Sotomayor.”  See also Randall Terry.  There is a lot out there about Roe, especially for a nominee that has no significant abortion cases.

Toobin: I think people just assume — correctly, in my view — that a pro-Roe president will appoint a pro-Roe Justice. And she will be replacing a pro-Roe Justice.

Cohen: Nothing surprises me about the pre-confirmation hype any more. Typically, what is important gets overlooked and what isn’t is the focus.

How much of this is optics – the carefully-planned briefing book, the sparkling all-American bio, in effect the PR campaign. Would you call this a substantive process?

Cohen: This is not as substantive as it ought to be but it’s better than what usually passes for hearings on Capitol Hill.

Can this really change everything?

Toobin: Who knows?

Lithwick:  It can change the way we think about the courts and the way we talk about them. Maybe energize Obama team for next pick?

Cohen: Oh, I don’t think it changes much although I happen to think that the Court SHOULD look a little more like America, whether it’s populated by more conservative or more liberal voices.

What would you say to someone who thinks covering the Supreme Court is boring?

Cohen: Supreme Court coverage often is boring. Occasionally it isn’t. This process today would be far less boring if the politicians spoke less and the nominee spoke more and more candidly.

Lithwick: I would say Suprem Court coverage is awesome. But confirmation hearings are to the Supreme Court what pop tarts are to fine dining…

Toobin: My life is devoted to disproving the proposition that the Supreme Court is boring.

Photo credits from top: Sotomayor: Michael Reynolds/EPA (via MSNBC); Jeff Toobin: Promo shot for The Nine via JeffToobin.com; Dahlia Lithwick: C-Ville.com; Andrew Cohen via Twitter; Tom Goldstein via AkinGump.com.

“Obiter Dicta” is a law joke. Please indulge me, I so rarely get to make them anymore.

Following MSNBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of the Sonia Sotomayor hearing, Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and Richard Wolffe were recapping the highlights. And then, just as he famously did with President Barack Obama, Matthews described a “thrill” watching the hearings:

“Well, I’m getting one of those thrills, that I get about America. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t say this, and I’m getting it again.”

We’re searching for video…pass along if you find and we’ll post it.

> Update: Here’s the video, via Newsbusters:

> Update at 6:15pmET: msnbc.com now has the video up, so we’re switching it out:

“Live, from Washington, D.C. it’s Al Franken at the Sonia Sotomayor hearing!”

Franken’s opening statement was just a few minutes, and got interrupted by a protester like some of his other Democratic colleagues. The “I know that I have a lot to learn” chyron choice by MSNBC was employed by a couple other networks, so we included a few more from his soon-to-be-replayed-incessantly comments.

Here’s FNC:

The highlight of course being his tireless work as an SNL writer. And here’s MSNBC:

Well he’s only been a Senator for five days, but he has played one on TV!

Do you have a pick for Chyron of the Day? Email me at Steve@Mediaite.com with an image or time/network…

Sarah Palin returns to the cover of Time for the first time since September 2008. In the weeks following her debut as McCain’s running mate, she appeared tightly cropped with a stiff collar. Then she still had the mystery and intrigue of a dark horse, small town political player. After more than ten months of media scrutiny (and some might say embarrassment), she shouldn’t have such an easy time standing on the cover.

Mediaite Grade (C+): We’re used to provocative Sarah Palin covers, so plain-Jane Sarah standing on a dock and staring off into the distance isn’t cutting it for us anymore. It almost seems that Time is bending over backwards to show us that Sarah Palin and the media are not enemies. ‘Renegade’ might be close to the most kind-hearted — not to mention dull — spin we’ve seen on her recent antics. Still, Time deserves credit for not going for the easy jab: ‘Sarah Palin takes the road less traveled, but where does it lead?’ Pick up Time this week if you still have the stomach for the next chapter in ‘The Education of Sarah Palin.’

Clad in stars and bars, a winking Sarah Palin falls through the sky, clutching her parachute lines through a thumbs-up. The Week’s caricature isn’t concerned with challenging our understanding of Palin, but it does paint the latest Palin news in the humorous light that we need to actually read it.

Mediaite Grade (B): Here’s the funny Sarah Palin cover we’ve been waiting two weeks for. Nothing especially creative in the concept, but the execution wins us over. We’re still happy to have The Week’s blessing to laugh after the last two weeks of news. Gotcha, Sarah.

With all eyes turned to the courts this week, attorney general Eric Holder is a smart choice for the Newsweek cover. But what gives with the photo? Looks like the real Eric Holder was too busy for a photo shoot, so they just used a shot of a cardboard cutout on a bare DC street corner.

Mediaite Grade (C): Hats off to Newsweek for making good on their promise to shove less celebrity worship in our face. And we’re itching to read the Holder story inside. Too bad this one probably isn’t going to fly off the magazine stand (although it might blow away). And if somebody happens to see the real attorney general anywhere, have him call Renegade Sarah Palin for a lesson in gazing off the page (is he spacing out or watching somebody get mugged?).

The New Republic goes old school with a tried-and-true American political celebrity: Honest Abe. While we were all busy holding our breath through Obama’s first 100 days this February, apparently the the oft-quoted (these days) American hero Lincoln turned 200.

Mediaite Grade (B+): When was the last time we had the stamina to sit down with a  lengthy feature about a long-dead historical figure? But maybe these summer months are just the time to kick back and savor a thought piece. And if we opt for the The New Republic over The Week, we don’t have to have the cruelty of our bleeding-heart liberalism rubbed in our face. This is no cheap-shot political cartoon — this is a portrait of an American legend.

COVER WARS WINNER: The New Republic – This week we graded on a curve and the dorky kid at the back of the class (who only comes out twice a month) won! After what felt like a solid month of wall-to-wall MJ with a little bit of Farah and Sarah peaking through the cracks, we’re ready for a little bit of brain food. A trip down memory lane with ol’ Abe might be just the vacation from this summer’s news that we’ve been looking for.

The hearings start at 10amET, and some networks are already announcing coverage plans. Expect huge coverage online as well, with live streaming of the full hearings happenings on all the news Web sites.

With the huge Supreme Court (and Congress) focus, expect correspondents and pundits specializing in each to move way up the Power Grid.

The Sotomayor hearings won’t have the global impact of Jackson’s death and memorial, but in a news cycle running on warp speed, expect a saturation on the cablers similar to the King of Pop coverage.

—–

• Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter