Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s racial entitlement argument has caused a bit of debate as the judge said out loud what many Americans in a very racially divided country don’t — that certain considerations given minorities are essentially unfair to white folk.

That Scalia’s racial entitlement argument was even made in and of itself is not shocking — the most recent election revealed a country still heavily divided among race lines. Much campaign rhetoric centered around whether Barack Obama’s supporters were able to stage an essential coup in luring poor, and often black or Hispanic, voters with “free gifts” such as healthcare, SNAP benefits and other “goodies” to give them a competitive edge over hard-working white people.

Seeing the racial entitlement argument filter into the Supreme Court is not unexpected after the toxic debate permeated media and the voting booth — and even in concession, Romney went down fighting the fight of the oppressed white man.

Also at issue in the most recent election, preceding Scalia’s racial entitlement article, was the relative ease of voting for middle-class and often white voters versus their possibly poorer, possibly blacker counterparts. And indeed, it emerged troublingly that the GOP has no moral qualms about working to make voting a more difficult to access right among socio-economically challenged folk in order to win elections.

In discussion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Scalia’s racial entitlement argument was made, with the justice opining:

“Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Scalia’s vague assertion that “it’s been written about” (by whom, how, and in what context were not, of course, elaborated upon) are only the start of questions one might ask about the pervasive racial entitlements to which he refers.

A Salon writer explains that in her view, the racial entitlement argument made by the Supreme Court Judge may in fact reveal a racial entitlement of a different sort — white people, and wealthy people, who feel that their political clout should be stronger by merit of birthright:

“The right-wing justice’s rant goes to the heart of long-held conservative ambivalence about democracy: that corrupt politicians will be able to buy off the rabble, with “spoils” or patronage or jobs; even outright gifts of cash. Only men of wealth, property and education could be trusted to rise above such rank bribery, which is why many states had property requirements and other limits on voting in the early days of our country; universal suffrage didn’t even reach all white men until 1830.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was similarly unsurprised but unimpressed with Scalia’s racial entitlement argument — butd the news host was also dismissive of the Judge’s views, likening them to that of an attention seeking internet commenter as she spoke with The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart:

“He knows it’s offensive. He knows he’s going to get a gasp from the court room, which he got. And he loves it. He’s like the guy on your blog comment thread who is using the N-word — ‘Oh did I make you mad? Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad?’ — he’s like that … When we’re all shocked that he said something so blatantly offensive about the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act, he’s thinking: ‘Oh yeah, I did,’”

ThinkProgress also weighed in on the implications of Scalia’s racial entitlement article — to wit, that the comment was not just an indicator of how he sees black voters, but also a signal that the Judge is willing to interpret the law based not wholly on the law’s intent, but what he believes personally and politically:

“This is a disturbing idea for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that its logic could extend well beyond the Voting Rights Act. There is a common belief among conservatives that welfare programs by their very nature lead to the kind of so-called breakdown of democracy that Scalia finds objectionable in the Voting Rights Act case … [In the 47 percent video], Romney warned that as the government creates welfare programs, this transforms welfare recipients into a constituency for those programs. And eventually that constituency becomes so large that it is impossible for a lawmaker to repeal those programs, or for people who oppose those programs to get elected.”

But like much that is revealed in a small, inadvertent glimpse, Scalia’s racial entitlement argument is more disheartening than it is actionable per se — we can talk about it and we can object to it as thinking Americans, but at the end of the day, there is a man sitting on the bench in the highest court in the land that looks back to our biggest civil rights victories and views them not as progress, but as another chip away from the imagined facade of “Real America.”

Scalia’s Racial Entitlement Argument Reveals Ugly Truths, But No Surprises is a post from: The Inquisitr

A racial entitlement argument from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has angered civil eights leaders after the justice suggested that the Voting Rights Act was re-authorized by politicians afraid of upsetting minorities.

Scalia made the racial entitlement argument while the court was discussing the Voting Rights Act, which was passed at the height of the Civil Rights Movement to end discrimination at voting polls in the south. A number of states and counties are arguing to the court that the 1965 act is no longer needed to give special protection to blacks at the polls.

The conservative Scalia seemed to agree. He said that each time the act has been re-authorized it has had more support in the Senate, despite the fact that racial discrimination at the polls has decreased, Yahoo! News noted.

“Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this,” he said. “I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

The racial entitlement argument drew almost immediate criticism. Congressman John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who played a key role in the Civil Rights Movement, strongly disagreed with Antonin Scalia.

“It is an affront to all of what the civil rights movement stood for, what people died for, what people bled for, and those of us who marched across that bridge 48 years ago, we didn’t march for some racial entitlement,” Lewis told MSNBC. “We wanted to open up the political process and let all of the people come in, and it didn’t matter whether they were black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American.”

The debate over the Voting Rights Act seems to have divided the court, The Huffington Post noted. Justice Sonya Sotomayor argued that Shelby County, Alabama, with its continued history of racial discrimination, wouldn’t be the right place to argue against the act.

“Some parts of the South have changed. Your county pretty much hasn’t,” said Sotomayor. “You may be the wrong party bringing this.”

Even with the criticism of Scalia’s racial entitlement argument, many followers of the Supreme Court believe at least part of the Voting Rights Act — likely the part that specifically targets states and counties with a history of racial discrimination at the polls — will be struck down.

Racial Entitlement Argument From Justice Antonin Scalia Draws Criticism is a post from: The Inquisitr

A pending US Supreme Court case could ban yard sales and popular online selling websites such as eBay and Craigslist. In 1997, Supap Kirtsaeng relocated from Thailand to attend Cornell University. Kirtsaeng was not on campus long before he realized how much more expensive college text books were in America than his native Thailand.

The industrious young man asked his family to buy a whole lot of books and ship them to him in the United States. Kirtsaeng reportedly made a $1.2 million profit by selling the academic books on eBay at prices which undercut bookstores across the country, Death and Taxes Magazine reports. Wiley, the textbook manufacturer, sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, Market Watch notes.

During the first court battle, which Supap Kirtsaeng lost, the judge ruled that the first-sale principle only applies to items manufactured in the United States. The law basically states that a company or business can only get paid one time for a product, and a customer has the right to re-sell it later and keep the proceeds.

Once upon a time, when most of the items Americans used where actually made here, the law did not spark much controversy. But, if the US Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s ruling, yard sales and making some extra cash by getting rid of unwanted items online would likely come to an end.

Internet giant eBay is watching the court case very closely. A statement released by the company claims that not allowing items made abroad to be covered by the first-sale principle would adversely impact trade, small businesses, e-commerce, consumers, and jobs in the United States. Since many American-made vehicles have parts that were manufactured overseas, selling old cars to help finance a new one could very well be a thing of the past as well.

The first-sale principle became law in 1908. If SCOTUS does not overturn the lower court ruling, it would be up to Congress to change the law.

Supreme Court Ruling May Put An End To eBay, Craigslist, And Even Yard Sales is a post from: The Inquisitr

Washington D.C. seems to be going through a high profile divorce. Last December, when asked about who is favorite Supreme Court Justice as, Romney’s go to answer was Chief Justice John Roberts. Romney even drooled a little bit on his website about the Chief of the Supremes saying that if he is elected he wants to nominate justices in the mold of John Roberts.

Well get the therapist ready for the kids because Mitt’s love affair with the Chief Justice seems to have come to an end. Roberts has ben taken off Romney’s website and in an interview given on Wednesday, Romney told CBS News’ Jan Crawford,

“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was going to come out with a decision I violently disagreed with — or vehemently, rather, disagreed with, and he reached a conclusion, I think, that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person, and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.” Romney added about the reports that Roberts switched his vote at the last minute, “It gives the impression that the decision was made not on a constitutional foundation, but instead a political consideration about the relationship between the branches of government. But we don’t really know the answers to those things until the justice speaks out — maybe some time in history.”

Roberts is not giving interviews on the subject, in fact he just arrived in Malta where he is teaching a two week course.

Mitt Romney Loses Man Crush on Chief Justice John Roberts is a post from: The Inquisitr

Romney has remained silent in the deluge of criticism stemming from the right regarding the Affordable Care Act. On Monday, his rep went against the base to declare that Romney’s campaign doesn’t see the individual mandate as a tax, and that they disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter.

Notes the Washington Post, a Romney advisor “went off-message” arguing that the healthcare mandate in the ACA is not a tax. “The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court, he agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, that very clearly said that the mandate was not a tax,” Eric Fehrnstrom said. “The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”

Romney has been wisely skirting the issue of the ACA’s passage last week, playing some fancy footwork with his verbage. After all, if he agrees with his Republican base and the Surpreme Court that the ACA is a tax on the American people, then he has to also admit that he raised taxes in Massachusetts under his own government-mandated health program (considered by many as a prototype for the ACA), notes Newser.

So Romney, through Fehrnstrom (of “Etch-a-Sketch” fame), is playing a deft game of semantics. The court’s decision opened Obama’s controversial healthcare measure up to more criticism. The mandate was called an unconstitutional penalty. Now that it has been upheld (though supported as a tax) the right can attack it in a new way. Romney is trying to fit a square-pegged stance into a round sanctuary that hopefully no one will notice.

“The federal individual mandate in ObamaCare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty,” said another Romney rep. “Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: Is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?”

Of course, it would be easier for Romney if the tale of the Affordable Care Act wasn’t based on the true story of his own efforts in Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney Rep Pulls a Base-180: Obamacare Is Not A Tax is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court cast the key, tie-breaking vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act on Thursday in what has been seen as quite the upset, given Roberts’ more conservative lean. Reactions to the controversial move are diverse, but most seem to think he had an ulterior motive in casting his vote as they answer the question, “What was John Roberts thinking?”

According to Gawker, Roberts merely “gave a lot of people who don’t pay attention reason to celebrate him on Twitter,” continuing, “They’re idiots,” explaining that in order to comfortably uphold the ACA, it had to be defined as a tax on the American people – something that President Obama, et al, have vehemently denied in their arguments in favor of the controversial healthcare initiative. But now it’s a tax. Forever. Thanks to John Roberts. Ulterior motive #1: cast the ACA as a tax on the middle class, gift-wrapping the Republicans “a talking point to carry through to November.” Marco Rubio got going just hours after the announcement, “This is the largest tax on the middle class in American history,” and he’s right.

Slate opined that though Obama won the day, the long-fix is in favor of the Right Wing. Losing in the Supreme Court would have actually been good for the left in a lot of ways. They were set to cast themselves as martyrs in a dirty party-line defeat served up by the evil Conservatives. It would have energized their base, and could have bought the president another four years to really set his legacy in motion.

Except it runs even deeper than that.

Ulterior motive #2: gut the commerce clause by defining the ACA as a tax. Completely cripple Congress and their ability to regulate. Roberts upheld the bill on the condition that it is the result of congressional power to tax; it doesn’t fit under the commerce clause, under which it actually stood a better chance of surviving long after Obama is gone. Roberts secretly rolled back a long-held precedent, and severely curtailed Congress’ power in the process. “Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges.”

According to Charles Krauthammer, Roberts’ decision was a delicate satisfaction of his own two halves: “Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature,” writes Krauthammer.

The Supreme Court gets a lot of criticism for what’s called “legislating from the bench,” essentially ruling on certain cases in such a way that it affects existing law, sneakily performing duties held by both the judicial and legislative branches. A lot of this is split right down the party line, and the Supreme Court’s reputation is frequently challenged for their judges’ perceived inability to be objective when it comes to interpreting new laws in light of the U.S. Constitution. Ulterior motive #3: destroy longstanding assumptions about the politicized corruption of the court, enhancing its power for another century.

With Roberts’ decision, the Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality is maintained, and he’s bought the court more power in doing so.

Even deeper? Krauthammer opines that he wanted to put a fire under the seats of the American people. ObamaCare can still get axed, but only with a new president and congress. Repealling ObamaCare is in our hands. “That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you,” writes Krauthammer.

John Roberts Voted ObamaCare Through So It Can Be Gutted Later is a post from: The Inquisitr

Say what you will about Mitt Romney, that dude can raise money. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act as constitutional, the Romney Campaign has profited comfortably to the tune of $4.6 million.

Though yesterday was undoubtedly a victory for President Obama, Mitt Romney didn’t fare too poorly himself, as the news sent countless Romney supporters scrambling for their wallets. Within hours of the announcement, Romney was already up to $200,000, with his campaign press secretary tweeting, “Romney + Victory has raised over $200k now organically since decision. ‪#FullRepeal,” and now, in just 24 hours, he’s up to $4.6 million, according to CNN.

“In 24 hrs @MittRomney raised $4.6 million w/ 47k+ donations online. Thanks for everyone’s support for ‪#FullRepeal‬!” tweeted Andrea Saul, Romney’s press secretary, just this morning.

Though some might point out that Romney is usually in bed with the rich, busy begging for money from people who have a lot of it, 47,000 people contributed to the $4.6 million Romney is currently sitting on. Sure, that only leaves some 300,000,000 unaccounted for, but it shows a big change for the campaign, and perhaps a wider net of supporters, notes the Atlantic.

For their part, Obama’s campaign hasn’t slowed stride either. They know they still have a few rounds to go before ObamaCare is secure, and the biggest fight is the election. Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina sent out an e-mail Thursday calling the safety of ObamaCare a three-step process. Step one was getting it passed. Step two was getting it approved by the Supreme Court. Step three? “Win the damn election.”

Obama himself sent an e-mail to supporters:

“While the Supreme Court’s decision should put to rest the debate over health care, Mitt Romney and the Republicans in Congress just can’t take yes for an answer,” Obama wrote. “My opponent said a short while ago that the first thing he would try to do as president is repeal the health care law. We can’t allow that to happen. So we have to win this election.”

Curiously, the Obama campaign would not reveal what they had raised since the ruling.

Do you think that Mitt Romney is becoming a serious threat to Obama’s presidency?

Mitt Romney Campaign $4.6 Million Richer Since ObamaCare Ruling is a post from: The Inquisitr

A humorous picture of Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner has gone viral after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold President Obama’s health care law.

The picture, which was actually taken on Wednesday, seems to be a telling reaction to how Thursday’s ruling went, with the Republican House Speaker about to cry and Democratic House Minority Leader celebrating, according to the Huffington Post.

Business Insider reports that the picture was taken by AP’s Pablo Martinez Monsivals, and “pretty much sums up what the two party leaders must be feeling right now.”

The Huffington Post reports that the picture began making the rounds on Twitter after the Supreme Court upheld most of the “Obamacare” bill. Pelosi was reportedly elated, tweeting “Victory for the American people!” and also calling Ted Kennedy’s widow, saying “Now, Teddy can rest.”

CBS News reports that Boehner was less than impressed, telling members that the Republicans are now even more resolved to repeal the health care law completely, moving to replace the bill step by step with health care reforms. Leaders encouraged members to not criticize the Supreme Court for their decision.

The Huffington Post asked readers to place a caption on the picture. One user, “TheMuckraker,” responded with:

“Nancy: ‘Is he crying yet? Let me know when he starts. Not yet? Is he? Almost? OK, let me know… cause y’know I dont think he’s wearin’ his big boy pants today…..yet?’”

User “blinddogroofer1974,” however, was less than thrilled, responding:

“I’ve always thought it particularly classless to take a bad photo of someone and pass it around. I think our leaders are a better reflection of us than we’d like, even the leaders we don’t like.”

What do you think of the Pelosi-Boehner picture that, for some, perfectly describes their reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday?

Pelosi-Boehner Picture Goes Viral After Supreme Court Ruling [Photo] is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama’s controversial Affordable Care Act was upheld today in the long-awaited Supreme Court decision. Though it is unquestionably a victory for Big-O, the healthcare battle is hardly over, and the law has to face quite a few more challenges before the president can rest and reflect on his legacy.

There are basically three main challenges ObamaCare must survive despite the SCOTUS ruling, notes Newser: pushback from the states, negative public opinion of the controversial law, and the November election.

The states arguably have to do the most heavy lifting when it comes to upholding ObamaCare. The law kicks in full-time in 2014, and as of the now, some states have already begun implementing parts of it. Others haven’t done anything. Today’s decision will encourage fast-moving states to move faster, but not much can be done about the states who haven’t implemented any of it yet. Some were waiting for the decision. Others are waiting until the November election is over. Some simply refuse to implement the law altogether. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie commented on the Supreme Court decision, appropriately summarizing the onus of the states in implementation of the law:

“I’ve been clear from the very beginning that I do not believe a one-size-fits-all health care program works for the entire country and that each governor should have the ability to make decisions about what works best for their state. Today’s Supreme Court decision is disappointing and I still believe this is the wrong approach for the people of New Jersey who should be able to make their own judgments about health care. Most importantly, the Supreme Court is confirming what we knew all along about this law – it is a tax on middle class Americans.”

Good public perception of the law would ease some of the troubles ObamaCare must face as well, but the reality is that most Americans just plain don’t like it – at least the individual mandate. Polls have consistently shown that the American people are largely against such a dramatic and comprehensive overhaul of the healthcare system, despite promises that they can keep their coverage if satisfied. The individual mandate was the most unpopular aspect of the bill, but since it stands with the rest of the law as of today, public opinion will either stay the same (bad) or sour (worse).

“There’s certainly a risk that a large opposition could mitigate the effects of the mandate,” said MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber, who worked on both the Massachusetts and the federal law. “I could see some resistance, where people decide to pay the fine.”

If healthy people opt to pay the fine and only people anticipating high medical costs enroll, premiums will rise, notes the Washington Post.

Of course, the law has to survive the November election. “If it stands, we are going to get rid of Obamacare, and I’m going to stop it on Day 1,” Mitt Romney told a crowd in Salem, Va., on Tuesday. Combined with a negative public opinion of the law, the decision could give an unexpected boost to Romney’s campaign. Whether not he can repeal the law (or will) if elected doesn’t matter. The decision could cost President Obama the White House, even though Romney now has added pressure to explain how he would repeal ObamaCare all the while haunted by his similar healthcare reforms in Massachusetts, notes NY Times blogger Michael Shear.

Though Democrats are wisely towing a line of, “it’s in the past, congress passed it, SCOTUS upheld it, your fight is over,” the Republicans are answering the decision in force, starting with the Twitter-based hashtag #FullRepeal (click for more details on that).

“It’s a boost for the president, but it doesn’t make the controversy go away,” said Republican strategist Karl Rove on Fox News moments after the announcement. “In fact, it probably enhances the controversy.”

The president may have set the 2014 deadline in his hypothetical second term to help ensure that he’d get one, but he may have also hoped that the law wouldn’t get as negative a reaction as it has. Whatever his plot, it may backfire on him – now he has to run on an already controversial law that isn’t even fully implemented yet. No one knows if it even works.

You may or may not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Maybe you love Obamacare and want to see it implemented. Maybe you want to see it fully repealed. The Supreme Court decision only really guarantees one thing:

It’s going to be an interesting election.

ObamaCare Upheld, But The Fight Ain’t Over [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Reactions to the Supreme Court’s upholding of ObamaCare are going to be news all day today, and representatives on both the left and the right have wasted no time responding to what will likely prove to be a controversial ruling in the coming weeks. The GOP has already started pushing their reactionary slogan on Twitter: #FullRepeal.

The Democratic National Convention’s Executive Director Patrick Gaspard tweeted “it’s constitutional. Bitches.” in response to the news that President Obama’s controversial healthcare reform law was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Republicans readied a response, with Eric Cantor announcing that the House will vote yet again on the law on July 11, according to Politico. The rest of the GOP jumped right on to the social media bandwagon, pushing the hashtag #FullRepeal.

Go to the RNC’s website (www.gop.com). You’ll find that you’ve been redirected to a website called www.peoplevobamacare.com, a website that collects all of the tweets using the #FullRepeal hashtag, with a seemingly prepared and energized right wing tweeting like they don’t have day jobs. “#fullrepeal‬ ‪#4jobs‬ RT @GOPLeader: During the week of July 9th, the House of Representatives will once again repeal ObamaCare,” tweeted House Speaker John Boehner. “Simply put, this is a blow to freedom. ‪#Fullrepeal‬,” tweets Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Mitt Romney’s campaign seemed pleased with the turnout as well, with Andrea Saul, Romney’s press secretary, tweeting, “Romney + Victory has raised over $200k now organically since decision. ‪#FullRepeal.”

Politico also noted this week that Team Romney, the RNC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and others have been involved in conference calls defining the #FullRepeal strategy should the Supreme Court uphold ObamaCare.

Here’s the video from the RNC’s website. It pretty much summarizes the #FullRepeal strategy:

Should ObamaCare be repealed? Can it be repealed?

GOP Not Wasting Any Time: Get Used To Seeing #FullRepeal is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Supreme Court’s decision on the fate of ObamaCare is due next week, but will it really matter? Whether or not the President’s controversial healthcare reform bill is found constitutional, a lot of money has already been spent much to the glee of its supporters and the chagrin of its detractors.

SCOTUS will rule at the end of June whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional. If found unconstitutional, the bill (or its unseemliest parts) will be de-funded and the bill will die. Conservatives have been trying to get the White House to stop spending money on parts of the law already in place until the SCOTUS rules on it, but they won’t stop. In fact, they’ve spent $2.7 billion on it since arguments ended at the end of March, reports Politico.

“Instead of helping Americans prevent health problems, the president’s new law actually uses this so-called prevention fund as a Washington slush fund,” Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, reported by the New York Times.

Interestingly, the $2.7 billion is more than double what was spent in the three months leading up to the oral arguments for the case. A lot of that money has been on the spending docket, but there is very little structure in existence as to when or how or how much money is to be spent. Since the money doesn’t have to be re-paid, then the quicker they can spend it before the Supreme Court’s decision, the more of the law gets into the system – through the back door.

“It was irresponsible to spend a single dollar implementing the law before the Supreme Court rules, and I fought hard to prevent that money from being spent,” said House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Denny Rehberg.

Naturally, this thrills supporters of ObamaCare. Much of the law will never die. It was in the system, it will continue to be in the system. This also, of course, really sucks for you if you’re on the other side of this law. The individual mandate might be kaput, but the money is spent. ObamaCare lives.

Do you think the administration should have been allowed to spend before the SCOTUS decision? Which side of the debate are you on?

ObamaCare Could Be Overturned, But Billions Have Already Been Spent is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)… unavailable for comment.

[Image: Pundit Kitchen]

Sotomayor confirmation hearings wrapping up… is a post from: The Inquisitr