I got a chuckle out of Thomas Beaumont’s article in today’s Des Moines Register, “Reason for vote against judge still eludes Grassley”:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said Wednesday he still cannot recall why he opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to a federal appeals court judgeship 11 years ago, even after searching the Congressional Record for answers. […]

“I want to know why myself. I probably want to know why more than you want to know why,” Grassley told reporters Wednesday when pressed to explain his past votes against Sotomayor.

“But we’ve looked in the record of the committee and the Congressional Record and there’s no statement by me. So, I don’t know why,” he added.

Grassley was one of three Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and 29 in the Senate to vote against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.

Grassley’s memory lapse prompted me to search for reports on the reasons some Senate Republicans opposed Sotomayor in 1998. I could not find any articles discussing controversial decisions she had made as a district court judge.

I also learned that Sotomayor gave a speech in 1994 containing a statement about a “wise woman” that is similar to her 2001 remark that conservative commentators have been flogging. Greg Sargent reported that “though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.”

So, why did Grassley and 28 other Republican Senators vote against Sotomayor in 1998? My hunch is that the reason Grassley didn’t enter a speech into the Congressional Record at the time is the same reason I can’t find any reporting on the grounds for opposition to her: Republicans had no legitimate beef with her qualifications or her judicial rulings.

An article by Paul West of the Baltimore Sun supports my hypothesis:

President Bill Clinton’s 1997 nomination of Sotomayor to the nation’s second highest court was held up for a year by Senate Republican blocking tactics. At the time, analysts said that Republicans did not want her confirmation to go forward because it would put her in line for a Supreme Court seat.

That’s the kind of reason I’d want to forget too if I were Grassley.

Senate Republicans used similar blocking tactics against many of Clinton’s nominees, hoping to run out the clock on his presidency. They later complained about Democratic “obstruction” of judicial appointments, but at least Democrats gave reasons for opposing the worst George W. Bush nominees (for instance, judicial philosophy or specific decisions as lower-court judges).

To his credit, Grassley told reporters on yesterday’s call that he is going into Judge Sotomayor’s upcoming confirmation hearings with an open mind. Not that it matters, because Senate Republicans already know that they don’t have the votes to block her elevation to the Supreme Court.

The I-JOBS board met for the first time on June 3. According to this news release,

The I-Jobs Board is specifically tasked with awarding approximately $165 million of funds from the I-Jobs program. Of  that amount, $46.5 million is earmarked for projects in Linn County, Cedar Rapids, Palo, Elkader and Charles City. The  remaining $118.5 million will be available on a competitive basis to support the construction of projects relating to  disaster relief, mitigation and local infrastructure.

The board approved this tentative timetable for allocating the money. The key date is August 3, when applications are due. As Governor Chet Culver’s deputy chief of staff Phil Roeder told Iowa Independent,

“Everyone in the administration understands that with I-JOBS, time is of the essence,” Roeder said. “In order to have impact on the economy, we have to move quickly.”

I was pleased to see Roeder highlight the importance of transparency for the I-JOBS program. The administration is creating a website that supposedly will allow the public to track how money is being spent. I strongly agree with Kathleen Richardson, director of Iowa Freedom of Information Council, who emphasized the need for the I-JOBS board to follow open meetings rules as well.

Citizens can find draft rules for the I-JOBS program here. You can send comments about these rules to ijobs@iowa.gov.

Meanwhile, Iowa Republicans continue to bring out their misleading talking points, such as this Twitter comment from IowaGOP,

Culver keeps pumping I-JOBS (1st mtg. today.) But how will it help create and keep long-term jobs in IA? Still haven’t heard.

How the program will create jobs should be obvious when you read which kinds of construction projects are eligible for the money (such as roads, bridges, sewers, repairing flood-damaged structures). As for how these public works will keep jobs in Iowa, what part of “quality of life” do Republicans not understand? Also, expanding broadband access in rural areas will allow more Iowans to operate internet-based businesses.

Even Iowa State Economics Professor David Swenson, whom Republicans like to quote on this subject, estimates that the I-JOBS program will create around 4,050 jobs.

Funny, Iowa Republicans don’t acknowledge Swenson’s insight when it comes to ending federal deductibility, which he considers an “archaic holdover” in our state’s tax system. But that’s a point for another post.

Iowa is now one of six states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Congratulations to everyone who worked to bring marriage equality to New Hampshire. Today the state House passed a revised bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and Governor John Lynch signed it immediately. More details are all over the web, including at Pam’s House Blend and Blue Hampshire.

Share your thoughts in this thread, and remember, Iowa got there first! Actually, “first” in the sense of third, after Massachusetts and Connecticut–but the important thing is, before New Hampshire!

The White House announced today that President Barack Obama will nominated former Republican Congressman Jim Leach to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities. From the press release:

Jim Leach served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for the state of Iowa for 30 years. He founded and co-chaired the Congressional Humanities Caucus, which is dedicated to advocating on behalf of the humanities in the House of Representatives and to raising the profile of humanities in the United States. The Caucus worked to promote and preserve humanities programs and commissions such as the Historical Publications and Records Commission. Mr. Leach and his co-founder, Rep. David Price, received the Sidney R. Yates Award for Distinguished Public Service to the Humanities from the National Humanities Alliance in 2005. During his tenure in Congress, Mr. Leach also served as Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services (1995-2001), a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations and Chairman of the Committee’s Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs (2001-2006). In addition, Mr. Leach is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Vice Chairman of the Century Foundation’s Board of Trustees and has served on the boards of the Social Sciences Research Council, ProPublica, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Kettering Foundation. Since leaving Congress in 2007, he has taught at Princeton University and served as the interim director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Leach was one of the most prominent Republicans to endorse Obama for president last year. He was rumored to be under consideration for a diplomatic position when Obama sent him to speak with foreign leaders in Washington shortly after the presidential election. The National Endowment for the Humanities seems like a perfect fit for Leach.

Congressman Dave Loebsack, who defeated Leach in the 2006 election, released this statement today:

“As a native son of Iowa, Jim Leach has served Iowa proudly and with dignity for over three decades, and I applaud President Obama’s choice. The National Endowment for the Humanities makes critical contributions to the rich cultural tapestry of our country, and with Jim Leach’s experience, expertise, and dedication, I have no doubt that our nation’s museums, libraries, and cultural institutions will continue to grow and excel.”

Loebsack and Leach have set a fantastic example for politicians everywhere by speaking about each other with respect, both during and since the 2006 campaign.

Congressman Bruce Braley released this statement:

“President Obama couldn’t have made a better choice than Jim Leach to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities.  There are few individuals as qualified or as well-suited for this position as he is.  I’m proud that Davenport’s own Jim Leach will be continuing to serve the public in this capacity after his long and distinguished career representing the citizens of eastern Iowa.”

I was raised by a Rockefeller Republican who believed in funding the arts and humanities and cringed when well-known Republicans demonized the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1980s and 1990s. Leach’s commitment to supporting the humanities will serve him well in his new job.  

When Governor Chet Culver took final action on the last two dozen bills from the 2009 legislative session, my biggest disappointment was his decision to sign Senate File 433, a bill that “eliminates a broad range of fines against Iowa nursing homes that fail to meet minimum health and safety standards.”

Governors rarely veto bills that pass out of the state legislature unanimously, as this one did. However, when Culver didn’t sign Senate File 433 right away, I hoped he was seriously considering the advice of the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs and the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. Both of those state agencies opposed the bill.

Instead of listening to the public officials who have the most in-depth knowledge of nursing home regulations and violations, Culver sided with a corporate interest group:

Former state legislator John Tapscott, who now advocates for Iowa seniors, said the new law is an example of what the nursing home industry can buy with its campaign contributions.

“It only proves that our legislative leaders and governor are willing to sell out the most vulnerable of our citizens – the sick and elderly residing in nursing homes – for a few thousand campaign dollars,” he said.

Click “there’s more” to read about the substance of this bill and the winning strategy of the Iowa Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes. I couldn’t have written this post without an outstanding series of reports by Clark Kauffman of the Des Moines Register last November (see also here and here).

I’m grateful that the Iowa Independent bloggers listen to our local Rush Limbaugh clones so I don’t have to. If anything newsworthy comes out of some right-wing radio show, I can read about it online.  

I learned recently that no matter how crazy Congressman Steve King seems, there are some conservatives who think he should be further outside the mainstream.

After the jump I have a few thoughts on the spat between King and wingnut Bill Salier, best known for almost beating establishment favorite Greg Ganske in the 2002 Republican Senate primary.

Iowa Workforce Development is fining Henry’s Turkey Service $900,000 for labor law violations, the Des Moines Register reported on May 29. The fine stems from 9,000 counts of making improper deductions from paychecks, not paying the minimum wage, and not providing pay stubs to the mentally disabled workers who lived in a decrepit bunkhouse in Atalissa. (The violations affected at least 30 workers during every pay period in 2007 and 2008.)

Since various agencies are conducting other investigations into the company’s treatment of its workers, I expect this fine will be the first of many levied against Henry’s Turkey Service. However, an attorney for the parent company of Henry’s Turkey Service told the Des Moines Register that the company will challenge Iowa Workforce Development’s proposal. It will be some time before any fines are paid.

Click here for the archive of Des Moines Register reports on this appalling story.

Senator John Ensign of Nevada is coming to northwest Iowa today for stops at Trans Ova Genetics in Sioux Center and the famous ice cream shop in Le Mars before he delivers a speech in Sioux City.

The American Future Fund invited Ensign as part of a lecture series, and American Future Fund spokesman Tim Albrecht spoke to Radio Iowa about him:

Albrecht describes the 51-year-old Ensign as a “strong” conservative.

“I think that Senator Ensign will be able to introduce himself to a group of active conservatives who are thirsty for a new voice, a new person, to really pick up the banner and carry it on their behalf,” Albrecht says.

Are conservatives “thirsty for a new voice,” as in someone who hasn’t already run for president? The Republican Party has a history of nominating presidential candidates on their second or third try: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain.

Ensign looks like a fairly generic Republican to me. He would need to do something to distinguish himself in the next few years to avoid becoming the Sam Brownback or Tommy Thompson of 2012.

UPDATE: Ensign gave Iowa Politics an interview:

“I’m not running for president,” said Ensign, who’s chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “What I’m doing is raising my profile. I believe we need new voices and fresh voices in the Republican Party who can articulate a message of our core Republican principles.”

More thoughts on likely Republican presidential candidates are after the jump.

Iowa Republicans are bashing Governor Chet Culver for appointing Kate Gronstal to the I-JOBS board, which will decide how to spend $118.5 million of the $830 million in I-JOBS money. Kate Gronstal is the daughter of Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal.

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn slammed what he called “political nepotism”:

“I’m sure there are thousands of qualified engineers in this state that don’t raise the red flag that someone who is an immediate family member of a legislator in charge of ramming this through the Senate,” Strawn said.

Since Culver “declined to respond” to Strawn’s allegation, I want to lay out the case for putting Kate Gronstal on this board.

1. She is qualified for the position as a professionally trained structural engineer. It’s not as if the governor put a well-connected person with no relevant experience on the board.

2. By all accounts she is smart and highly capable. People born into political families have certain doors opened for them. I’m sure Marcus Branstad had a leg up on the competition when he was starting his career in Iowa Republican circles. Who cares as long as he is good at what he does?

3. Kate Gronstal’s presence on the board will subject its award process to a higher level of scrutiny. That’s good.

I supported the large infrastructure bonding package because Iowa’s debt load is not that high, interest rates are relatively low, and public works projects can improve the quality of life in the long term while creating jobs in the short term.

However, it is critically important that the I-JOBS money be spent wisely to benefit whole communities, not just a few wealthy developers.

Iowa Republicans never liked Culver’s bonding plan, and they’ll be watching for any mistakes that bolster their misleading talking points. With Kate Gronstal on the I-JOBS board, Republicans will use any unworthy project approved to highlight alleged Democratic nepotism and mismanagement.

I-JOBS has the potential to make Iowa a better place to live. Governor Culver has appointed a qualified board to administer the program. All the board members, and especially Kate Gronstal, have strong incentives to demonstrate that they can handle this responsibility.

After the jump I’ve posted the governor’s press release containing bios for all members of the I-JOBS Board and the Accountability And Transparency Board, which will “make sure Iowa meets or exceeds the accountability and transparency requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (also known as the federal economic stimulus bill).

An assailant shot and killed Dr. George Tiller at a church in Wichita, Kansas this morning. Tiller has long been demonized by the anti-choice movement because he performs late-term abortions. He was shot in 1993 and has faced numerous threats, and his clinic has been bombed and vandalized. The Wichita Eagle has background here and is updating the story. (Note: police arrested a 51-year-old male suspect about three hours after the shooting.)

Daily Kos user wiscmass discusses other violent attacks against abortion providers here. As wiscmass notes, every murder or assault is a deterrent to medical professionals considering whether to provide abortion services. By intimidating doctors, anti-choice activists can restrict access to abortion where legal and political methods have failed. I would add that even non-violent methods of intimidation can be effective. For instance, the Sioux City medical community has made clear hospital privileges will be denied to any local doctor who performs abortions at Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s clinic there.

Tiller was not only serving women in Kansas. Many states, including Iowa, lack any clinic where women with a compelling medical reason can get a late-term abortion. (Contrary to propaganda you may have heard, healthy women with healthy pregnancies can’t just walk into Tiller’s clinic and get an abortion in the third trimester.) I have no idea where these women will go now.

Incidentally, Tiller’s donations to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her political action committee prompted 31 Senate Republicans to vote against confirming Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary in April.

Cecile Richards, leader of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told a story about Sebelius during a recent speech at Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s 75th anniversary celebration. Richards recalled a noisy group of protesters with graphic signs outside a Planned Parenthood event in Kansas. Everyone who attended the event, including then-Governor Sebelius, had to walk through the group of protesters. During her speech that night, Sebelius said she was glad everyone had to face those protesters, because it gave them a sense of what women in Kansas go through every day just trying to access reproductive health care.

Unfortunately, Tiller’s murder reminds us that standing up for reproductive rights in this country sometimes means putting your life in danger. I echo wiscmass in urging pro-choice Americans to support the organizations that are on the front lines in this battle.

Several Bleeding Heartland readers living in different Iowa counties have received robocalls in the past few days featuring Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King. Like the calls King recorded in early April, these calls are paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

I have not heard the call, but from what others have told me, it sounds like this fake survey is designed to raise money, identify and mobilize supporters. (In contrast, a “push-poll” usually seeks to spread information that would change people’s minds about an issue or candidate.) The details are after the jump.

If all you knew about 2nd Circuit U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor came from conservative commentators, you would think Barack Obama had nominated a far-left reverse racist for the Supreme Court. A typically unhinged assessment by Iowa’s own Ted Sporer, chairman of the Polk County Republican Party, is titled “The Supreme Court pick: Justice denied, racism and sexism exalted.” Like most conservatives who are freaking out, Sporer is reacting to one quotation from a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Conservative commentator Rod Dreher read the whole speech and concluded on Wednesday, “seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.” However, the right-wing noise machine continues to sound the alarm about Sotomayor’s alleged radical, racist agenda.

You won’t be surprised to learn that people who have examined her judicial record (as opposed to one sentence from one speech) have reached substantially different conclusions. Some reality-based links are after the jump.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack took a step toward undoing bad Bush administration policy on Thursday:

No logging or road project on tens of millions of forested acres will proceed without personal approval by the Agriculture Department’s secretary for at least a year while the Obama administration decides how to handle a controversial Clinton-era roadless rule, officials said today.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is signing a directive giving himself sole power to make decisions for one year on building roads and harvesting timber on nearly all of the areas covered by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The directive can be renewed for an additional year, the department said. It covers roadless areas in Alaska but will not apply to those in Idaho, which wrote its own roadless area plan.

“This interim directive will provide consistency and clarity that will help protect our national forests until a long-term roadless policy reflecting President Obama’s commitment is developed,” Vilsack said in a statement.

Environmental-minded Democrats and non-profit organizations welcomed the news. The Washington Post and New York Times have more detail on what Vilsack’s directive means.

Many people don’t realize that the U.S. Forest Service is under the USDA’s jurisdiction. (This brief history explains that the original purpose of the service was “to provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit.”) Vilsack had little prior experience in this area, because Iowa is not one of the 44 states containing a national forest and has has only a few state forests. (Click here for more information about where the 142 U.S. national forests are located.)

Although Vilsack’s latest directive will not affect Iowa directly, Iowans should be proud of our former governor’s step toward protecting some of our country’s most pristine natural areas.

By the way, the Iowa Democratic Party is honoring Secretary Vilsack, former First Lady Christie Vilsack and Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson at its Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony on June 27. Click here to reserve tickets. I’m looking forward to the event.

I got a double-dose of Dr. Howard Dean in Des Moines yesterday at a health care reform event and a reception to honor Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. (I’ll write up the health care forum later today.)

The reception was organized by One Iowa, the leading LGBT advocacy group in the state. Dean spoke about his experience as governor of Vermont after signing a bill granting legal recognition to same-sex couples (civil unions) in April 2000. He remarked that supporting civil unions has now become the “compromise position” on the issue, but it wasn’t that way nine years ago. He wore a bullet-proof vest for a time after signing the bill and didn’t visit certain conservative areas of the state much during that year’s re-election campaign. Dean was barely re-elected in 2000 with 50.5 percent of the vote after winning his four previous gubernatorial elections easily.

Think about that. Less than a decade ago in a relatively progressive state, the governor was wearing a bullet-proof vest after standing up for civil unions. I don’t mean to downplay the political courage shown by Iowa leaders who have respected and praised the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, because I know marriage equality is still a controversial and emotional issue. But it’s striking how much more accepting people are of legal recognition for committed gay and lesbian couples.

In an interview with Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson yesterday, Dean said of marriage equality,

“This has just become a non-issue in states where there’s a lot of neighborliness,” Dean said. “Because even if people don’t think, for religious reasons, that gay people ought to be able to get married, they’re also respectful of their neighbors who may have a gay person in their family.”

Radio Iowa’s headline on this story is “Dean predicts gay marriage will be a ‘non-issue’ in 2010.” That makes him seem much more complacent than he sounded to me at the One Iowa reception. Dean predicted that marriage equality will gain wide acceptance, but he reminded the audience of that old political saying, “Never forget who your friends are.” He urged them to support the Democrats who have blocked a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state legislature, warning that if these leaders lose in the next election, “it sets back the movement.”  

In the context of not forgetting your friends, Dean mentioned that his presidential campaign could never have gotten off the ground without the help of the LGBT community. He estimated that in the early months, about 75 percent of the money his campaign raised came from LGBT donors who remembered that he stood with them on civil unions. That early money helped him hire a few staffers and open a few offices, laying the ground for his surge in support during the summer of 2003.

Speaking more broadly, Dean gave credit to all gays and lesbians over the years who have “stood up and said who you are,” because it becomes much harder to say and think bad things about a group when you know the group includes your friends and neighbors. (Dean made a similar point in his Radio Iowa interview.)

In their remarks to the One Iowa reception, Gronstal and Murphy both gave credit to the “six brave couples” who put their names on the line in filing the Varnum v Brien lawsuit against Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal added that in holding the line against efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, he and Murphy “didn’t do this for the LGBT community. We did it for everyone.”

UPDATE: Iowa Independent has more on last night’s event.

SECOND UPDATE: In the comments at MyDD, Texas Dem notes that Dean’s re-election in 2000 was less close than it seems, because his Republican rival only got about 38 percent, with a Progressive candidate winning the remaining 9.5 percent. Still, that was a much narrower margin than Dean’s other gubernatorial election victories.  

Governor Chet Culver signed more than two dozen bills on May 26, the last day he was able to take action on legislation approved during the 2009 session. Two of the bills made up the last piece of the I-JOBS program, four more are aimed at helping veterans and Iowans on active duty, and the rest cover a wide range of issues.

Some good news for water quality was buried in the long list of bills and veto messages signed on Tuesday. For the details, follow me after the jump.

The customer is always right.

As Ben Smith reported at Politico last week, several large labor unions are questioning investment fund managers about their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act:

“Has your company made any public statements in support or opposition to EFCA?” asks one of nine pointed questions in a polite, detailed four-page questionnaire.

“If ‘Yes,’ please explain.”

The detailed questionnaire has three parts. The first asks about fund managers’ public positions, lobbying and political contributions. The second asks managers to “disclose any relationships during the past five years between your company and any organization(s) opposing the passage” of EFCA. The form lists 14 organizations, from anti-EFCA organizations like the Workforce Fairness Institute to trade groups that oppose it, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Roundtable.

Here’s a pdf file of the questionnaire. More on the whining after the jump.

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson argued last week that “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate” in 2010. The GOP has almost nowhere to go but up. Republicans currently hold 18 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate, fewer than at any previous time in this state’s history. After making gains in the last four general elections, Democrats now hold 19 of the 25 Iowa Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2010. Also, several Democratic incumbents are in their first term, having won their seats during the wave election of 2006.

To win back the upper chamber, Republicans would need a net gain of seven seats in 2010, and Robinson lists the seven districts where he sees the best chances for the GOP.

I generally agree with John Deeth’s view that only a few Senate districts are strong pickup opportunities for Republicans next year. Winning back the upper chamber will take the GOP at least two cycles, with redistricting likely to create who knows how many open or winnable seats in 2012.

After the jump I’ll examine the seven Iowa Senate districts Robinson views as worthwhile targets as well as one Republican-held district that Democrats should be able to pick up. Here is a map (pdf file) of the current Iowa Senate districts.

I was so sorry to hear today’s news out of California. While I have no doubt that a future referendum will reverse Prop 8, that process will take years and resources that could have been spent organizing in other states.

Couples left in legal limbo should be aware that the state of Iowa recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California last year. Moving halfway across the country clearly won’t be an option for everyone, but Iowa has a low cost of living and a good quality of life (more affordable housing, relatively low rates of crime and unemployment, short commutes, and decent public schools in many communities).

Of course, couples from California or anywhere else can still come to Iowa to get married.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect on April 27, hundreds of same-sex couples have been married here. More than half of Iowa’s 99 counties have issued at least one marriage license to a same-sex couple. Despite an extensive petition drive to pressure county recorders, no county recorder has refused to issue a marriage license to a couple seeking one.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling will not get anywhere. I explain why after the jump.

The big news of the day is that President Barack Obama nominated U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she would be the third woman to serve on the high court and the first Hispanic justice of either gender.

Sotomayor reportedly sealed the deal during her interview with the president last Thursday.

Deoliver47 has more background and video clips in this post.

Senate Republicans will try to drag out the confirmation process, but there will be no long-term vacancy on the high court. Justice David Souter has made clear that he will retire once his replacement is confirmed.

I don’t know a lot about Sotomayor, but I look forward to learning more. She has the qualities I wanted to see in a Supreme Court nominee, even if she is not as progressive as I would like. Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog previewed arguments for and against her nomination. Excerpt:

Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans.  She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge.  No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.

On the other hand, this criminal defense attorney who has argued cases before her court isn’t too impressed.

On principle, I am glad that a hit piece on Sotomayor filled with anonymous quotes did not derail her nomination. More on that hit piece is here.

Before I open the floor for comments, here’s some Supreme Court-related humor from The Onion.

What do you think of Obama’s choice?

UPDATE: Greg Sargent points out that “Seven Republicans currently in the Senate voted for the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor in 1998 as U.S. Circuit Court judge[…].” That’s not counting Arlen Specter, who also voted to confirm her in 1998 but is no longer a Republican.

SECOND UPDATE: Sports fans may remember that as a U.S. district court judge, Sotomayor ended the baseball strike in 1995.

THIRD UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley released this statement:

“A lifetime appointment requires a thorough vetting, and I expect Judge Sotomayor to receive fair and deliberative consideration.  The United States Senate has a responsibility to carefully review nominees to the Supreme Court.   The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.  We need to ask tough questions to learn how this individual views the role of a Supreme Court justice.  The last 25 years of Senate review of nominees has been entirely different than the first 200 years, and today the Senate can’t just be a rubber stamp for President Obama’s nominees.”

Grassley is incorrect to imply that the Senate has been a rubber stamp of Supreme Court nominees for most of this country’s history. During the 19th century, the Senate rejected approximately one fourth of the presidential nominees for this office.

Here’s a list of failed nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Des Moines Register profiled Dave Murphy of Food Democracy Now in Monday’s edition. The article mentioned the incredible success of the petition signed by more than 94,000 Americans. Two of the “sustainable dozen” candidates whom Food Democracy Now recommended for U.S. Department of Agriculture posts now work for the department. Drake Law Professor Neil Hamilton, also on the sustainable dozen list, is an “informal adviser” to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

You should read the whole Des Moines Register article. The most important passage is about how Murphy makes the case for changing agriculture policies:

[Murphy] pointed to a survey from the Organic Trade Association that showed that the U.S. sales of organic food grew nearly 16 percent between 2007 and 2008 to reach $22.9 billion. Organic foods now account for about 3.5 percent of all U.S. food sales.

For Murphy, sustainable farming is about more than the food.

He sees it as returning to a model of production that is better for the environment and one in which farmers can start without taking on deep debt to finance heavy equipment.

He said the agricultural policies today are stacked against farmers of small- to mid-sized farms in favor of larger operations. […]

Murphy stressed that he isn’t against large farm operations. He said sustainable practices can help farms of all sizes.

But Murphy does believe that the playing field ought to be leveled, for the benefit not just for smaller farms but for rural areas in general.

“That’s the best way to improve rural economies,” he said. “The more farmers there are on the land, the better it is for rural economies.”

Health and environmental concerns sparked my interest in buying local food produced sustainably, but Murphy is wise to connect the dots between agriculture policies and the economic future of rural areas. For more along those lines, read the feature on Murphy and Food Democracy Now from the Washington Post in March.

Speaking of Iowans who are incredibly committed to helping small and medium-sized farms thrive, Woodbury County’s rural economic development director Rob Marqusee has pledged to “eat only food grown within 100 miles of the Woodbury County Courthouse for the entire month of June 09 (and no meat will be allowed in the diet).” Keep an eye on Marqusee’s Woodbury Organics site next month, because he’ll be blogging about his food challenge.

Those interested in Murphy’s work should go read more on the Food Democracy Now site. Click here for past Bleeding Heartland posts that referenced Food Democracy Now’s work. Jill Richardson wrote more here about Murphy’s activist roots and the role he played during the Iowa caucus campaign.

If organic farmer Francis Thicke decides to run for Iowa secretary of agriculture in 2010, expanding local food networks will be a major theme of his campaign.