Sotomayor a minor topic at Federalist Society?

By Jennifer J. Foster

That’s what they want you to believe.

From the Washington bureau of the Birmingham News:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, is not permitting reporters to cover his lunchtime appearance today before a chapter of the conservative legal group known as The Federalist Society, an official with the organization said this morning.

“The senator is not allowing press at this event; it’s an off-the-record event,“ said Julia Nix, deputy director of practice groups.

Sessions spokesman Stephen Boyd confirmed that the luncheon is closed, but initially would not say why. In a later e-mail, he said it is to avoid disrupting the event. The “informal talk” was scheduled before federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd added.

As the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions will play a central role in the upcoming confirmation process and his comments are closely followed. While Sessions will discuss the nomination process generally, he is not expected to “make lengthy or substantive comments about” Sotomayor, Boyd said.

So. The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—the leading conservative voice in the process—is going to spend 90 minutes with one of the leading conservative judicial groups in the country as the Senate preps for confirmation hearings with President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee. But Sessions isn’t planning to say anything “substantive” about the nominee?

Does anyone else have any oceanfront property in Arizona for sale?

So, I have just one question: If he isn’t going to talk about Sotomayor, what IS he going to be talking about?

If I was a reporter for the News, I would be that much more intrigued by how he would be spending the other 80 to 85 minutes as I was about the idea that he wouldn’t be discussing the biggest issue on his plate.

And if I was a donor to the Federalist Society and they really aren’t talking to the ranking member about the pending Supreme Court hearings, I’d have some serious questions about how they’re spending my money—and why they would have asked me for it in the first place.

Obama swoops in on GM

By Jennifer J. Foster

In addressing the historic bankruptcy of General Motors today, President Obama announced that the U.S. government will “invest” another $30 billion in the foundered company.

Another $30 billion. In a bankrupt company. On top of the $20 billion that didn’t save it.

After speaking the words, the president said, “I understand that this may give Americans pause.“

Give us pause?

How about make us queasy?

Obama went on to explain that the government will act as “reluctant shareholders” and is making the $30 billion “boost” to protect its previous “boost”—in other words, invest more to try to make sure we don’t lose what we invested before.

The government, he said, has no interest in running GM; in fact, the “new GM” will be run by an independent board of directors and a CEO with a track record in “American manufacturing.“

Perhaps acknowledging a potential political problem, the president said that in “all but the most fundamental decisions,“ the government will not exercise its rights as a shareholder.

As examples of things that would not be “fundamental decisions,“ Obama cited things like placing a new factory.

Yeah. Having a political entity in charge of decisions like that would be ... bad.

So the die is cast. GM now stands, at least for the time being, for Government Motors.

Read Rich Galen’s column on this development. He wants to know what you think about buying a GM product.

This week’s column

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you missed it in the Saturday print edition of the Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, my most recent column is now online. Check it out:

Search for clarity will make Sotomayor’s hearings must-see TV

We don’t know yet when Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings will begin. But she is beginning the process of meeting individually with senators on the Judiciary Committee today.

Those meetings will likely end up being more important than the full committee hearings. They are private meetings between the nominee and the senators (and a staffer or two).

No media. No cameras. No reporters. No bloggers.

No grandstanding.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of those stately Senate office buildings this week.

The death of George Tiller

By Jennifer J. Foster

You have probably heard by now about the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

Tiller was shot and killed yesterday in the foyer of his church, Reformation Lutheran Church, in Wicheta, Kan. Authorities picked up a suspect about three hours later outside of Kansas City.

Of course, since Tiller was one of the handful of abortion providers who perform late-term abortions (past 20 weeks), and since he has been a target of violent threats and attacks by extremists in the past, it’s natural to assume that he was targeted by someone who somehow, in some twisted way, saw his death as a positive development for the pro-life movement.

It is not.

I oppose abortion. I have blogged about Tiller before in this space, especially about his connections with HHS Secretary and former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

I think what happened yesterday is despicable.

As I said on my Twitter feed right after the news of Tiller’s murder became public, you cannot defend life by taking it.

Pro-lifers from all corners have condemned this terrible act, and it is my hope that pro-choice activists will resist the temptation to treat it as indicative of the approach of all those millions who oppose them.

People who believe in the sanctity of innocent life know that what happened yesterday, in addition to being a tragedy for Tiller’s family and an outright rejection of the rule of law, is a contemptible development for our cause.

We join Tiller’s supporters in demanding that the person responsible for this heinous act be made to feel the full weight of justice for his actions.