Get the day’s best political analysis, news and reporting from the TPM team delivered to your inbox every day. In 30-60 seconds, you’ll be first to see TPM’s best stories of the morning and caught up on what to expect for the day ahead.
One minute you're keeping it real defending a far-right scofflaw rancher who's skipped out on a million dollars in back fees to the federal government for using public land and is now guarding himself with a crew of heavily armed militia types and the next thing you know he turns out to be kinda racist.
Cliven Bundy tells Alex Jones(!) that the NYT should retract it's story on his pro-slavery remarks, then in a separate interview tries to explain what he meant -- and basically reiterates everything he said initially. Historically, threading the needle of pro-slavery/not racist has been exceedingly difficult.
The deeply personal back and forth this week between Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over race is without parallel in the court's history, legal experts tell Sahil Kapur.
Part of the reason for that of course is the unhappy historical fact that racial and ethnic minorities haven't had a seat on the Supreme Court bench until the last 47 years. But part of it, too, may have been the calculation by the likes of Thurgood Marshall that a direct public confrontation would not be productive in the long run.
The highlight of Sahil's piece may be the anecdote offered by a former Marshall clerk in which Marshall pulled his punch toward the other justices in his dissent in a 1973 case.
Conservatives are not pleased with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in yesterday's affirmative action case, even if they reaffirmed the right to ban it. Instead, Sahil Kapur reports they're complaining that she's "legally illiterate" and writing about "emotion." If those aren't codes for her race and gender, I don't know if I know what is.