As I was watching this morning's press conference, the crawl noted that Republican Senators were already issuing press releases stating that though they'd voted to confirm Kagan last time, they were under no such obligation to be reasonable this time around. The stakes are higher, you see. The press conference wasn't even over yet.

It took the Tea Party Nation about three hours to organize itself to launch the first smear. Their newsletter arrived just after noon, and it's a classic of extreme wingerism:

A message to all members of Tea Party Nation

Tea Party Nation opposes Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan's nomination came as no great shock. The Obama administration and it's willing allies in the media are spinning the story that Kagan is just "one of the people." Nothing could be further from the truth

Kagan was chosen by Obama for a number of reasons. First, she has a very thin paper trail. She has not served as a Judge and her academic writings are limited so, the administration hopes she will fly under the radar.

Second, Obama has chosen someone who is as radical as he is. Remember, Obama wants to transform this country from a right of center country, to a European style socialist country. He knows the congress is going to go from Democratic controlled to either Republican controlled or split evenly. To get much of his agenda enacted or saved, he is going to need control of the judiciary.

In 2001, Obama, not even a US Senator at the time, gave an interview to WBEZ in Chicago. In that interview, he criticized the Warren court, which at the time was the most liberal court this country had ever seen. Obama said:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted."

This is what Obama wants in Supreme Court Justices.

Right now, the court is divided, with a minority liberal block consisting of Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Stevens is retiring. Breyer and Sotomayor are young and healthy, by Supreme Court standards. Ginsburg has had some health problems. By replacing Stevens with Kagan, there will be at least three liberal members on the court for the next 20 years. If Ginsburg were to retire, he could solidify the liberal wing of the court in place for the next 20 years.

The Conservative wing of the court is made of of Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Justice Kennedy remains a "swing" vote.

Kennedy and Scalia are both 74. Age is a consideration and if one of them were to leave the court, Obama could have the opportunity to remake a liberal court that would severe our judicial system from all remaining ties to the Constitution.

Kagan must be stopped.

I want to draw your attention to the Obama quote. It took 30 seconds to discover that it's not only a false smear, but a recycled false smear at that. On the WBEZ Web site is a statement from 2008, during the heat of the election campaign, explaining:

In 2001, Chicago Public Radio interviewed then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements. The item is now catching national attention.

After nine years, it's tough to find the original, and the edited smear version could overwhelm the truth through sheer numbers: Every wingnut in the world has repeated the false smear, and the google search results groan under the weight of the lies. All you can find on YouTube are multiple copies of the edited version. It's a pathetic hack job, by the way. You can hear where the cuts and splices were made.

I couldn't find a written transcript, but I finally found the audio, in RealPlayer format, in the WBEZ archives. I'm listening to it now. Accounts from 2008 describe Obama's original (actual) comments in 2001 as the very opposite of the editied smear: He's saying that the civil rights movement experienced its worst failures trying to pursue redistribution of wealth through the courts. You think he's a wonk now, you should hear him back then when he was still 90% the law professor. It was a very technical response, just ripe for distortion to sway gullible wingers.

45 minutes later: Here's the transcript of what law professor and newly-minted State Senator Barack Obama actually said (discussion was about attempts by the civil rights movement to use the 14th Amendement to achieve redistribution of wealth; typos are mine):

And it has essentally never happened.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think that where it succeed was to vest formal rights in previously dispossesed peoples. So that now I would have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. and sort of the more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical, it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

The Warren Court interpeted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative rights and liberties, it says what the states can't do to you, it says what the Federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted, and of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and the activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.

What a sociialist, eh?

And this is only Day One....