And as was the case with the SCOTUS hearing on Obamacare, some liberals are shocked – shocked I tell you, – that the Supremes just might uphold the Arizona immigration law – a law they call “racist.”

The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared highly skeptical of the Obama administration’s objections to a controversial immigration law in Arizona.

In a case steeped in election-year politics, conservative and liberal justices alike expressed doubts about the government’s argument that the Arizona law was an unconstitutional intrusion on the federal government’s power to enforce immigration law.

You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman to be seated on the bench, said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

The Obama administration sued Arizona over the controversial measure its Legislature passed in 2010. The law set off a political firestorm and has since been copied by other states.

Read More at American Thinker. By Rick Moran.

Photo Credit: laura padgett (Creative Commons)

House Republicans are pushing ahead with legislation to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure and corporations from electronic attacks despite Obama administration objections that the legislation fails to protect Americans’ civil liberties.

The House begins work Thursday on the bill designed to address the cybersecurity threat by getting the private sector and government to share information to thwart attacks from foreign governments, terrorists and cybercriminals. Although the information sharing is voluntary, civil liberty groups fear the measure could lead to government spying on Americans.

The administration objections run deeper.

“The sharing of information must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans’ privacy, data confidentiality and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace,” the administration said in a statement Wednesday. “Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive.”

The administration also complained that the bill’s liability protection for companies that share information is too broad and argued that the Homeland Security Department should have a primary role in domestic cybersecurity. In its current form, the administration said, the president’s advisers would recommend a veto.

Read More at OfficialWire. By Donna Cassata.

Breitbart News has discovered previously unknown handwritten notes from Elena Kagan to radical professor Derrick Bell, sent to Bell as Kagan worked on his seminal 1985 article on Critical Race Theory in the Harvard Law Review (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4).

The notes, which were not among materials presented to the Senate during Justice Kagan’s confirmation hearings, are preserved among Bell’s papers at the New York University archives.

Kagan’s work on Bell’s article was revealed in 2010 by Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, after President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court. Ogletree cited her “phenomenal edits” on Bell’s “classic” article.

Bell’s article, “The Civil Rights Chronicles,” combined exposition and fiction to argue that the Constitution was–and remains–tainted by white supremacy, and that the United States awaited “a common crisis that will overcome racism” through radical constitutional reform.

Unlike then-Harvard Law Review president Carol Steiker, who corresponded with Bell via typed letter (apparently on a 1980s-vintage dot matrix printer), Kagan chose to write to Bell exclusively on yellow notepad paper. She did not explain her choice to write by hand, save to suggest in one note on Aug. 30, 1985 that she was pressed for time.

Read More at breitbart.com. By Joel B. Pollak.