[Guest post by DRJ]

Republicans are concerned about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, in part because of her statement 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.” Nevertheless, Barack Obama has called on Congress to treat her fairly:

“What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.”

This from the “first President in U.S. history to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.” Perhaps Obama learned about “political posturing and ideological brinksmanship” from Joe Biden who, as recently as last October, proclaimed how proud he was to have “led the fight against Judge Bork” and effectively invent the political “Borking” of a Supreme Court nominee.

— DRJ

I received a sudden and very welcome invitation today to join Ed Morrissey and Mitch Berg on the Northern Alliance Radio Network. The conversation with me begins at 1:43:14; their during-the-commercial banter referencing me starts a bit earlier at 1:40:26. We mostly talked about Bill O’Reilly, with a touch of Michael Hiltzik thrown in for good measure.

It sounds like a bad case for the prosecution when you read about it:

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore’s security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy’s owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

When I read about someone like that, I really want to be on his side. How do we know he wasn’t worried about the guy pulling a gun on him and killing him?

But then you see the video, and you realize that the guy didn’t seem very concerned at all:

Now, granted: we can’t see what the guy on the floor is doing. And even if he’s not moving, I feel some sympathy for the pharmacist. He didn’t ask to be robbed at gunpoint. If he had killed one of these guys with the first shot, the other robber could have been prosecuted for murder.

But the pharmacist just doesn’t look concerned to me. And he apparently lied to the police about what he did. It looks to me like he just decided to execute this kid. Based on this tape, he looks guilty — if not of first-degree murder (and it may well be that), then at least of voluntary manslaughter. (He could likely raise a defense of heat of passion under California law and have a decent shot at selling that to a jury.)

What do you think?

UPDATE: Corrected “store owner” to “pharmacist” in one sentence.

I wish I could share today’s “BillOReilly.com blog posting” . . . but my membership has been terminated:

Due to violations of the Terms and Conditions of BillOReilly.com attributed to your account, your Premium Membership is hereby terminated effective as of the date of this notice. The termination is final and any attempt to use the site or to renew membership either directly or indirectly will similarly result in termination and/or blocking use of the site.

I’m not sure what terms and conditions I supposedly violated. I never posted any comments (or “blog postings”) on O’Reilly’s site. All I did was quote (and screencap) two embarrassing comments from the message boards.

Oh, wait. I just reviewed the Terms and Conditions again, and I believe I have found the relevant language: “4. Do not expose Bill O’Reilly as a rank hypocrite.”

OK, then.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hot Air and Instapundit for the links.