Because I think this rant by Alan Keyes against Michael Steele could be classified as a hate crime:

As far as principle goes, the only difference between Specter and Steele is that Specter will now reach for victory while being true to his leftist views. Meantime, the Michael Steele Republicans, as they fume over his desertion, further demonstrate their willingness to seek victory by betraying the party's supposed conservatism.

Despite all their whoring after pro-abortion leftists like Specter, the Michael Steele Republicans suffer the fate of overage streetwalkers. Sacrificing their last shreds of decency, they have flaunted their jaded wares for those whose lust for power leads them to look for fresher prospects elsewhere. In the process they seduced politicians capable of better character (like Rick Santorum) into compromising situations that estrange them from their true political kin. I ask sincere conservatives still mesmerized by the cosmetic virtues of the Republican platform this simple question: Why are decent folk like you gawking at made-up streetwalkers when you should be elsewhere, making a home where innocent life is respected, family still means something and God's name is not treated like an obscenity? Why are you still lying to yourselves about the Steele Republicans' intentions, even as their present outrage proves how eagerly they lust after those whose only virtue is their sincere commitment to the corrupt political and moral spirit of our times?

"The Japanese tourists were comparing their videos." -Mark Robinson, explaining the scene outside Windsor Castle after a couple was arrested for having sex on the Queen's lawn.

Supreme Court Justices can be, to paraphrase Forrest Gump, like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Nobody personifies this better than David Souter, who was nominated by George HW Bush under the assumption he had conservative-leaning judicial instincts but ending up being a consistently liberal voice on the Court.

Souter was confirmed by a vote of 90-9, and among his detractors were John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who at the time lambasted Souter for being - believe it or not - in the same mold as Robert Bork.

And speaking of Bork: after Senator Kennedy helped derail his nomination with his infamous "Robert Bork's America" speech about back-alley abortions and segregated lunch counters, President Reagan ended up nominating Anthony Kennedy, who has been one of the court's key swingers. More proof that Supreme Court nominations have significant, lasting consequences and unpredictable outcomes.

So it's ironic that Obama's first Supreme Court nomination will replace Souter - the man George HW Bush once referred to as the "biggest disappointment" of his presidency.

Will Obama suffer the Souter curse? Highly unlikely, though nothing is out of the question. Obama's popularity, combined with Republicans' low poll ratings and their exceedingly weak position in the Senate means the President will be able to select someone is quite liberal and (most importantly for Obama) has a long track record to prove it without running into serious opposition.