Author: Andrew Sullivan

"I can't believe how much they've offered us. The Tories have basically rubbed out their manifesto and inserted ours. We'll have to cope for four or five years with our flesh creeping, but still," – a left-leaning Lib-Dem member of parliament to Michael Crick.

We'll find out soon enough. I should say I am not opposed to the referendum on AV or instant run-off voting. My concern is that Britain continues to have a one-member-one-constituency system, to ensure direct representation and avoid too much power going to party elites. Under AV, the Liberals would do much better – but Britain would also have a chance to retain strong, clear, one-party governments.

In some ways, too, this outcome allows Cameron to ditch the Tory right. I suspect there will be grumbling among the ranks, and that William Hague, the chief negotiator for Cameron, will once again be delegated to bring them on board.

Hitchens compares the Burqa to a klansman's hood:

Let me ask a simple question to the pseudoliberals who take a soft line on the veil and the burqa. What about the Ku Klux Klan? Notorious for its hooded style and its reactionary history, this gang is and always was dedicated to upholding Protestant and Anglo-Saxon purity. I do not deny the right of the KKK to take this faith-based view, which is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I might even go so far as to say that, at a rally protected by police, they could lawfully hide their nasty faces. But I am not going to have a hooded man or woman teach my children, or push their way into the bank ahead of me, or drive my taxi or bus, and there will never be a law that says I have to.

I guess he'd have said the same things about nuns in their habits back in the day. But, really, how many fully-veiled women have pushed past you in a bank-line lately?

Brown has just resigned as PM. Alex Massie sees the logic of Clegg's actions over the past couple days:

Once Labour MPs vowed to derail any plan to force through voting reform without a referendum and once John Reid, David Blunkett and Andy Burnham pointed out the absurdity of a "Loser's Alliance" that, however constitutionally permissable, would mock the actual, you know, result of the election then even the most sawdust-brained Liberal Democrat MP could appreciate that this bird wouldn't fly.

That leaves a proper deal with the Tories the only sensible option – an outcome that I suspect was Clegg's preference all along. But he may now have been able to sell the idea to his party without having to make it a confidence motion in his own leadership or having to issue an ultimatum to his party. That leaves Clegg in a stronger position internally.

Contra Jeffrey Rosen, Scott Lemieux argues that Justice Kennedy, the moderate on the court, won't be persuaded to side with the liberal block by Kagan –or anyone else. Yglesias takes the long view:

I think it’s reasonable to assume that Kennedy knows his own mind perfectly well. He’s not pulling these decisions out of the ether any more than his colleagues. The Republican Party of the 1980s was simply a much more ideologically diverse coalition than the Republican Party of 2010. This was especially true on certain kinds of social and cultural issues. Ronald Reagan was a popular political leader in New Jersey, not just Alabama. In the modern day, Kennedy’s particular mix of viewpoints has become rare, but that’s just a sign of how much things can change over the course of a 22-year (and counting!) spell on the Supreme Court, not a sign that he’s somehow confused or particular easy to persuade.

Frum says no:

The 25 biggest US corporations of 1969 employed 7% of the workforce; the 25 biggest corporations of 1998, only 4.5%.

His commenters point out that the biggest corporations account for a larger share of GDP than they did in 1969.

A pretty strong endorsement, from a pro-executive power “let’s not pussy-foot around” position:

The Telegraph is piling on:

18.35 Gallows humour at Number 10: Gordon Brown is reportedly cracking jokes inside his office. As if his beleaguered aides haven't already suffered enough. 

Josh Green:

It's probably not to soon to draw this conclusion: out of the gate, Elena Kagan has been less controversial than her immediate predecessor, Sonia Sotomayor. Here's why that's interesting: despite the smoother reception, Kagan will probably garner fewer votes in the Senate than the 68 votes Sotomayor got.

This is less a reflection on Kagan or Sotomayor than a marker of just how much Washington has changed since last August. The difference is the increased awareness among Republican senators of the energy and anger in the conservative base.

"While you and I may feel that "the anti-gay thing is getting worn out," it is a very safe bet that it is NOT getting worn out for a substantial portion of the American electorate. To dismiss this issue out of hand is not only naïve, it is (I believe) self-destructive to the long-standing health of liberal ideals. Either we stand up for our views/values, or we (hypocritically) sweep them under the rug. The conservatives have no qualms about being open about THEIR views, so why should we?

If sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant, our dithering on the issue of prospective Justice Kagan's sexual orientation may lead to a much bigger setback for her views than being coy about it. Why the shame?

It is altogether unbecoming–not to mention the fact that there is much to gain, politically, from openness. It is very doubtful whether a national plebiscite with the question "Should we appoint a highly qualified and intelligent lesbian to the Supreme Court" would come out anything but positive. Don't come in the back door! Go in through the front door with a mandate! That said, I think the confirmation will be rocky, but I believe it will be much rockier if Ms. Kagan hides her homosexuality and it comes out (it WILL come out, those hearings are awfully thorough) and show her to be either duplicitous (at best) or mendacious (at second best). The "anti-gay thing is worn out" excuse is no defense against what happens next," – a commenter at the New Yorker, responding to Jeffrey Toobin's strange personal assessment.