It is becoming increasingly clear that you do not want to get crosswise with Sonia Sotomayor.

Yesterday, the nominee to the high court showed a frightening familiarity with martial arts. This morning, she spoke of going home and getting a gun.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) made this unsettling discovery as he questioned the nominee about the second amendment and self defense. "If the threat was in this room, 'I'm going to come get you,'" the judge said, and "if I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal."

"You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do," replied Coburn, channeling Ricky Ricardo as he addressed the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.

"I'd be in a lot of trouble then," Sotomayor acknowledged. In fairness, she did say that "I don't want anybody to misunderstand what I'm trying to say."

Perhaps. But Coburn, an almost certain "no" vote, might want to ponder the consequences of taking on this product of the Bronx.

Whatever you may think about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, give her this: The woman knows her nunchuks.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) discovered this when he questioned the Supreme Court nominee this morning. "Doesn't your decision in Maloney mean that virtually any state or local weapons ban would be permissible?" he asked.

"Sir, in Maloney, we were talking about nunchuk sticks," the judge explained.

"I understand," said the senator.

"Those are martial arts sticks," Sotomayor added.

Hatch did not want to appear to be a ninja newbie. "Two sticks bound together by rawhide or some sort of a -- "

"Exactly," the nominee said. "And when the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if there's anybody near you, you're going to be seriously injured, because that swinging mechanism can break arms, it can bust someone's skull."

"Sure," Hatch said breezily. He wasn't about to get into a fight with somebody so knowledgeable in the martial arts.

As it happens, Sotomayor is also an expert in swinging mechanisms other than nunchuks. The first questioner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked her to talk about a fellow who swings from trees in the jungle.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask pre-planned questions.

At this afternoon's news conference, President Obama fielded a pre-planned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

"Since we're on Iran," the president said after the obligatory first question from the Associated Press's Jennifer Loven, "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post."

Obama knew this because Pitney had sent what he called a "solicitation" to the White House. Obama aides agreed to call on the Huffington Post writer with the understanding that he would ask a question from an Iranian.

"Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran," the president went on. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "Yes," Pitney said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his question, as arranged. Reporters in the room looked at each other in amazement at the stagecraft they had just witnessed. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel looked at the first row of TV correspondents and grinned.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

This is a day the Sketchwriter has been awaiting for years. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, the former congressman from New Orleans, is going on trial over that "alleged" bribery scheme. I say "alleged" because that's the convention in these cases, and of course he is innocent until proven guilty. But Jefferson has a couple of tricky things to explain away:

• Why he was filmed by the FBI accepting a briefcase containing $100,000 from an FBI informant and putting the briefcase in the trunk of his car at the Pentagon City mall.
• Why $90,000 of that money was found by the FBI in the freezer of his Capitol Hill apartment, in small bundles disguised as leftovers.

But Sketchreaders are a wily and crafty bunch. Your challenge today: Imagine a scenario under which one or both of the above facts can be explained as a perfectly innocent misunderstanding. Your best ideas will be presented to defense lawyers tomorrow on page A2 of The Washington Post.

With thanks,

The William Jefferson Legal Defense Fund

Update, 12:21 p.m.: The judge has recessed for lunch, so we'll have to wait until 1:15 to see how Jefferson's lawyer is going to explain the cold cash in his opening argument. But there was a key development this morning: Prosecutors flashed pictures of the frozen food containers that hid the $90,000. Most prominent were a Pillsbury Pie Crusts box (with the little dough-boy) and Boca Burgers.

Boca Burgers? Should we anticipate the Vegetarian Defense?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is keeping an open mind about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

"We have the whole package here," he announced in his office this morning with the smiling Supreme Court nominee seated to his left, her hands folded neatly in her lap.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he would take the judge's academic credentials into account when assessing her nomination.

"Academically, I mean, I am terribly impressed. Princeton, summa cum laude. We have Yale Law School, editor of the law review. That's very impressive," Reid said, as the judge smiled, blinked, nodded her head and mouthed a "thank you."

The Democratic leader hinted that he would also weigh Sotomayor's professional qualifications when forming his opinion.

"I've been very impressed with learning everything I have about you. A prosecutor, private practice, and now a judge for these many years. A trial judge for those many years and now appellate judge. And so we could not have anyone better qualified," he said.

Then, Reid made a startling admission: "Of course, I'm somewhat biased."

No! Mr. Leader, have you prejudged the nominee?

The winner of yesterday's Etch-a-Sketch: "Goombay," who responded to my request to identify the new era of the Republican Party by commenting:

"The new era will begin when the blanket references to Ronald Reagan cease. We get it...Great guy, great era for the party. Know who does not get it: everyone under 30 years of age."

This comment, posted half an hour before the speech by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, turned out to be prescient. Steele did, indeed, make three Reagan references in his speech about the future, a point noted in my column.

Today, your Sketchwriter is planning to see Orrin Hatch roll out a 100 mpg Hummer. I'm told that this most unusual plug-in hybrid (the truck, not the Utah senator) will prove that Americans can have their cake and eat it, too -- a fuel-efficient truck that can squash a Prius without denting a bumper.

This gives me a thought for today's Etch-a-Sketch, although I must admit up front that I'm not sure it will work. Your mission: To determine which type of car or truck various lawmakers and administration officials should be driving to best suit their personalities.

We know, for example, that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) drives a Hummer (not the 100 mpg type), while Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) drives a Prius. President Obama and his spokesman both drive the Ford Escape hybrid, while former campaign manager David Plouffe just picked up a politically-correct Ford Fusion hybrid. A few years ago, I caught Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- after a gas station event bemoaning high gas prices -- getting into an 18 mpg Chrysler LHS, even though her office was only a block away. (Her staff later protested that it was a staffer's car and that the senator owns a Prius.)

I understand from the Post marketing people that the typical Sketch reader is a Mini Cooper driver, so you are obviously a group of savvy motorists. Who should have the Harley, who gets the PT Cruiser? A Subaru? A rusty old Dodge?

Thanks to those of you who submitted "enhanced interrogation" recommendations for former Bush administration lawyers yesterday, particularly "Mauckjw," whose ideas appeared in today's column on the subject. Many others were insightful, too, except for the one who called me a "dipsh@t."

Today the Sketch will go to the new National Harbor development, where Disney is planning to build a resort hotel. But today the entertainment there is being provided by Michael Steele as he addresses the Republican National Committee. According to the advance text, he's going to tell us that "the era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over." Also over, presumably, is the era of Michael Steel calling Rush Limbaugh "incendiary" and "ugly," labeling abortion an "individual choice," and confessing that his office is too masculine.

This, naturally, leads us to today's question: With the era of apologizing over, what will the new era of the Republican Party be? As usual, I'll crib from your answers for tomorrow's column.

Warm regards,

The Dipsh@t

Welcome back to Etch-a-Sketch, the game in which you, the reader, do my job for me while I go to lunch.

Today's challenge: Torture.

I attended an event this morning in which Kevin Zeese, a Naderite lawyer, filed petitions seeking to have 12 former Bush administration officials disbarred for their role in the torture memos. As it happens, that is roughly the number of "enhanced interrogation techniques" endorsed by Bush lawyers. This would seem to present the possibility of an elegant solution: forget about the attempts to disbar or prosecute these former officials, and instead subject them to the very same techniques they approved. Because they said these techniques are perfectly legal and do not cause long-term harm, they should have no objection to the techniques being applied to them. At the same time, this would satisfy the urge for vengeance on the left, while also freeing up our courts, the Congress and the administration to press ahead with other matters.

So your job is to mix and match from the following list of Bush officials and enhanced interrogation techniques. Please explain why a particular person would be a good candidate for a particular one of these techniques.

Congratulations to "zippypinhead1," who wrote the lead of today's Washington Sketch column: "Calling Jimmy Carter to testify about energy security is like calling Michael Vick to testify about pet care."

Today's assignment is tricky. I'm in an excellent hearing right now in which the Senate Commerce Committee is attempting to rescue Disney and Vegas. But next door there's a Judiciary Committee hearing on torture. It won't be very funny, but there's word that former interrogator Ali Soufan will be testifying from behind a screen. Help me figure out how to combine the themes of the two hearings. For example: What enhanced interrogation techniques would Disney or Vegas casinos use if they were put in charge of questioning terrorism suspects?

Thank you for all those excellent Limbaugh jokes yesterday. I loaded up today's column with them, but the editors, God bless 'em, decided every last one of them "crossed the line" and therefore had to be removed.

Still, let us not be discouraged. This afternoon, Jimmy Carter will appear before John Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations committee to speak on the subject of "Energy Security: Historical Perspectives and Modern Challenges."

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Share your favorite 1970s energy memories. Gas lines? Sweaters? Killer rabbits? Okay, that last one had nothing to do with energy, but you get the idea. I'll be back to collect your thoughts for inclusion in my next column -- unless the editors have other plans.

UPDATE, 2:07 p.m.: Good stuff. I've got to work in that SNL skit (below).

Please help me to complete the following SAT-style analogy: Calling Jimmy Carter to testify about energy security is like calling _______ to testify about ____________.

Examples:
George W. Bush/ Franco-American relations
Bill Clinton/ Sexual harassment policy