One Reason Sen. John Kyl is ...

an asshole. Kyl announced he will attempt to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who has the audacity to try and understand how decisions my impact some one's life.

The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out a filibuster if President Barack Obama seeks a Supreme Court justice who decides cases based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas."

Sen. Jon Kyl made clear he would use the procedural delay if Obama follows through on his pledge to nominate someone who takes into account human suffering and employs empathy from the bench. The Arizona Republican acknowledged that his party likely does not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, but he said nonetheless he would try to delay or derail the nomination if Obama ventures outside what Kyl called the mainstream.

"We will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn't decide cases on the merits but, rather, on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas," Kyl said.

The Democrats handed these jerks Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and they dare to say they will filibuster someone who holds basically the same judicial philosophy as Justice Souter?

What assholes.

SCOTUS Nominee Poetic Justice?

Or Clarence Thomas's Worst Nightmare

For those of us who lived through the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, Nell Scovell has a terrific idea!

Minutes after NPR reported that Justice David Souter plans to step down from the Supreme Court, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof updated his Facebook status to ponder a replacement: “I think Obama just might appoint Elena Kagan, his new solicitor-general and the former Harvard Law School dean. She’s young, smart, understands politics as well as law. Who would you like to see him appoint?”

Thanks for asking, Nick. I’d like to see President Obama appoint Brandeis University law professor Anita Hill. She’s reasonably young, smart, and—after her ordeal testifying at Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing—she certainly understands politics as well as law.

Now that's the truth!

My first day on staff at the NOW action center we headed out for a Stop Souter rally at the Capitol. Thank goodness we were so wrong.

One of the saddest, and most frustrating, days for me during my time with NOW was the day Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the Senate. I kept asking myself how could Senator Biden have let the hearings get so out of control in regard to the testimony of Anita Hill? And how could Senator Arlen Specter have been such a jerk in his line of questions to her?

We fast forward to find Biden as Senate President and Specter as the new-Dem-on-the-block. As the Church Lady might say: "How convenient."

So what do YOU think about having a "Justice" Anita Hill?

Hey DeMint: "What The Hell Does That Mean"

This is a bit dated, but I've decided to go ahead and post it for your viewing pleasure! Take a look at back-to-back video of an exchange between CNN's Rich Sanchez and GOP Senator Jim DeMint -- with a little Jon Stewart thrown in for fun! DeMint is seriously out of touch with reality!


The complete interview:

Reid Still Doesn't Get It

Americans by and large know that if they break, or even bend, the law there is a price to pay. Well, unless you are a corporate CEO or part of the Executive Branch of government. THAT is the message being sent by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who should know better. Unlike our president, Reid has been around awhile.

It's understandable that President Obama wants to remain focused on fixing the mess left behind by the Bush administration, but Reid should support Speaker Pelosi's call for an investigation on torture.

Senate Democratic leaders, joining forces with the Obama White House, said they would resist efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats to create a special commission to investigate the harsh interrogation methods that the Bush administration approved for terrorism suspects.

At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Senate Democrats endorsed Mr. Obama’s view on Thursday, telling reporters that they preferred to wait for the results of an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee expected sometime “late this year.” But Ms. Pelosi renewed her call for an independent panel.

Mr. Reid, who repeatedly denounced the use of harsh interrogation techniques when Mr. Bush was president, suggested that naming a special panel would signal an intent to exact “retribution” and he sought to paper over the disagreement with members of his own caucus, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who want a commission.

Hummm ... let's think about this.

ret·ri·bu·tion (rět'rə-byōō'shən) n.
Something justly deserved; recompense.
Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

Seems appropriate for the actions of the previous administration.

And what about our Constitution? Is it just a piece of paper, or is there meaning behind the words written? George Bush & Co. didn't seem to think it meant much -- but many of us do.

So come on Reid, it's time to get on board with what the American people want.


MUST READS:

Is Cheney Winning the Torture Debate?
By Eric Etheridge

Abu Zubaydah’s FBI Interrogator Removes the Legal Cornerstone of the Torture Regime
By emptywheel

Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror Plots
By Greg Sargent

Senate Passes Lilly Ledbetter Act

The Senate, tonight, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The version is slightly different from what the House passed earlier, so once the House passes the revised version the bill will be on its way to the President for his signature.

The Washington Post reports:

A wage discrimination bill that heralds the pro-labor policies of the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House cleared the Senate Thursday and could be on President Barack Obama's desk within days.

The legislation reverses a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines the time period during which a worker can file a claim of wage discrimination, even if the worker is unaware for months or years that he or she is getting less than colleagues doing the same job. It has been a priority for women's groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women. [...]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that "the first bill that President Obama will sign will be this piece of legislation." He said the bill would send an important message because "this administration stands for equality and fairness."

Obama strongly backs the measure and invited Lilly Ledbetter, the retired Alabama tire company worker whose lawsuit inspired the legislation, to accompany him on the train trip bringing him to Washington for the inauguration.

Bush had threatened to veto the bill, but it never made it out of the Senate. This is a good day for women!

Chrysler shuts down all production for month

Hey Sen. Bob Corker ... do you and Sen. McConnell really want to be responsible for bringing down the auto industry? Then get off your ass and FIX IT!

No one is questioning there are problems in the industry that need to be addressed, but let's compare how the auto industry and banking industry have been treated.

When they initially requested $34 billion, auto makers and the union were asked to jump through numerous hoops, yet you didn't ask the financial institutions for a plan before giving them $700 billion!

And what are the banks doing with all the money we gave them, because they are certainly not extending credit to people who want to buy cars.

Citing a credit crisis and dwindling sales, Chrysler LLC on Wednesday said it would shut down all of its manufacturing operations from the end of this week for at least a month. [...]

Chrysler said its dealers were getting car shoppers into showrooms but losing between 20 percent and 25 percent of those potential sales because of the lack of consumer financing for new car purchases.

"As a result of the financial crisis, the automotive market remains depressed due to the continued lack of consumer credit for potential buyers," the automaker said in a statement.

So what did we get for our $700 billion? I'd really like to know.

Is There a Kennedy in NY's Future?

It's official! Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg has officially announced her intent to seek the US Senate seat in New York being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York Times reports:

Ms. Kennedy ended weeks of silence with a series of rapid-fire phone calls to the state’s leading political figures, including Gov. David A. Paterson, in which she emphatically and enthusiastically declared herself interested in the seat, according to several people who received the calls.

“She told me she was interested in the position,” Mr. Paterson said at a news conference outside Albany on Monday. He added, “She’d like at some point to sit down and tell me what she thinks her qualifications are.”

I must confess that I have mixed emotions about this.

The first political contest to capture my attention was the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. That administration carried with it a sense of hope similar to what many are feeling today. But is that reason enough to give the Senate seat to Caroline Kennedy?

I strongly think the vacancy must be filled by a woman. Women make up just 17% of Congress, so we can't afford to lose even one seat. And whoever is selected will have to defend the seat in 2010, which is not much time.

There are women in NY's Congressional delegation who have certainly paid their dues, but do they have the name recognition and fundraising capability necessary to hold the seat?

... Ms. Kennedy has emerged as a clear front-runner, if she proves able to withstand the intense scrutiny and criticism that her decision to seek the seat is likely to provoke.

Still, some have questioned whether Ms. Kennedy is qualified for the job.

Ms. Kennedy is now launching a public effort to demonstrate that she has both the ability and the stomach to perform the job, with plans to visit parts of the upstate region. The governor, who has expressed frustration with other elected officials for campaigning too openly, has done nothing to discourage her, said a person who has spoken with Ms. Kennedy.

In addition, a person with direct knowledge of the conversations said that Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Paterson had spoken several times in recent days and that the governor had grown increasingly fond of her. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the governor, said that Mr. Paterson also had come to see Ms. Kennedy as a strong potential candidate whose appointment would keep a woman in the seat and whose personal connections would allow her to raise the roughly $70 million required to hold on to the seat in the coming years.

Under state law, Ms. Kennedy would have to run and win in 2010, to finish out the last two years of Mrs. Clinton’s term, and again in 2012, to win a term of her own.

So what do you think? Should the Governor select Caroline Kennedy? Will supporters of Sen. Clinton be willing to overlook the role Kennedy played in Obama's victory? Inquiring minds want to know.

.

New York Weighs Options to Fill Clinton's Senate Seat

The New York Times reports:

Nine months ago, when he was the lieutenant governor, David A. Paterson dreamed that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would head to the White House and he would be tapped to fill her Senate seat. [...]

On Friday night, just before delivering a speech to the N.A.A.C.P. in San Francisco, Mr. Paterson told reporters that 10 to 20 people had already contacted him about their interest in taking Mrs. Clinton’s place. “I would say it’s not a shy and retiring group of people who would like to serve in the Senate,” he said, declining to name them.

I have one suggestion for the Governor -- fill the seat with another woman.

Women are just 17% of Congress, and we simply cannot afford to lose ground.

And there are excellent candidates in NY that have more than paid their dues for the opportunity to move up. My first choice would be Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey, a 10-term member of Congress. Lowey had intended to run for the seat currently head by Sen. Clinton, until Clinton threw her hat in the ring. Recognizing that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance of winning, Lowey stepped aside and support her.

My second choice would be Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez, who is currently serving her eighth term as Representative for New York’s 12th Congressional District. Both women are strong women's rights supporters.

It's looking more and more like Sen. Clinton will be our next Secretary of State. Once that is announced, let's urge Gov. Patterson to do the right thing and fill Hillary's Senate seat with another woman!

.

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens loses re-election bid

This is GREAT NEWS! Ted Stevens is a truly obnoxious individual, and his arrogance finally caught up with him.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats within two seats of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

Happy Birthday ... ha!

Stevens' future was murky at a time when newly elected members of both the House and Senate were on Capitol Hill for heady receptions, picture-taking sessions and orientation this week. Stevens, speaking earlier Tuesday in Washington, said he had no idea what his life would be like in January, when the 111th Congress convenes.

"I wouldn't wish what I'm going through on anyone, my worst enemy," he lamented to reporters. "I haven't had a night's sleep for almost four months."

Don't worry, Ted -- hopefully you'll have plenty of time to sleep in prison.

You Go Grrl!

NBC has called New Hampshire for Jeanne Shaheen and North Carolina for Kay Hagen.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jeanne Shaheen (Dem) ......... 39,635 - 56%
John Sununu* (Rep) .................. 28,509 - 41%







NORTH CAROLINA
Kay Hagan (Dem) ................... 696,868 - 56%
Elizabeth Dole* (Rep) ................ 507,048 - 41%



These are pick-up seats for the Dems and a wonderful victory for women!

Senate Caves on FISA

The Senate passed H.R. 6304 amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, granting telecom immunity. You can view the roll call vote here.

The New York Times reports:

More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program. [...]

The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. Both houses, controlled by Democrats, approved what amounted to the biggest restructuring of federal surveillance law in 30 years, giving the government more latitude to eavesdrop on targets abroad and at home who are suspected of links to terrorism.

The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday. His reversal last month angered many of his most ardent supporters, who organized an unsuccessful drive to get him to reverse his position once again. And it came to symbolize what civil liberties advocates saw as “capitulation” by Democratic leaders to political pressure from the White House in an election year.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted against the bill.

Hummmmmmmm ...

Getting to 60

60 votes, that is the magic number to make anything happen in the United States Senate. Without 60 votes, legislation dealing with Iraq (or any social justice issue) simply cannot pass.

Today the Senate failed to pass two key measures, a vote to require that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed, and a move to give terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

Senate Democrats fell short late this afternoon in what was seen as their best chance to shift the course of the war in Iraq, in a vote on a measure to require that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed.

The vote on the measure, offered by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, was 56 to 44 in favor — four less than the supporters needed to prevent a filibuster. The outcome was almost the same as that in a vote on the measure in July, when 56 senators voted in favor and 41 against.

Senator Webb and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, made an aggressive last-ditch push today for the proposal, but to no avail.

“War is hell, but politicians shouldn’t make it any worse,” Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said in urging support for the Webb measure.

Sen John McCain argued that the message the president is getting from the troops is "Let us win." and Sen. John Warner, who had indicated he "endorsed" the measure, also said he intended to "vote against it."

In explaining his decision, Mr. Warner said he had been persuaded, at a meeting earlier in the day with senior military officials, that the Webb plan could not be carried out without causing havoc for the armed forces, potentially lengthening soldiers’ tours in Iraq.

Digby has an excellent post about Warner.

A move to give terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detentions in federal court fell short, even though it had majority support.

Fifty-six senators voted to cut off debate, and move forward to a vote on the bill itself, a step known as cloture. But under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture. [...]

“The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, a co-sponsor of the measure with Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. Mr. Leahy is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Mr. Specter the committee’s senior Republican; both are former prosecutors.

The legal concept of habeas corpus (“You have the body” in Latin) dates back to medieval England, and is meant to protect people from being locked up indefinitely without a court review. Last year, Congress passed and President Bush signed an act eliminating the right of habeas corpus for non-Americans who are labeled “enemy combatants” in the continuing campaign against terrorism.

So there you have it. No longer is a simply majority enough to pass legislation out of the Senate, it now takes 60 votes! When did filibuster become the norm? I have written about this in the past, but there is a need to keep saying it -- we MUST vote in 2008, and we MUST elect enough progressive candidates to reach that 60 vote standard if we ever want to see change.