A modest proposal: there would be a lot less nonsense about the sexual orientation of Supreme Court nominees if we elected to the Senate Judiciary Committee more wise Latinas and lesbians.

Open thread below...

I've been screaming here and on TV that it's up to the House to change the health-care bill as much as possible, even if it's happening in a conference-lite type setting. Rep. Raul Grijalva has been very vocal lately and now says the President needs to get involved.

"The president is having his listening sessions, right?" Grijalva asked rhetorically. "After all we've been through at some point the administration can not be neutral players in this process."

Noting that the President stands foursquare behind the Senate's proposal to tax so-called "Cadillac" insurance policies to raise money, Grijalva put it to him to weigh in on some of the House's priorities. "How do you weigh in on a national exchange? How do you weigh in on a public option? How do you weigh in on the anti-trust exemption?"

The public option is a non-starter at this point, and House leaders, progressives, and key chairmen are pushing the White House to support other priorities, including organizing insurance exchanges at a national level, moving the implementation date for major reforms forward by one year, and, at least, diminishing the impact of the Cadillac tax.

"Watching the fight is not enough," Grijalva said. "The pressure shifts to the White House now."

I received an email with a wrap up and pdf from Rep. Grijalva. Here's the entire document that the House has put together, called CPC Conference Comparison.

I continue to feel that the House language provides better solutions to a wide range of problems with our health care system, especially regarding the public option and the creation of a national insurance exchange. Those and many other unresolved issues, including affordability mechanisms and insurance company oversight, will be discussed thoroughly over the next few weeks. As those conversations take place, I look forward to promoting the same publicly supported, money-saving progressive agenda that I have championed since this process began.”

The attached list of policy priorities was recently sent to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the White House.

I think the bill is not all that certain to pass at this point.

DOWNLOADS: (979)

PLAYS: (2304)

Embed

Glenn Beck hosted one of his hourlong sessions before a studio audience talking about the role of heroes in American life. The consensus, both by Beck and his panelists, was that Americans no longer look up to their historic heroes the way they should. Instead, as Beck suggested, we have "Mao Tse Tung hanging in our White House."

Say again? Oh yeah -- the Obama administration is riddled with radical Marxist revolutionaries. Right. Tell that to progressives right now. Moron.

Anyway, Beck apparently draws the line when it comes to the possibility, heaven forfend, Obama might be regarded as a hero:

Beck: I'm a big visual guy. And if you look at the way Barack Obama was imaged -- he was, as a savior. He was, as a -- you look at it now, anybody notice -- you watch the newspaper, and you watch the photos of him coming out of the White House, almost always, they'll have a shot of him with the seal of the President -- you notice that? And it almost looks like a halo. They'll take a shot from the side, and he's standing there, and it looks like a Russian icon!

He's talking about the photos of the president that have been shot for some time now whenever there's a press appearance at the White House. And it didn't start with Obama:

Indeed, if we're suddenly all worried about presidents being made out to be heroes, you have to wonder where Beck was when W. strutted out to his "Mission Accomplished" photo-op:

Now that's what I call an action hero.

Fortunately, Obama has spared us any codpiece appearances.

There literally is no end to the extent by which Republican politicians will lie, distort, and manufacture statements in their efforts to disrupt, deny, and destroy the Obama administration's attempts to govern. At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on 9/11 trial, the Fort Hood shooter, and terrorism, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) decided to flip-flop on the designation of the Gitmo detainees. Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war"?

SESSIONS: The enemy, who could of been obliterated on the battlefield on one day, but was captured instead does not then become a common American criminal. They are first a prisoner of war, once they're captured. The laws of war say, as did Lincoln and Grant, that the prisoners will not be released when the war - until the war ends. How absurb is it to say that we will release people who plan to attack us again?

Sessions seems to be saying that because these detainees were captured by the military, they have become prisoners of war and should not be released - even if found not guilty or after serving a prison term (assuming less than a life sentence) - until the "war on terror" is over (which, under a Republican point of view, will never be over). But on the other hand, SecDef Don Rumsfeld and the other fun-loving bunch of Bushites were very firm about NOT calling them "prisoners of war" because they were not supposed to get rights under the Geneva Convention (or any other form of legal writs - see waterboarding, justification of).

In fact, as one of the commenters at the TPM post notes, there was public law developed to explicitly designate any non-US citizen who was accused of supporting terrorism or acting against the United States as a terrorist as being eligible for military commissions.

I thought like you until I read this, from the Military Commissions Act: "‘(e) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Private Right of Action- No alien unprivileged enemy belligerent subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a basis for a private right of action."

See: here.

This discussion becomes quickly complex with legal passages as a debate over whether the military tribunals should take KSM or if the federal court system has adequate jurisdiction. But it's just so interesting how Republican politicians adroitly jump back and forth as to the question of the detainees' status to how it best fits their argument of the day - are we talking about Geneva convention rights, or are we talking about the process of legal courts?

And because I want to give credit to the interesting comments over at TPM, I will close with the following observations by the commenters:

"I guess when the Right/GOP can say, print (Palin's myth filled book), promote anything without any accountability by the Beltway Press, the GOP has no need for intellectually honest consistency in their claims."

"When did Sessions stop playing the banjo?"

UPDATE: Clarified the guilt point.

DOWNLOADS: (2966)

PLAYS: (5018)

Embed

For Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, white men deserve preferential treatment. Given his stated sympathies for the KKK, this is hardly surpising. But it is worth noting. In his opening statement, Sessions said, Sessions said:

I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yet, Sessions voted for Samuel Alito, who testified in his confirmation hearings that he does take his own personal background and sympathies into account as a judge.

Sessions demands preferential treatment for white men. He clearly applies a stricter standard to persons who are not white men. Given his history, this is hardly surprising. But it is also the perfect embodiment of the Republican philosophy.

h/t to Media Matters.

Here's a recap in video of Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation hearing from Monday just in case you missed it. Don't forget to check C&L's Video Cafe on a daily basis because the team is posting a ton of videos there that we don't front page.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Introduces Her Family Members

Senator Hatch Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Senator Feinstein Interrupted By Protester Judge Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

Senator Sessions Opening Statements Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Judge Sotomayor No Republican Would Have Picked You! Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Russ Feingold Defines "Judicial Activist" Judge Sonia Sotomayor Hearing

Jeff Sessions oblivious to the irony of calling Sotomayor 'prejudiced'

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

David Neiwert documents the irony of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III accusing anyone of bigotry given his own checkered history. The question today is will Sessions continue his self defeating assault on Judge Sotomayor today?

I'll be live blogging the proceedings, both here and at Talk Left. NOTE: When I live blog, I do not provide stenography but instead comment on notable events (at least those things I find notable.) The live blog will be below the fold.

The answer is yes - Sessions calls her a bigot. Thank you Beauregard.

Emptywheel: Former Sen. Bob Graham says the CIA is making sh*t up. Holy Joe says they always told him the truth.  At least one Republican disagrees...sometimes. Still, I applaud the Wingnutosphere's sudden, inexplicable desire for accountabilty.

Hit & Run: Drug Czar calls for an end to the 'War on Drugs'

The Brad Blog: Rove to be questioned by Special Prosecutor on U.S. Attorney firings today

Happy Valley News Hour: The Fanboyification of the GOP

The Reaction: Does anybody really give a damn other than the "variable values" lunatics?

The Political Carnival: Scouts train to fight terrorists

WaPo:

Mary Bono, who was married to late singer-turned-politician Sonny Bono and replaced him in Congress after his death, has married U.S. Rep. Connie Mack.[..]

Mack, a Republican representative from Florida, and Bono, R-Calif., had been dating for two years. Bono's chief of staff, Frank Cullen Jr., said Mack proposed in late August while the couple were on a camping trip in Arches National Park in Utah.

Since they're both members of the House, we will be forced to witness more makeout sessions on the House floor?

Just yesterday, word leaked that Senate Dems, unwilling to see what kind of mischief the president might consider during the congressional recess, might keep the chamber open with a series of pro forma sessions.

Apparently, this wasn’t just a trial balloon — Roll Call reports that Harry Reid pulled the trigger on the idea today.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to keep the chamber in session over the Thanksgiving break to block President Bush from making any unsavory recess appointments while Senators are out of town.

In a statement inserted in the record Friday, the Majority Leader said he will hold the Senate in a series of pro forma or nonvoting sessions to prevent the controversial practice. In the statement, Reid argued that nominations need to get on track, and that Bush has not met the Democrats “halfway” in agreeing to Democratically backed nominees to “important commissions.”

“While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,” Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President will meet me halfway. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.”

Good for Reid. He’d considered this move before, but was reluctant to go through with it. Today, he made the right call.