U.S. Senate Passes Sweeping Anti-Smoking Bill (79-17)....Pres. Obama Eager To Sign Into Law

Huffington Post-----

WASHINGTON — The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

President Barack Obama, who has spoken of his own struggle to quit smoking, said he was eager to sign the legislation, and the House planned a vote for Friday. Cigarette foes said the measure would not only cut deaths but reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

Fierce opposition by the industry and tobacco-state lawmakers had prevented passage for years, along with veto threats by the George W. Bush White House. In the end, the nation's biggest tobacco company supported the measure, though rivals suggested that was because it could lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 45 million U.S. adults are smokers, though the prevalence has fallen since the U.S. surgeon general's warning 45 years ago that tobacco causes lung cancer.

The legislation, one of the most dramatic anti-smoking initiatives since the surgeon general's report, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the content, marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

"This legislation represents the strongest action Congress has ever taken to reduce tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States," declared Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

The 79-17 Senate vote sent the measure back to the House, which in April passed a similar but not identical version. House acceptance of the Senate bill would send it directly to Obama, who said Thursday that final passage "will make history by giving the scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps."

"At any given moment, millions are struggling with their habit or worrying about loved ones who smoke," said Obama.

His signature would then add tobacco to other huge, nationally important areas that have come under greater government supervision since his presidency began. Those include banking, housing and autos. Still to come, if Congress can agree: health care.

Supporters of FDA regulation of tobacco have struggled for more than a decade to overcome powerful resistance _ from the industry and elsewhere. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agency did not have the authority under current law to regulate tobacco products, and the Bush administration opposed several previous efforts by Congress to write a new law.

Thursday's legislation gives the FDA power to evaluate the contents of tobacco products and to order changes or bans on those that are a danger to public health. The agency could limit nicotine yields but not ban nicotine or cigarettes.

Regulators could prohibit tobacco companies from using candy or other flavors in cigarettes that tend to attract young smokers, and restrict advertising in publications often read by teenagers. Rules on sales to minors would be toughened, as would warning labels. Tobacco companies would have to get FDA approval for new products, and would be barred from using terms such as "light" or "mild" that imply a smaller health risk.

Costs of the new program would be paid for through a fee imposed on tobacco companies.

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids _ children _ will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that FDA regulation could reduce underage smoking by 11 percent over the next decade.

The bill, said American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown, "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults."

The tobacco lobby, contended Durbin, has long been the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, "and they managed to create an exemption in virtually every law so that no federal agency could take a look at them and regulate them."

But the industry has also taken hits in recent years as the dangers of smoking became more apparent and states moved to limit smoking in public places. In 1998 the industry agreed to pay the states $206 billion to help cover health care costs, and this year Congress raised the federal cigarette tax by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack, to fund a health care program for children.

The nation's largest tobacco manufacturer, Philip Morris, USA, has come out in support of the legislation. Its parent company, Altria Group, said in a statement that on balance, "the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

Its main rivals, however, have voiced opposition, arguing in part that FDA restrictions on new products will lock in Philip Morris' share of the market.

Lawmakers portrayed the bill as a major first step in bringing down health care costs, an essential goal of the health care overhaul legislation that is the top priority of the Obama administration this year.

"This bill may do more in the area of prevention, if adopted, than anything else we may include in the health care bill in the short term," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who managed the legislation on the Senate floor in the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who has long promoted FDA regulation.

Opponents, led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina, argued that the FDA, which is in charge of ensuring the safety of food and drug products, was the wrong place to regulate an item that is injurious to health.

He also contended that the bill would restrict tobacco companies, including several based in his state, from developing new products that might be less harmful to users. He unsuccessfully proposed the creation of a new agency that would both regulate tobacco products and encourage efforts to make cigarettes less harmful.

The bill is H.R. 1256.

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

(This version CORRECTS, deleting reference to minor differences to be worked out with House.)


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, Whitehouse.gov, Google Maps

Congress Agrees To Hold Hearing On Single Payer Health Care Insurance Option

Daily Kos----

The official silence on Capitol Hill on Single Payer -- at least in the House -- is ending.

Thanks to the ongoing pressure and dedication of Single Payer activists across the country, who the Washington Post noted this past weekend, "have spent months hounding Democratic lawmakers and organizing demonstrations, including one that resulted in 13 arrests at a Senate hearing last month," a Congressional committee will for the first time in the current proceedings on Healthcare reform, hold a public hearing on Single Payer Wednesday.

The hearing, "Exploring the Single Payer Option," will be held on Wednesday, June 10 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 2175 in the Rayburn House Office Building by the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions.

National Nurses Movement's diary:

That's a subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, which is chaired by Rep. George Miller, one of the most influential members of the House and one of 75 co-sponsors of the House single payer bill, HR 676.

Geri Jenkins, RN, a co-president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, and Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Walter Tsou of Physicians for a National Health Program are among the expected witnesses.

While one hearing is not cause for breaking out the champagne, it's an important step forward, giving single payer advocates an opportunity to make the case for the most cost effective, comprehensive reform, and against the wasteful, inefficient and cruel for-profit health insurance industry.

With the timetable on a reform bill shrinking every day, it's apparent we have no time to lose. With that in mind, single payer proponents have been stepping it up to break through what CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro last week called, "a conspiracy of silence within the Congress."

Or as DeMoro told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today:

"All the institutional players have been at the table" while excluding "the majority of Americans who have either no healthcare or inadequate healthcare. The nurses and physicians across the nation are outraged and they see what is happening with this disgraceful healthcare industry" and other proposals in Congress that keep the insurance companies "at the apex of power."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, author of a Senate single payer bill, S 703, and a single payer champion in the Senate, also speaking on Democracy Now, cited a central problem that single payer proponents face, one familiar to nurses and doctors,

"The drug companies, insurance companies, and medical equipment suppliers who today make huge amounts, billions and billions of dollars, off health care who fight us in an unrelenting way through lobbying, campaign contributions, and advertising to make sure the system functions to make more profits for the private insurance companies rather than provide quality health care to all the people."

What more and more people understand, Sanders noted, is that we need a "fundamental overhaul," not just "tweaking the system" to "help some people get insurance but not get to the basic reason why our system is so costly and wasteful."

Ironically, DeMoro noted, the insurance industry and the Republican minority are fighting just as hard against a public option provision within many of the proposals as they would against single payer.

Most of the arguments made against single payer are not on policy grounds, but on political viability. If that were the case, we would not have Medicare, or Social Security, or disability insurance, or unemployment insurance, or many other reforms that the that are now a third rail of American politics.

What our history proves is that with courageous and bold political leadership any reform that benefits the American people as a whole is politically viable.

Dare we squander this rare opportunity for limited legislation that will not adequately control costs, be truly universal, improve quality, and guarantee choice of doctor and provider? Or will we leave the American people feeling the moment has been wasted and that once again they can not trust our government to genuinely act in their interests.

Please redouble your efforts, and fax the Congressional committee chairs again, and tell them that they need to include the proven efficiency of single-payer in their debate and discussion over any healthcare reform.


View Larger Map

Sources: Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Washington Post, SFgate.com, The Chronicle, Google Maps

Opponents Of Chrysler's Sale to Fiat Asking U.S. Supreme Court To Block It

MSNBC----

NEW YORK - Opponents of Chrysler's sale to Fiat are asking the Supreme Court to block the deal.

Three Indiana state pension and construction funds filed emergency papers at the high court early Sunday to put the sale on hold so they can pursue an appeal.

The federal appeals court in New York approved the sale Friday, but gave objectors until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Chrysler wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a group led by Italy's Fiat as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection.

The emergency request goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles such matters from New York. She can act on her own or refer it to the entire court.

The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.

The funds also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.

Incredibly high profile

The government-sponsored reorganization of the U.S. auto industry, including the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings, "is a matter of incredibly high profile and importance," the funds said in their request to the high court. "The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of the massively powerful executive branch."

U.S. Judge Arthur Gonzalez, the bankruptcy judge overseeing Chrysler's case, approved the sale last Sunday, finding that the deal with Fiat was Chrysler's only alternative to liquidation.

The appeals court halted the sale on Tuesday, allowing the funds to appeal Gonzalez's decision.

The court ruled against the funds on Friday, but continued to delay the sale so that the funds could go to the Supreme Court.

Chrysler had hoped to close the sale by the end of this week.

Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler has maintained that the sale must be completed quickly to save the automaker from complete collapse. If the deal doesn't close by June 15, Fiat has the option of pulling out. Production at Chrysler's manufacturing plants remains halted pending the closing of the sale.

Dealers fight back

On Wednesday, a parade of Chrysler dealers slated to lose their franchises as part of the automaker’s restructuring testified in the automaker’s bankruptcy case, one choking back tears. Many touted their sales and service records and questioned how they were chosen for termination.

Arguments on Chrysler’s motion to cancel the dealerships’ franchise agreements are scheduled for Tuesday. It was unclear when Gonzalez will rule, or how this will affect Chrysler’s plans to sever ties with the dealerships effective Tuesday.

Chrysler claims that it needs to reduce its dealer base by 789 dealers, or about 25 percent, to a leaner network of about 2,400 dealers in order to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as a stronger company.

But the dealers argue that they don’t cost the automaker anything. They say that if Gonzalez approves Chrysler’s motion, hundreds of dealerships will be shuttered, and thousands of workers will lose their jobs.

A group representing about 300 of the dealers have filed an objection. They also earlier opposed Chrysler’s sale to Fiat, saying it was tied to the plan to eliminate the dealerships. Several attorneys for individual dealers also have filed objections.

Before Thursday’s testimony began, Gonzalez noted that Chrysler has a good case to terminate the dealer franchises.

Gonzalez said that under Chrysler’s plan, the rejected dealers will remain with “Old Chrysler,” a collection of assets that aren’t slated to be sold to the Fiat group. And since those leftover assets won’t be making vehicles, there would be little use for the dealers that would go with them, he said.

(A Virginia Chrysler dealership owner speaks before some members of Congress on how the sale of Chrysler will impact him.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Washington Post, Day Life, CNBC, CBS News, Flickr, Google Maps

G.O.P. Senator Jeff Sessions Was Also Once Characterized As Racist By Congress

The New Republic----

"You will get a fair hearing."

Senator Jeff Sessions assuring SCOTUS nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor she will be treated fairly during her Confirmation Hearing. CNN reports on his past.




Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.

Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.

On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.


It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."

None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.

Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.

And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.



View Larger Map

Sources: The New Republic, Crooks and Liars, TPMtv, CNN, Day Life, Youtube, Google Maps

WTF?? Cheney Was In Charge of Interrogation Briefing Hearings For Congressional Members?

Washington Post----

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about the controversial interrogation program, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used on detainees.

The Cheney-led briefings came at some of the most critical moments for the program, as congressional oversight committees were threatening to investigate or even terminate the techniques, according to lawmakers, congressional officials, and current and former intelligence officials.

Cheney's role in helping handle intelligence issues in the Bush administration -- particularly his advocacy for the use of aggressive methods and warrantless wiretapping against alleged terrorists -- has been well documented. But his hands-on role in defending the interrogation program to lawmakers has not been previously publicized.

The CIA made no mention of his role in documents delivered to Capitol Hill last month that listed every lawmaker who had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" since 2002. For meetings that were overseen by Cheney, the agency told the intelligence committees that information about who oversaw those briefings was "not available."

The revelations do not shed light on whether top Democrats, as Republicans contend, were aware that waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, was being used on terrorism suspects as early as the fall of 2002. That discussion has dominated Capitol Hill since last month, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was not present at any of the briefings that included Cheney, accused the agency of intentionally misleading her in a 2002 briefing about the use of waterboarding.

An official who witnessed one of Cheney's briefing sessions with lawmakers said the vice president's presence appeared calculated to give additional heft to the CIA's case for maintaining the program. Cheney left it to the professional briefers to outline the interrogation practices, while he mounted an impassioned defense of the program.

"This is a really important issue for the security of the United States," the official recalled Cheney saying.

The CIA declined to comment on why Cheney's presence in some meetings was left out of the records. One senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the identities of individual briefers are intentionally concealed in all cases -- their names do not appear in any of the CIA documents that describe congressional briefings. In at least some cases, he added, the identity of the briefer was never recorded in the agency's internal records.

For all but seven of the 40 meetings listed, however, the documents outlined which agency led the briefing and which provided support. And on at least five occasions, they spelled out that then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden led the classified meetings.

Since leaving office in January, Cheney has mounted a vigorous public defense of the interrogation practices. Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, he said CIA officials approached the White House in 2002 with the request to use harsher techniques such as waterboarding.

"We all approved it. I'm a strong believer in it. I think it was the right thing to do," said Cheney, who is now pushing for the declassification of the information gained from the detainees who were subjected to the most brutal techniques.

Several members of Congress who took part in the Cheney meetings declined to comment on them, citing secrecy concerns. But there was little doubt that he was leading the charge on the issue.

"His office was ground zero. It was his office you dealt with at the end of the day," recalled Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who jousted with Cheney over the system of interrogations.

One of the most critical Cheney-led briefings came in late October 2005, when the vice president and Porter J. Goss, then director of the CIA, read Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) into the program on the interrogation methods, according to congressional and intelligence sources.

One knowledgeable official described the meeting as contentious. Cheney and Goss, with other CIA officials present, tried to persuade the former Vietnam POW to back off an anti-torture amendment that had already won the support of 90 senators.

The McCain amendment would have ended practices such as waterboarding by forbidding "cruel, degrading and inhumane" treatment of detainees. The CIA had not used waterboarding since 2003, but the White House sought to maintain the ability to employ it.

In the meetings with lawmakers, Cheney was adamant that the enhanced interrogations were needed to preserve national security, according to two participants. He advocated briefing more lawmakers about the program, against the wishes of National Security Council officials who sought to inform only the top members of the intelligence committees.

Lawmakers at times challenged Cheney and CIA officials about the legality of the program and pressed for specific results that would show whether the techniques worked. In response, the CIA briefers said that half of the agency's knowledge about al-Qaeda's plans and structure had been obtained through the interrogations.

Before the McCain briefing, Cheney met with a friendlier audience, his longtime friends Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who oversaw the Pentagon's annual spending bill, to which the McCain amendment was attached. Cochran said yesterday that it was the first time he had been given a full description of what waterboarding entailed.

"I found the conversation with the vice president to be very candid, straightforward, helpful," Cochran said.

CIA records indicate that another briefing -- for which the briefer's name is "not available" -- was given to Senate GOP leaders on Nov. 1, 2005. That was the same day Cheney made a regular appearance at the weekly Tuesday luncheon for Senate Republicans. Cheney usually engaged only in brief, quiet asides with senators at the lunches. But at this meeting -- the day before The Washington Post published a detailed account of the CIA's secret overseas prison system -- Cheney rose to speak, and the room was cleared of all staff.

He discussed the value of the interrogation program and the information gleaned by using the harsh techniques, according to numerous contemporaneous media accounts.

Cheney's briefings on interrogations began in the winter of 2005 as the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, Sen. John D. Rockefeller III (W.Va.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), publicly advocated a full-scale investigation of the tactics used against top al-Qaeda suspects.

On March 8, 2005 -- two days after a detailed report in the New York Times about interrogations -- Cheney gathered Rockefeller, Harman and the chairmen of the intelligence panels, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), according to current and former intelligence officials. Weeks earlier, Roberts had given public statements suggesting possible support for the investigation sought by Rockefeller. But by early March 2005, Roberts announced that he opposed a separate probe, and the matter soon died.

Cheney's efforts to sway Congress toward supporting waterboarding went beyond secret meetings in Washington. In July 2005, he sent David S. Addington, his chief counsel at the time, to travel with five senators -- four of them opponents of the CIA interrogation methods -- to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On the trip, Sen. Graham urged Addington to put the interrogations at secret prisons and the use of military tribunals into a stronger constitutional position by pushing legislation through Congress, rather than relying on executive orders and secret rulings from Justice Department lawyers.

Subsequent court rulings would challenge the legality of the system, and Justice Department lawyers were privately drafting new rules on interrogations. Addington dismissed the views of Graham, who had been a military lawyer.

"I've got all the authority I need right here," Addington said, pulling from his coat a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, according to the senator, suggesting there was no doubt about the system's legal footing.

Sources: Washington Post, Huffington Post, Day Life, Politico

Sotomayor Explains "Wise Latina" Remarks, Gains Support From Leahy and Sessions

Politico--

Senate Democrats turned the usually staid meet and greet for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee into a full blown PR offensive Tuesday, defending Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record while offering her first public defense of her controversial comments about race.


Democrats are also pushing an accelerated timetable for her confirmation, and are trying to lay the groundwork for a vote before the long August recess, despite Republican complaints that such a schedule wouldn’t give them enough time to scour Sotomayor’s judicial record. Democrats may lay out a hearing schedule before the end of the week, Senate sources said.

The Democratic push – coming as Sotomayor had a whirlwind day of visits with 10 senators – is aimed at building momentum for her nomination, while pressuring Republicans not to slow or block her path to the Supreme Court.


Sotomayor told several Democratic senators, in private meetings in the Capitol, that her comment that a “wise Latina woman” could render a better judgment than a white male judge was part of a much broader speech and that ultimately she was committed to following the rule of law above anything else.


In defusing the controversy over the “wise Latina” comment, Democrats sought to put the spotlight back on Sotomayor’s extensive legal career, assure the public she was committed to following the law and is not an activist judge.


Typically senators are largely mum about their private conversations with high-profile nominees. But Democratic senators, after watching Sotomayor get ripped for the past week by conservative commentators, chose to reveal much more of their conversations from Tuesday’s closed door meetings.

“What she said was of course one’s life experience shapes who you are,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who Sotomayor cleared to give her first public response on the controversy. “But ultimately and completely … as a judge you follow the law.”


But Sotomayor did not concede that she used a “poor” choice of words, as Obama himself suggested Friday even as he said that her statements had been taken out of context.


Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, said she didn’t acknowledge using a poor choice of words but put in a context for him to understand better. She told him: “’basically it means that’s part of my life experience that I bring to my judgment.’ She said, ‘Maybe it means with this background I’m a better listener, I listen for better things. But ultimately, it’s not going to decide any case for me.’”

“What Judge Sotomayor was saying was, ‘this is part of who I am. … This will be one of the things that I use to understand the people who come before – the cases that come before – but she said in the end that it’s the law that will decide.”

And another Judiciary Committee member, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who lunched with the nominee along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said Sotomayor pointed out that her comments in the speech where she made this remark also referenced the fact that Brown v. Board of Education was decided by nine white males, and she argued that her speech should be considered in its broader context.

In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor also explained that the experiences of white men affect how they render their law and that she has worked to overcome personal biases and assumptions to issue fair rulings.

Durbin said Sotomayor told her that her “judgment is not to be trumped by gender and race.”

While Democrats seemed willing to repeat the highlights of their conversation with Sotomayor as part of the PR offensive, Republican senators withheld judgment and offered skeptical questions over her approach to the law.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he was "very impressed" with her knowledge, experience and energy level. But he added that questions remain about her approach she would take to the law – even as she told him she “ultimately and completely” would follow the law.

“Some of the writings she has made, some of the speeches that she has made are troubling,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who also met with the nominee Tuesday. “They’d be troubling to anybody who is fair.”


“I think we need to hold our fire until we examine all of these opinions and writings,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “I think what this could boil down to -- and we'll have to examine very carefully all of the evidence -- is what this judge's view of judging is. Is it the same as the president's, which I reject, or is it more in common with what past judges and justices have done in deciding the cases on the merits rather their own feelings?”

Escorted by a handful of aides, Sotomayor was armed with talking points for her Senate visits, including telling several of them that the law was “ultimately and completely” the guiding force in how she makes decisions from the bench – even if her background helps guide how she comes to a decision.

Leahy and Sessions are planning to hold a critical meeting Wednesday morning to discuss timing on considering the nominee.


Leahy said Tuesday that Sotomayor has been the subject of “vicious” attacks – including one by Tom Tancredo likening her involvement with La Raza to that of the Ku Klux Klan and Rush Limbaugh calling her a “racist” – and he wants her to come before the committee as early as July. He said it would be “irresponsible” to wait until September to hold hearings since she would not be able to respond to the attacks, but Sessions disagreed.


“I don't think it will be irresponsible,” Sessions responded. “I hope the chairman will keep an open mind on this.”

If no deal is reached, Democrats expect an announcement on the hearing schedule to be issued in the coming days, with July a likely target, sources said.

"It will not be a fair process if they do that," Hatch said, adding that "some might" vote against her if that happened.

“I know how difficult it is for somebody who is nominated, they can’t answer charges, they can’t speak out when they’re a nominee,” Leahy said.

Sources: Politico, Day Life

Sotomayor Goes To "The Hill"

The Hill Briefing Room---

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is expected to make her case in person this week as she visits Capitol Hill for the first time as President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

And despite harsh criticisms from prominent conservative figures, the federal court of appeals judge can expect a fair hearing from the people who will actually vote on her confirmation: sitting U.S. senators.

A review of the morning talk shows Sunday evidence that while Republicans sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee have a healthy dose of skepticism about Sotomayor’s legal record, none were willing to vote against her or commit to a filibuster yet. And almost all praised her tough upbringing as a child of a single mother growing up in a South Bronx public housing project.

Perhaps most importantly, none of the Republicans repeated the most explosive charge coming from party figures such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh — that Sotomayor is a racist. Most dispelled that argument outright or declined to comment on it.

In fact, Sotomayor found high praise in an unusual place: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). On "Meet The Press" Sunday, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking member described her as having an “almost ideal” mix of experience for a Supreme Court nominee, with her resume boasting stints as a prosecutor, private litigator and a trial judge before sitting on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

On her tour of Capitol Hill, Sotomayor can begin trying to soothe worries over her statement that resulted in the racism charges. The judge gave a 2001 speech in which she suggested that a Latina woman would make a better judge than a white man.

That has angered Republicans the most, but those who appeared on the Sunday talk shows all seemed willing to listen to the New York judge’s explanations behind the speech.

Scheduled on Sotomayor’s itinerary this week are reportedly visits with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and possibly his counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Also included are stops with Sessions and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

What is the most useful for the nomination process from Sotomayor’s extensive record is not her 17 years on the bench but that she has gone through Senate confirmation twice.

She is also no stranger to judicial politics. Her nomination to the court of appeals was held up by Republicans in 1998 over worries that she would make it to the Supreme Court. Now, more than 10 years later, Sotomayor will begin to make that case in person this week.

Sources: The Hill Briefing Room, Huffington Post

Dems Punish Specter By Stripping Him Of Seniority On Five Congressional Committees

Fresh on the heels of Sen. Arlen Specter's defection from the G.O.P. to the Democratic Party, are recent news reports that he has just been stripped of Seniority on five Congressional committees.

The decision to remove Specter's seniority on those committees occurred during a vote on Capitol Hill Tuesday night and may have come as a surprise to the 29 year Public Servant.

Pursuant to Specter's defection he told reporters Dems had assured him such a move would allow him to maintain priority status as it relates to becoming a future Committee Chairman, upon his reelection in 2010.

Last Sunday he also stated to "Meet the Press" show host David Gregrory, "it's an "entitlement" for him to retain his seniority on those committees.

Further stating, "I was elected in 1980. I think that's not a bribe or a give for something extraordinary," he said. "I'll be treated as a Democrat as if I was elected as a Democrat."

However apparently this sentiment was not embraced throughout the Democrat-controlled Congress.

By voice vote Specter was instead added as a Democrat Junior member on these five committees:

Judiciary, Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, Aging and Environment & Public Works.

While Specter's new position on these committees does expand the Dems' majority, it will place him in last place during Committee Hearings and limit his influence.

It seems the Dems decision to unseat Specter from his Seniority status came about AFTER he voted against President Obama's Budget and publicly expressed he wanted Norm Coleman to win Minnesota's Senate race.

Going forward it looks as though if Senator Specter wishes to reap anymore Congressional rewards, he's going to have to "tone down" his Independent streak and show some Democratic Loyalty.

With all due respect to Senator Specter, considering that our country is in much need of Economic Reform, Health Care Reform, Tax Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Housing Reform, Educational Reform, etc., this is no time for ANY member of Congress to grandstand or demonstrate their so-called "Independent Streak".

Instead its a time to work together in order to help bring about needed positive change for the American Voters.

Senator Specter telling "Meet the Press" show host David Gregory that he will maintain his Seniority status on Congressional Committees.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Specter stating, "I did not say I would be a Loyal Democrat".



Sources: Politico, Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Meet the Press, CBS News, Political Base, TMPTV, Youtube