Step it up, Obama!

Senator Durbin asks Obama to get involved while Congress is in recess.

"I say this as a member of Congress who's been an observer: The president is in the driver's seat in August," Durbin told reporters Wednesday. "Congress is gone and scattered to the winds with personal family and constituent service. And the White House is still there, generating a message and activity. So I think the president will have a chance to tell the American people a little bit more about why this process is so important."

Progressive Obama supporters are beginning to worry that a public health care option is doomed. Democratic senators have begun voicing skepticism about the direction the debate is going.

But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board.

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children's Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. "Can't you see the joy on my face?" he asked.

The president had wanted legislation before recess, but negotiations in the Senate have made it unlikely. And in the House, conservative Blue Dogs made a deal with leadership that there will not be a vote until after the break.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked.

snip

Democrats in Congress plan to finance about half the cost of the legislation by squeezing savings from Medicare. The White House says benefits will not be cut and beneficiaries will not be hurt.

“Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Mr. Obama said.

But Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, said he heard many expressions of concern from constituents when he answered telephone calls to his office on Tuesday.

“The longer we wait to vote,” Mr. Butterfield said, “the more opportunity our opponents have to put out false messages. Seniors fear they will lose Medicare. They worry they will have to discuss plans for end-of-life care every five years.”

A provision of the House bill would provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care.

Conservative groups have seized on this provision as evidence that the bill could encourage the rationing of health care. The Family Research Council, for example, said the bill would “limit end-of-life care.”

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, said, “I have met seniors who think their Medicare will be taken away, which is false.”

So the Republicans, like the Iraq war, are trying to scare people into voting against theor best interest again. Why do people still believe these Republicans after all that has happened in the past 8 years. Everything they put in place or took away, like regulations for our banks and financial, have crashed. And yet these people still believe these idiots!

Fact Sheet on Executive Privilege

From Nancy Pelosi's the Gavel Blog:

Today, House and Senate Judiciary Chairmen John Conyers and Patrick Leahy sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, responding to the President’s executive privilege assertion over documents relating to the US Attorney investigation. The two reiterated their concern that the president’s assertion was unprecedented and over-reaching. They also demanded the White House “immediately provide us with the specific bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log…and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege.”


See Chairman Conyers’ statement yesterday

See the initial announcement of the subpoeanas



The Committees also released the following fact sheet on Executive Privilege:

The White House’s Broad Claims of Executive Privilege Are Not Supported by Law
Background: President Bush has asserted executive privilege in response to two document subpoenas from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The subpoenas requested categories of documents highly relevant to the unprecedented and improper firing of nine United States Attorneys and the politicization of the Department of Justice. The executive privilege is not a broad and sweeping authority the President can hide behind because he does not want to cooperate with congressional oversight — it should not prevent Congress from examining White House documents vitally important to its investigation. While courts have recognized a privilege based in the Constitution, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with other constitutional interests, including Congress’s oversight powers.

Courts And Legal Experts Agree Executive Privilege Is Limited:

· The Supreme Court held that the executive privilege is not absolute in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974), writing that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege … .” The DC Circuit elaborated that “the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

· The District of Columbia Circuit found that even in the area of national security, there was no absolute executive privilege against congressional demands for information: “The executive would have it that the Constitution confers on the executive absolute discretion in the area of national security. This does not stand up. While the Constitution assigns to the President a number of powers relating to national security, … it confers upon Congress other powers equally inseparable from the national security… .” United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [The documents requested by the House and Senate Committees do not implicate any national security concerns.]

· The Congressional Research Service emphasizes the limited nature of the executive privilege. “Executive privilege is not an absolute. It is a qualified privilege and is balanced against the constitutional needs and obligations of other branches.” Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2005.

The Documents Requested By Committees Do Not Fit Into Narrow Executive Privilege:

· The privilege covers communications related to presidential decision-making, which is not at issue here. The DC Circuit has found that the presidential communications privilege applies to communications “intimately connected to his presidential decision-making.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 753. However, numerous witnesses before both House and Senate Committees have testified that the President did not decide which U.S. Attorneys should be fired.

· The privilege, even if it does apply, is overcome by real public need — as exists here. Executive privilege is overcome where the subpoenaed materials likely contain important evidence and where that evidence is not available elsewhere. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 755. Again and again, the evidence the Committee has obtained in this investigation shows significant involvement by Sara Taylor, Harriet Miers, and others in the White House, but the White House has shut down all avenues of obtaining information about that extremely important involvement.

The broader deliberative process privilege does not apply. That privilege does not apply when there is reason to believe government misconduct occurred, as has been clearly established in this matter, and does not apply to full documents – only to specific and relevant passages. Several of the high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice have resigned since this investigation began. In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 745.

The White House’s Claims Of Privilege Are Sweeping And Overly Broad:

· The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has been critical of this White House’s sweeping characterizations of executive privilege. “The current Bush Administration … has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential constitutional prerogatives that, if applied to information and documents often sought by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.” CRS further notes that the Department of Justice’s “assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.” CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, January 3, 2007, at 45.

· The White House has not sought in good faith to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. The White House Counsel asserted privilege and declared that “therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents.” June 28, 2007 Letter from Fred Fielding to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers. A serious assertion of privilege would include a serious effort to determine which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply; White House officials have provided no such comprehensive review.

The White House Has Not Sought Accommodation:

· Most disputes between Congress and the Executive about access to documents and information are resolved through compromise. CRS Congressional Oversight Manual at 39.

· The White House in this case has made one unacceptable “take it or leave it” offer of extremely limited access to witnesses, off-the-record interviews, without transcripts, and a small number of documents. The White House has refused to negotiate further. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees have sought the kind of compromise solutions which generally accompany this type of investigation, but have been consistently rebuffed by the White House. Even the Department of Justice has made attempts to respond to congressional inquiries.

Lots of bad news for our Nation today

First of all, Bush refuses to supply subpoenaed documents.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.

The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

"Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He portrayed the president's actions as "Nixonian stonewalling."

His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was "unprecedented in its breadth and scope" and displayed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government."

And from our Supremes, Court Limits Schools on Race

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected school assignment plans that take account of students' race in two major public school districts. The decisions could imperil similar plans nationwide. The Court also blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.

Today is probably the Court's last session until October.

The school rulings in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle leave public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he said race may be a component of school district plans designed to achieve diversity.

He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle went too far. He said, however, that to the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted as foreclosing the use of race in any circumstance, "I disagree with that reasoning."

The two school systems in Thursday's decisions employ slightly different methods of taking students' race into account when determining which school they would attend.

Senate Blocks Immigration Bill. This is not all bad though. I think a better bill can be passed. And it is good news since the president doesn't get his way on this one.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.

The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

And I guess the House members think they need a pay raise. I think they should wait until we get more of what the people they represent want done!

House Members Seek $4,400 Pay Raise

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

What bothers me most are the decisions that the conservative Supreme Court have passed. Their decisions will hurt our nation.

Rove being called to testify in the firing of States Attorneys hearing

Senator Schumer has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to call White House Karl Rove to testify over the US Attorney purge. The White House acknowledged yesterday that Rove was involved.

Here's Senator Schumer's statement from Think Progress:

“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge,” Schumer said. … “There’s an emerging pattern that is extremely disturbing and everyday the sanctity of U.S. Attorneys as neutral enforcers of law without fear or favor is diminished,” Schumer said. “We will get to bottom of this.”

Eventually Rove will get his due. There is still a sealed file from the Grand Jury for the Plame incident so he's not cleared yet. It will be interesting to watch how this all falls out.

UPDATE: From McClatchy: "Mr. Conyers and Ms. Sanchez intend to talk with Karl Rove about any role he may have had in the firing of the U.S. attorneys," said Sanchez spokesman James Dau.

Rove on the Hot Seat!

House Passes Iraq Resolution

That's good news! It passed 246-182

2 Dems voted against - Marshall (Ga) and Taylor (Ms)

17 Republicans voted with the Dems!

6 Did not vote

See the vote talley here

Now the Senate must vote on this. They are arguing on the Senate floor about having to vote tomorrow. The Senate needs 60 votes.