Andrew’s Analytics

Surrounded by 10 deputy U.S. Marshalls, former Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani pled not guilty today after declining to hear the indictment against him. Ghailani is accused of delivering parts to make the bombs that detonated in the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people. In 2004, Ghailani was captured in Pakistan, and in 2006, was sent to Guantanamo. After five years in detention, he had his first day in court today, appearing before U.S. district judge Loretta Preska, where assistant U.S. attorney David Raskin is seeking the death penalty against Ghailani.

According to House Minority Leader John Boehner, today’s hearing is ”the first step in the Democrats’ plan to import terrorists into America.” It should be pointed out to Mr. Boehner that we already have quite a few terrorist in this country already.  People like Terry Nichols and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, both of whom will spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Are we as a nation less safe because people like this are within our borders, despite the fact that they’re confined to a 7×12 cell for? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the Minority Leader does either. He is just trying to continue the Bush legacy of grabbing power by instilling fear into people.

With Ghailani, and all of the other “illegal enemy combatants”, if they attacked Americans, we can, and we should take action against them.  If there is no evidence against them, how can we claim to be a society on the side of justice when we arbitrarily lock up people who were turned in by neighbors for a $50 bounty? By giving a suspected terrorist his day in court, we are one step closer to justice.

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor today for the United States Supreme Court seat that will be vacated when Justice David Souter retires. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic, and the third woman to serve on the nation’s high court. 

Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by George H.W. Bush. In 1997, Bill Clinton appointed her to the Second Circuit court of appeals. In 1998, the Senate voted 67-29 to confirm her.

In her major opinions on the federal bench, Sotomayor is a moderate. She ruled in favor of the state of New York restricting weapons as not violating the 2nd amendment citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision Presser v. Illinois saying that the 2nd amendment applies only to the federal government, and not states. On the other hand, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she ruled that President Bush was acting in accordance with the law when he withheld federal money from foreign clinics that mentioned abortion as an option.

Her moderate and varied stances should make her confirmation relatively easy. In 2005, Senate Democrats suggested her to President Bush as a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor. Six Republicans who are still in the Senate voted for her confirmation to the 2nd circuit, including then-Chairman of the Judiciary Comittee Orrin Hatch. Obama went with the safe pick on her, and barring any major unforeseen circumstances, she will be sworn in as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

A report from the National Intelligence Director’s Office claims that then Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi was briefed on interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaydah in September 2002.  Pelosi claims that the only briefing she received was in regards to the Bush administration’s opinions on the legality of such techniques. If the report is accurate, this could explain a lot about the Speaker. Perhaps this is why the Speaker took impeachment off the table during the 110th Congress. Perhaps this is why the Obama justice department is reluctant to investigate these crimes.

For years, Pelosi has publicly opposed Bush’s methods of conducting the “war on terror”. Now we find out that she knew about some of the most controversial methods long before her fellow citizens did. She appears to have repeatedly lied to her constituents and the American people regarding her knowledge of these events. If she knew of the torture while Bush was still in office, as the most powerful member of the House, she surely could hav initiated a Congressional investigation. Why didn’t she?  Why is Majority Leader Steny Hoyer defending Pelosi? These are not the progressive values that we voted for in 2006 when we decided to give the House back to the Democrats.  In 2008, electing Barack Obama to the White House, and increasing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, we were sending a signal to Washington that we wanted accountability for the last 8 years of a Republican adminstration that was above the law. Why don’t they listen?

Apparently we can’t reform the health care system in this country without giving more money to health insurance companies. One of the things that President Obama ran on was to create a new health plan administered by the federal government. At a town hall meeting in New Mexico, the President said that he supports a bill by the blue dog Democrats in the House that would mandate private insurance for all Americans. Obama’s campaign position, while not ideal, would at least be a step towards separating our health needs from insurance companies that make a profit by denying claims. The opposition argument to this plan has always amazed me. According to Libertarians, on the one hand, everything the private sector does is inherently more efficient than a government run program. On the other hand, a government run program would have an unfair competitive advantage against private insurers because they could provide care for less money than an industry where around a third of each dollar spent goes to the people who decide what claims will be honored.

Obama claims that this will be a “vast improvement” on our current system that has seen costs skyrocket in recent years. In addition to mandated coverage, the plan will impose a payroll tax on employers that do not provide health coverage. This money would help pay for lower income Americans to buy private insurance. The insurance companies would be required to implement some minor consumer protections such as an annual out of pocket limit.

In 1917, an editorial in The Progressive magazine called for nationalized health care. President Truman failed to implement nationalized health care. In more recent memory, Bill Clinton’s health care reform fell flat early in his first term. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the time will never be better for the Democrats to implement health care reform that will put our health above corporate profits. Despite the fact that most Americans support moving towards single payer health care, the lobbyists are still winning this battle.

A week ago, I thought that Arlen Specter’s defection from the GOP was a good political move for the long time Republican Senator. His behavior over the last week makes me wonder. He has voted against two Democratic initiatives. One was to allow bankruptcy judges to modify a mortgage holder’s payment, while the other was the Democratic budget. He also said that he believes that Norm Coleman should prevail in his appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Senate contest from six months ago.

These are bizarre moves from a man who a week ago thought he could not win a Republican primary next year. He’s probably right about that. Recent polling of Republican voters put Pat Toomey ahead of Specter, and although he’s won the last several general elections comfortably, it doesn’t do him any good if he isn;t on the ballot. If he keeps voting against his new party, he won’t win a Democratic primary either. If Specter was a long time Democrat, he could probably get away with bucking the party, but Pennsylvania Democrats  will be more wary of someone who has sat on the other side of the aisle for more than 40 years. 

He did catch a break when former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge declined to challenge Specter. If he doesn’t start acting like a Democrat though, he won’t even see the general election.

Obama placed a call over the weekend to the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch, asking for his input on Obama’s selection for the nation’s highest court. He also talked to the Senate’s newest Democrat, Arlen Specter, also a member of the Committee. Any potential nominee must passs a vote in committee before being referred to the floor for a vote by the whole Senate.

Is this merely a courtesy call by the President? By the time any nominee comes to the floor, the Minnesota election will probably be decided in Franken’s favor, giving the caucus 60 votes. This means if the Dems can stick together, a GOP filibuster would be meaningless. On the other hand, Obama may want to appear more bipartisan than his predecessor by including the minority in the decision a bit. When Bush tried to appoint Harriet Meiers to Sandra Day O’Connor’s old seat, it was the Republicans, led by Hatch that put the kibosh on it. Bush didn’t get any input from the then minority Democrats in the selection of Alito.

Going back in history a little further, When Byron White retired in 1993, Democratic President Bill Clinton consulted with Hatch, and Hatch gave Clinton a list of nominees that were acceptable to the Republicans in the Senate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on this list. Of course, if the nominee was too far to the left, Republicans could have filibustered the nominee. By the same token, if the Democrats were organized at all, they could have filibustered Alito. 

Obama won’t pay too much heed to what Orrin Hatch has to say. Obama offered out a hand in the spirit of bipartisanship, but Hatch criticized Obama’s criteria for a new justice, saying that empathy was another word for “activist” judges. Obama made the gesture, but Hatch shot him down. This potential showdown makes the Republicans wish they had that crucial 41st vote.

President Barack Obama will get to make his mark on the nation’s highest court early into his first term. David Souter announced today that  he will retire when the court goes into recess in June.  Souter has been a reliably left leaning justice since the appointment of Clarence Thomas. He wrote the lead plurality opinion that upheld Roe v. Wade. He voted with the majority to not allow school prayer at a Rhode Island high school graduation, in Lee v. Weisman. He also dissented in Bush v. Gore, voting to continue the pivotal Florida recount in 2000 that gave the White House to George W Bush. 

This was a major disappointment to early conservative supporters.  Souter was George H.W. Bush’s first appointment to the Supreme Court, and his responses during his confirmation hearings were reminiscent of Robert Bork’s answers. Once confirmed to this lifetime position, he drifted to the left, and is now considered one of the most liberal members of the court. 

If former Senator Norm Coleman loses his appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, with Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican party, the Democrats will have 60 votes. If they can stay united, Obama will have his choice in what may be a President’s most lasting legacy. This will be the first test of the Democrats new supermajority, and will be an indicator of Obama’s willingness to push through the “change we can believe in” that Obama campaigned on.

Former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was the first of 20 Obama appointees to the Department of Health and Human Services to win Senate confirmation yesterday. With worries about swine flu, and a depleted staff, Sebelius will have her work cut out for her as the 9th Secretary of Health and Human Services. Her confirmation went through 65-31, with opponents citing her pro choice stance on abortion as Governor. Sebelius vetoed abortion restrictions several times, stating that ”The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is unconstitutional or even worse, endangers the lives of women.” She also vetoed a bill to allow concealed weapons, opposes capital punishment, and was against the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. How was she elected in Kansas?

Once the swine flu scare subsides, Sebelius will really have to get to work. With the Obama administration putting health care reform as a top priority, Sebelius will play a key role in shaping how that reform takes place. Specter’s defection yesterday will make that fight a little easier, but don’t expect Republicans to go down without a fight. Sebelius is the right person for the job, and should turn out to be a fierce advocate for health reform. For the last 100 years, health care reform has been like the wheather. Everybody always talks about it, but nobody does anything. The political situation will never be better to push through legislation to cover the 50 million uninsured Americans. Let’s hope that the Democratic majority in Congress can use the leverage that they have to finally do something.

Democrats may not need to wait until 2011 to get a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Arlen Specter, long considered a very moderate Republican, annnounced today that he will run as a Democrat next year when his fifth term expires. This puts a lot more emphasis on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s pending appeal of the Al Franken victory in last November’s election. Specter, who has broken party ranks earlier this year, when he voted for cloture on Obama’s stimulus package, becomes the Senate’s 59th Democrat, and as early as June Franken may become the 60th. 

This is a brilliant move by Specter, who consistently faces strong opposition in Republican primaries, but easliy wins the general elections. He has relatively strong support from Democrats, and will probably not face much of a challenge in the primary. He will then go on to face a conservative Republican (Pat Toomey looks like the early favorite) in the general election, and win handidly. Specter will need to toe his new party’s line a lot closer in order to court primary voters, but he knows this, and it shouldn’t be an issue.

The announcement probably would’ve benefited the Democrats more  in a month or so, when Franken is finally seated. With the Minnesota election up in the air, one more Democrat makes it more likely that Coleman will be pressured to drag this out even longer. Although most Minnesotans want Coleman to concede, I think this new development means that he will appeal his case to the federal courts.

Of course, just because the Democrats will have the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster, doesn’t mean they will. Harry Reid has proven to be an ineffectual majority leader, andthe Democrats will piss away this great opportunity to enact some real reforms in health care, because they’re Democrats, and that’s what they do. Trying to unite the Democrats is like herding cats, and look for some of the more conservative ones like Bill Nelson or Joe Lieberman to join what will surely be a united minority in filibustering some of Obama’s more bold initiatives. When it’s all said and done, the move is mostly symbolic, except for Specter himself, who really helped his reelection chances today by switching parties.

In a move that seemed to upset everybody, President Obama released memos earlier this week detailing enhanced interrogation methods used by the CIA in the “war on terror”. Conservatives, as well as members of the intelligence community were against the release of the memos, citing national security concerns. The ACLU had filed a lawsuit, seeking to compel the Obama admistration to release the details of interrogation methods used during his predecessor’s tenure. Obama did not wait for a court ruling on the matter, and voluntarily disclosed the documents.

In a statement coinciding with the release, the President said ”I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release. Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time.” Although pressured to do this by a lawsuit, this is part of the open government that Obama campaigned on, and it is a refreshing change from the last 8 years, when then-President Bush kept us in the dark as much as he could. Obama then went on to state his intention not to prosecute any agents involved in the questionable techniques, saying that they were just following orders. A similar defense was rejected in Nuremberg after the second world war, and ten Nazi officials who tried to use it were sent to the gallows. Not to compare what these agents did to the atrocities comitted by the Nazi regime, but should we hold someone accountable for these acts?

The agents were acting on the advice of a memo signed by White House lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee. If someone gets bad legal advice, they are still held accountable for any illegal acts, even if they are done on good faith that their actions are legal. Where is the accountability for Yoo and Bybee who authorized this? As a candidate, Obama campaigned against these techniques, and as President, one of his first acts was to confirm that Americans do not torture. His statement while releasing these memos rings hollow if he doesn’t do anything about it.