The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Scooter Libby's request for an appeal bond.

President Bush has repeatedly said he will not pardon Scooter Libby while his case is in the Appeals court.

Does Libby have any options besides reporting to prison on schedule? If he was certain a pardon would be granted, he could drop his appeal of his conviction. Then Bush could say the matter has concluded in the courts and the time is right for him to grant a pardon.

Bush could commute his sentence to probation, reserving the pardon issue until the Appeals Court has ruled on the conviction.

Other than those, I can't think of any. It sounds like Libby will be proceeding to prison as scheduled.

Via a WSJ interview with Giuliani, h/t to Josh Marshall for pointing to the interview, Rudy says that:

I think that terrorism should be approached the way we approach organized crime and the way we approach crime.

Of course, that is contra the Republican talking point about what the US did wrong in dealing with terrorism before the great and powerful Bush Administration and what is part of Rudy's basic strategy of criticizing the Clinton Administration. In fact, not two minutes earlier in the SAME interview, Giuliani said:

The World Trade Center was attacked in 1993; we saw it as a criminal act and not an act of war. It was an act of war. That was a mistake.

Sounds like Rudy proposes we return to the 1980s, when he was filing RICO cases against the Five Families. We need some nicknames though - Osama "The Chin" bin Laden? Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

I'm spending the day writing briefs instead of blog posts, so if there's something you'd like to discuss, here's the place.

Let's also keep giving the holiday gift of traffic. Feel free to put links to your own blog posts in the comments -- so long as they are in html format (long urls skew the site and I can't edit comments on Scoop, I can only delete them.)

You might start with Mike's Blog Round-Up over at Crooks and Liars. Avedon Carol has Notes from the Blogosphere. Christy at Firedoglake has a great post on Habeas, Sentence First, Verdict Later. John Travolta defends Scientology against charges it is homophobic.

Your turn.

The New York Times today endorses "The Second Chance Act."

America has become a prison nation. More than 2 million people are behind bars. There is a better solution. Some states have already found it.

Several states have instead begun to focus on developing community-based programs that deal with low-level, nonviolent offenders without locking them up. And they have begun to look at ways to control recidivism with programs that help newly released people find jobs, housing, drug treatment and mental health care — essential services if they are to live viable lives in a society that has historically shunned them.

We need more of this and the best way to further it is to bring it to the federal level, with passage of the "The Second Chance Act."

More....

Glenn Greenwald takes Michael Gordon of the NYTimes to task for, in Glenn's words:

uncritically recit[ing] the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offer[ing] assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations. . . . I defy anyone to scour Gordon's article and point to a single difference, large or small, between its content and what a Camp Victory Press Release on this topic would say.

I take Glenn's point, but I was struck by this quote from the military spokesman:

When he was asked if Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be unaware of the activity, General Bergner said "that would be hard to imagine."

Hard to imagine? Perhaps. But does Gordon or anyone in the Media think it is possible to "imagine" this was true?

George W. Bush [told] . . . the American people in a speech . . . that the [Abu Ghraib] scandal was the work of "a few American troops who dishonored our country."

From WMD to Cheney's involvement in leaking the identity of a CIA operative to warrantless eavedropping to torture, the Bush Administration has a long track record of not telling the truth.

What is hard to imagine is taking at face value any statement from any part of the Bush Administration. And unfortunately, that includes military spokespersons.

I agree with Jane and John Amato of Crooks and Liars: The Republicans blocked the immigration reform bill and voters will remember that when its time to go to the polls.

I wasn't happy with the bill because it was too onerous on the path to legalization and too disrespectful of principles of family reunification.

Yet, there's no doubt that Republican xenophobes killed immigration with their false insistence that it was an amnesty bill. And voters are likely to make them pay. Republicans are the biggest losers in the debate:

Hispanics represent the fastest-growing chunk of the American electorate. Their choices help drive the rising swing states of presidential politics: Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I've written about a species of analysis that I think is best described as "academic Broderism," a description coined by Jon Zasloff and endorsed by Scott Lemeiux. (See also Emily Bazelon.) The most notable practitioners that I have seen of this are Cass Sunstein and Jeffrey Rosen, both contributors to The New Republic and other "serious" publications. I want to provide a counterpoint example and it so happens that perhaps the finest Left law blog there is, Balkinization, gives us two of the best examples - Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman and Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin.

Lederman and Balkin consistently provide well reasoned analysis that understands the politics of the Supreme Court and the law, and also engages the real world consequences. On the discussion of the day, the utter predictability of how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito would change the Court, Balkin and Lederman were clear eyed during the nomination process and urgent in their writings, and remain so now. The typical academic detachment was not deemed necessary by these two legal scholars. More.

Senator Barack Obama (D-Il) shattered Dem fundraising records when he raised $32.5 million in the last quarter. He has now raised nearly $59 million for his campaign for the Presidency.

Sen. Hillary Clinton raised $27 million, also surpassing previous Democratic highs. John Edwards raised his stated goal of $9 million.

Obama will be able to compete dollar for dollar with Clinton. He has at least the same amount of free media access. When the campaign starts in earnest after Labor Day, Obama will have every tool he needs to win the nomination. As will Hillary. Edwards is banking on a win in Iowa to propel him. He has the funds to give it his best shot. The other candidates, including my guy Sen Dodd, will need to capture lightning in a bottle in Iowa.

Money is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for winning the nomination. Ask Howard Dean. So, this does not decide the nomination. If you believe in polls this early, Obama trail Hillary badly. In my view, nothing is decided until Iowa. We'll see what happens. May the best candidate win.

The New York Times has a very nice and long profile of Elizabeth Edwards today. I hope I get to meet her at some point during the campaign. Her heart and her politics are in the right place.

As for John Edwards, as I wrote here, he's coming around on mandatory minimum sentences and the crack-powder cocaine disparity (as is Hillary), and here's what he said on Iraq and Guantanamo at a Tampa fundraiser this weekend:

Most important, he said, is ending the war in Iraq. "This is not politics, " he said. "This is about life and death."

Edwards said if elected he would close Guantanamo Bay detention camp on his first day in office and make it clear the United States does not condone torture. He also pledged to stop "illegal spying" on Americans and push for an end to the violence in Darfur.

It's also refreshing to see he held a $15 fundraiser. It brought out 500 people. Edwards has been very gracious in making himself available to others than fatcats and even to bloggers.

On Monday, Bill Clinton joins Hillary for campaign events in Iowa. I don't think the question is will it help or hurt, but how much will it help?

Bill's role has been carefully crafted. He will introduce Hillary as the person who knows her best and provide biographical details of her life and talk about her accomplishments. Hillary then will speak about issues facing the country.

The theme of the tour is “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead.”

Via Sentencing Law and Policy, I see that at the Democratic debate on Saturday night at Howard University, the candidates spent six minutes on sentencing reform and mandatory minimum sentences.

The Sentencing Project reports:

Democratic Forum, the first of the All-American Presidential Forums broadcast on PBS and hosted by Tavis Smiley, addressed the issues of mandatory minimum sentencing and racial disparity in the nation's criminal justice system Thursday. Hosted at Howard University in Washington, D.C., the forum focused on crime and punishment as one of eight topics presented to the Democratic candidates.

Rep. Kucinich first brought up the need to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing when asked about the disparate rate of incarceration, because "We know who's serving those mandatory minimums."

Several candidates addressed the need for reform of federal crack cocaine sentencing laws, including Sen. Joseph Biden, who this week introduced the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007 which would eliminate the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

The entire transcript is here and the sentencing issue portion begins here. You can watch the segment here.

Shorter version: Kucinich has always seen the light. Hillary and Edwards have made major shifts in the right direction, kudos to them. Richardson disappoints and is the only candidate to evade the question.

As to specifics, here's what each of them said.

Enjoy and stay for the credits.

For those not in a humorous mood, check out this collection from Harpers on Undoing Bush: how to repair eight years of sabotage, bungling, and neglect (Via Susie at Suburban Guerilla.)