Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

In 1998, Congress enacted the Child Protection Act, which made it a crime for an website operator to permit those under 17 to access sexually explicit material posted on the site.

Today, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled the law unconstitutional.'

In a detailed decision, Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. found that the Child Online Protection Act would not be effective in protecting children from online pornography, and that parents could shield their children by using software filters and other, less restrictive means that do not curtail adults' rights to free speech.

You can read the 84 page opinion here (pdf).

The ACLU declares victory.

More...

The Drug Enforcement Administration was busy this week. The Bad Guys (a blog of U.S. News & World Reports) reports the DEA seized the most cocaine and most money ever.

So, what does $205 million look like?

What does 42,845 pounds of cocaine look like?

Update [2007-3-22 20:28:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: And now those who advocate for this bill will have their theory tested:

Four prominent liberal Democrats said Thursday they have given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the support she needs to pass the $124 billion wartime spending bill, even though they remain steadfastly opposed to any additional funding for the war.

All right all you proponents of this bill, what is the famous "next step" for this strategy? As Johnny Friendly says in "On the Waterfront," "you want him, you got 'em." What now?

Dem speaker after Dem speaker has defensively said the Iraq supplemental bill is "just a first step." At Daily Kos, Miss Laura repeats this talking point without examining whether it is is true or not:

The House of Representatives today began debate on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. . . . [T]oday the question comes down to yes or no on this bill, which does, for the first time, set a withdrawal deadline. . . . MoveOn expressed support for this bill, at least as a "first concrete step to ending the war." . . .

I say to her, saying it is a first step don't make it so. Indeed, by its own terms, it should NOT be so. It should be a last step setting a date certain for total withdrawal. That Miss Laura argues that it is a first step is the evidence that indeed the date certain is not so certain.

The debate on the House Iraq supplemental funding bill, HR 1591 now reaches the debate on the bill itself. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), leads off for support of this bill.

As I did below, I will be live blogging the debate. Sorry, duty called.

Obey's argument - 'we try to do three thing with this bill - (1) direct monies to the right war, Afghanistan, (2) protect the troops, and (3)send a message to the Iraqi politicians. This bill sets a timetable for getting out of Iraq. It sets benchmarks, and set "a target" for ending our incolvement under any circumstances.'

Same argument. The bill does none of part 3 imo. The benchmarks are a charade as the PResident certifies there completion. The end date certain is phony as this Congress will never cut off funds in September 2008, two months before an election. This bill will never become law. It will be filibustered in the Senate and this bill will thus be weakened. IF it has a tooth left, the President will veto it.

It does not help politically. The Dems get nothing from this bill. It does not help towards ending the war in Iraq. This bill hurts this cause. It should be voted down.

Update [2007-3-22 16:21:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Procedural vote passes with 224 votes. 1 GOP vote, Walter Jones presumably. More debate and the big vote tomorrow.

Open Thread. I'll be updating with my observations, which as always, are attributable only to me. You can follow along on c-span or at the c-span website.

Louise Slaughter, voting Yes, (D-NY) says "this its the first time Democrats get the chance to change the course of the war and we will do it."

Not with this bill you are not Representative. You talk a good game but push came to shove and you balked at standing for ending the war. You are supporting staying the course for all practical purposes. Your changes are unenforceable. Your withdrawal deadliine a sham. You have not honored your word on this.

Tony Snow says Congress has no oversight authority. That certainly explain the last six years of the Republican Congress. Anyway, James Madison sent this note:

The Federalist No. 51

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

Independent Journal

Wednesday, February 6, 1788

[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

You know what I think about the House Dem Leadership's Iraq supplemental funding bill. But what do I know? I am just a citizen who has thought it through for months, looking at facts, language and history. Why not listen to a DC Beltway Media type. They know how things really work right? so let's see what Tom Edsall has to say:

The Democratic leadership . . . has busied itself behind closed doors, producing a toothless, loophole-ridden resolution that showcases the party’s generic antiwar stance while trying to establish troop readiness requirements, benchmarks for Iraqi progress and withdrawal timetables. The resolution — more precisely, a set of deals intended to paper over intraparty factions — is the result of a process better suited to a highway bill than national security. This patchwork proposal . . . risks setting the Democrats up for a poisonous share of responsibility for the failure of United States foreign policy, while amplifying questions regarding Democratic competence on military matters.

Hmmmm. That does not sound good. So what is the political reason for this bill again?

House Dem Leadership still twisting arms to get the votes for their terrible, harmful, politically disastrous Iraq supplemental funding bill:

The Iraq debate is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon on the House floor, but the final vote was delayed by a day to give leaders more time to build support for a measure that has proved to be one of the most significant tests of the new Democratic Congress.

Shelve the bill House Dem Leadership. Start over. This bill is just plain horrible.

Bump and Update: The Edwards campaign is continuing. The cancer is back, minimally. She feels fine. Future treatment is medication and a less invasive form of chemo. Elizabeth looks and sounds great. Their optimism is inspiring. What grace under pressure.

Bump and Update: CBS reports John Edwards will suspend his campaign due to Elizabeth's relapse of cancer. CNN says the campaign denies it. We'll know any minute. [Update: Ben Smith of Politico apologizes and explains.]

*****

Original Post

Presidential hopeful John Edwards will hold a press conference today at noon ET.

More....

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards accompanied his wife, Elizabeth, who has been treated for breast cancer, on a doctor's visit Wednesday. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health.

Campaign officials refused to answer any questions about what the Edwardses learned at the doctor's appointment or how it might affect his candidacy. Edwards had cut short a trip to Iowa Tuesday night to be with his wife Wednesday but still attended a barbecue fundraiser later in the evening in their hometown of Chapel Hill, N.C.

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he will not resign.

And, he's about to go on the road.

Starting in the next few days, Mr. Gonzales will be meeting with most of the current United States attorneys as he makes a long-scheduled trip to several cities to promote Justice Department programs.

Sen. Arlen Specter says the subpoena fight could take up to two years to resolve.

I'll go into the legal issues in more detail in a later post, but I want to draw your attention to Marty Lederman's incisive post on the strategy being employed by the Solicitor General in defending the DC Circuit's Boumediene decision. I strongly criticized the decision here.

Marty says:

As I predicted (see here and here), the SG -- no doubt aware that the Court is likely to hold that the Constitution protects the detainees at GTMO -- has decided to focus the case on the much closer question, which is whether the D.C. Circuit review of CSRT determinations, prescribed in the DTA and MCA, is an "adequate substitute" for habeas, assuming that the detainees at GTMO do have constitutionally protected habeas rights.

As a litigator who has argued a number of appeals, I do admire the first rate lawyering from the SG's office. The focus on the narrower non-Constitutional question and away from the weakest part of the decision is executed deftly and smartly by the SG.

As appellate craftsmanship, it is more than first rate; it is a wonderfully argued brief. I think it could ultimately fail to persuade but, as I said, the craftsmanship is truly admirable.