Bump and Update: As anticipated, Frist kicked off the nuclear option today by moving to end debate on Priscilla Owen's nomination - called a motion or petition for cloture. The clock is ticking.

**************
Original Post 6:30 am

The next stage of the Nuclear Option begins this morning when Sen. Bill Frist will move to invoke cloture on the Democrats' speeches about judicial nominee Priscilla Owen.

Shortly after the Senate convenes this morning, Frist, R-Tenn., will file a cloture petition, which requires the approval of 60 of 100 senators, to end debate on Owen's nomination. Last session, Democrats blocked Owen and nine other appellate court nominees. He has renominated seven of them this year. Under Senate rules that petition must "ripen" for two days while the Senate is in session -- today and Monday -- before a vote.

If no Democrats jump ship, the petition will fail because it needs 60 votes and there are only 55 Republicans. In that event, here are the next steps [direct quote].

I'm so glad to see this. Armando at Daily Kos agrees the compromise to the nuclear option is not in our best interests if it allows Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to be confirmed. Josh Marshall of Talking Points seems to agree. We need more of you to speak up.

My thoughts are here. The latest from CNN confirms that five of seven would be confirmed. I'm still hearing only Myers and Saad would be rejected.

Update: Thanks to Ian of Political Teen for putting up the video of Connected Coast to Coast's blog report yesterday on the compromise. TalkLeft got a nice mention.

Tristero breaks his blog silence to agree that the compromise should be rejected.

I won't be back here tracking developments until later this afternoon, so here's a space for you. Three to get you going:

I see London, I see France, but spare me Saddam in his underpants. Ideas of how the London tabloid got the photos? How long till Crooks and Liars gets the video?

Check out this filibuster - nuclear option guide which the Wall St. Journal has made available online for free. It has some details other guides are missing.

And President Bush said today he'll veto stem cell research legislation. Your theocracy at work.

Sen Rick Santorum has issued a statement calling the remarks he made yesterday, in which he compared Democrats to Hitler, a mistake:

What he said:

"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' -- it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused."

What he says now:

Santorum issued his own clarification yesterday evening, stating that the reference to Hitler was "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues."

"My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle," Santorum said. "Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense."

I can't wait to see the campaign commercials playing and replaying those comments when he runs for re-election. In the meantime, is his admission of a "mistake" enough? Go read Steve Gilliard [link via Daily Kos.]

Over at the Huffington Post, Court TV anchor and former Texas Judge Catherine Crier has an excellent blog post on the Nuclear Option . Pat Buchanan was on her show last night. She recounts their discussion, and Buchannan's frank admission about what this fight is all about - putting radical right evangelicals - not Republicans - in control of the Supreme Court. Crier concludes with this:

There is no question that President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint several justices to [the Supreme] Court during his second term. He has made his ideological preferences clear. Conservative justices aren’t enough. He wants jurists of a particular persuasion. They must satisfy the requirements of fundamentalist Christians, with a willingness to roll back the clock to a time where children prayed to Jesus in public school, gays were back in the closet and women were forced into back alleys.

If you've ever wanted to throw the remote control through the front of your tv set when watching Nancy Grace, here's some comeuppance you will nod along with while reading.

Maybe the day is coming when we can say, 'Guilt sells' is so yesterday.

The last word on Newsweek belongs to the Medium Lobster.

The New York Times has reviewed the ACLU's newly released documents and reports on the deaths of two Afghans:

Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

The Washington Post has a good explanation of the mechanics of the nuclear option compromise being engineered by 12 Senators who are hoping to thwart both Sen. Frist and Sen. Reid. I'm wondering why we should give all the power to these 12?

Behind closed doors, they have carved up the future of a number of Bush's judicial nominees, deciding among themselves who should be confirmed and who should not. The two sides have traded pieces of paper and argued over words and phrases. They have consulted the Constitution itself and yesterday even asked for a dictionary as the hair-splitting over language continued.

Simple arithmetic gives the group potentially great power. If six Republicans and six Democrats reach agreement and stick to it, they can shut down any filibuster lodged by Democrats against a judicial nominee and block any effort by Frist to change the rules. They also can determine the fate of the nominees already on the Senate docket and can provide the balance of power in any fights over Supreme Court vacancies.

Why are these 12 going to be the arbiters of the judicial nominees? It seems like the exercise of power in this country continually gets whittled down to fewer and fewer people, all of whom have special interests. It seems very undemocratic. In fact, it seems like an an oligarchy.

Human Rights First has printed some newly declassified notes of U.S. lawyers, made during interviewes with their clients at Guantanamo. The detainees describe the use of tactics by interrogators intended to degrade their religious beliefs. Here is a direct link to their stories. (pdf.)

“In detention centers around the world, the United States has been humiliating Muslim prisoners by offending their religious beliefs,” said Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch.

The group also asserts that Newsweek is not to blame for the riots and deaths in Afghanistan that occurred in the wake of it's article:

“The damage in the riots was directly caused by violent protestors and poorly disciplined Afghan police and troops, not by Newsweek’s editors,” said Brody. Human Rights Watch noted that the Newsweek story would not have resonated had it not been for the United States’ extensive abuse of Muslim detainees.

As for repairing the image of the U.S. in the Arab World,

"If the U.S. government wants to repair the public relations damage caused by its mistreatment of detainees, it needs to investigate those who ordered or condoned this abuse, not attack those who have reported on it. " Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch.

The ACLU has obtained more than 2,000 new torture documents this week. From their newest press release:

New documents released by the Department of Defense reveal more cases of abuse including mock executions and use of a religious symbol to taunt detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

....The latest documents include medical records and several hundred pages relating to Army investigations into abuse of Iraqi and Afghan detainees and civilians by U.S. forces. One investigation into abuses at Rifles Base in Ramadi, Iraq details an incident in July 2003 in which an Army captain took an Iraqi welder into the desert, told him to dig his own grave, verbally threatened to kill him and had other soldiers stage a shooting of the man.

Ok, let's wait and see how long it takes for the right to condemn Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)for his remarks comparing Democrats to Hitler today. My guess: forget the stop watch, you'll need a calendar.

Via Raw Story and Armando at Daily Kos - and of course, Crooks and Liars has the video:

Said Santorum: "What the Democrats are doing is "the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster."

This was Santorum's view of Hitler comparisons three months ago:

"Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable," Santorum said in a statement yesterday. "These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon."

Via Atrios and then Blogenlust, who adds some must-read right-wing condemnations of the left's use of Hitler comparisons, including this one from Time Magazine's blog of the year: