Attorney General Eric Holder today announced there will be a full criminal investigation into the deaths of two overseas detainees in U.S. custody who were interrogated by the CIA. There will be no criminal investigation into the cases of 99 other detainees. The ACLU responds here.

A federal judge ruled this week the U.S. cannot forfeit the logo of the Mongols' motorcycle club. More here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Great news from the U.S. Sentencing Commission today for the 12,000 plus federal inmates serving draconian prison sentences for crack cocaine. The Commission voted unanimously to make the new crack cocaine penalty reduction retroactive.

The United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously today to give retroactive effect to its proposed permanent amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines that implements the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Retroactivity of the amendment will become effective on November 1, 2011― the same day that the proposed permanent amendment would take effect― unless Congress acts to disapprove the amendment.

Quentin Tarantino. Here is my favorite reaction:

Am I the only one who takes more offense at the blurted phrase "Oh my God" (by Joe Scarborough) than the use of the word "dick" to explain the President's behavior? I think insulting the President is rough political discourse, but saying "Oh my God" is taking the Lord's name in vain.

What a world.

Open Thread.

Booman writes:

On this whole debt limit deal, the White House seems to be supremely confident that they'll get something done and that it will be the Republicans who will blink. [. . .] The thing I am still worried about is that Boehner won't be able to figure out how to get this done. It's basically a suicide mission, as I can't imagine him surviving in a leadership position if he passes a Democratic-majority debt limit bill. But it doesn't appear he has any other choice. The White House just isn't buying his threats. They know his masters expect a deal, and soon.

I'm not seeing that. Instead, I see the White House resigned to $2 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years) and no tax increases as the deal to raise the debt ceiling. The GOP demanded bigger cuts it is true, and in that sense they will not have delivered, but now Boehner can trumpet his "no tax increases" win. Of course the problem here is that the GOP won on taxes in December - yes, The Deal. Andrew Leonard of Salon writes:

CNN Money :

The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits slipped only slightly last week, falling short of economists' expectations for a bigger drop. There were 428,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended June 25 -- 1,000 fewer than the week before, the Labor Department said. It marked the 12th straight week initial claims have stayed above the 400,000 mark -- and was worse than the 420,000 claims economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected.

Congrats to Javier Colon, who won The Voice tonight. (He was my second choice after Beverly McClellan, who didn't make the final two.)

How Dia Frampton even made the final four with her whispery voice and her lack of stage presence (despite her very pretty face) was a mystery to me. But when she made it to the top two tonight over Beverly and Vicci Martinez, both of whom outshone and outsang Dia by miles, I figured it out. Carson Daley said last night, Dia's performance on the live show made it to number 1 on iTunes (Javier made it to number 2 of iTunes last night.) Every purchase on iTunes counted as a vote for that artist. So the votes were not just determined, like other shows, by those phoning, texting or the web, but by purchases on iTunes. [More...]

I am on a plane! (not a plain.) (Not yet.)

Open thread.

Opinion here (PDF). The vote was 2-1. I discuss the dissent on the flip.

First, the court ruled that the individual mandate regulates economic activity:

The minimum coverage provision regulates activity that is decidedly economic. In Raich, the Supreme Court explained that “‘[e]conomics’ refers to ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966)). Consumption of health care falls squarely within Raich’s definition of economics, and virtually every individual in this country consumes these services. Individuals must finance the cost of health care by purchasing an insurance policy or by self-insuring, cognizant of the backstop of free services required by law. By requiring individuals to maintain a certain level of coverage, the minimum coverage provision regulates the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring for the cost of care. The activity of foregoing health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insuring is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan. Thus, the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring, is economic activity.

More on the flip.

Atrios found this nifty embed:

[Sorry everyone, but the video plays automatically and until I can figure out how to change the embed code, it has to be deleted -- TL. Update: The link is here.]

Calls for increased taxes on oil companies and jet plane owners. Not a bad political gambit, but in the end, he has to show resolve in the negotiation. In answer to a question on GOP cooperation, President says "Call me naive." Ok, you're naive.

Yglesias:

I believe all critiques of Obama that aren’t critiques of his macroeconomic management are slighting the role that poor macroeconomic management has played in exacerbating everything else. It’s certainly true that his team has faced an unprecedented level of non-cooperation from Republicans. But at the same time, Obama hasn’t shown much in the way of so-called “Rooseveltian resolve” to keep trying things and appears to have quite sincerely pivoted toward deficit control and structural reform last winter even with unemployment stuck at sharply elevated levels.

Is is too late to alter course? I fear it is. Listening to Tim Geithner has clearly been the President's biggest mistake and it is what imperils his reelection.

Speaking for me only

PIMCO & Co. get $8.5B. Homeowners probably get harassed:

In addition, the deal will require Bank of America to improve its payment collection process by hiring specialists to focus on high-risk loans, and do a better job of tracking whether the bank is adhering to its own internal loan-servicing standards.

As long as Wall Street's happy, no problem? Consider Sheila Bair's comment in the article:

“Unresolved legal claims could serve as a drag on the recovery of the housing market,” Ms. Bair said. “The healing of the housing market is essential to the recovery of the broader economy.”

I respectfully disagree. Unresolved legal claims like the ones BofA settled are not the major drag on the economy that the homeowner crisis is causing - it is the depressed housing market and balance sheet problems homeowners face. That is what is depressing aggregate demand. PIMCO & Co. getting these billions will have no discernible impact on the economy or aggregate demand.

Speaking for me only

The United States Trustee for California has filed a Motion For Leave To Appeal the ruling by the US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California which declared DOMA unconstitutional. The filing, in the case In re Balas and Morales (11-bk-17831-TD Doc 53), states that:

Although Attorney General and the President have concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same sex couples is subject to heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional under that standard, the President has instructed that Executive Departments and agencies continue to comply with Section 3 unless and until it is repealed by Congress or there is a definitive ruling by the Judicial Branch that Section 3 is unconstitutional.

A strange submission. the Justice Department believes that DOMA is unconstitutional, but is appealing a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. The filing indicates that the opportunity to brief this issue was provided to the Congress, which declined to participate, and there is no indication that Congress wants to participate in an appeal. So who exactly is seeking reversal here?

While it is true that Justice has a duty, to a point, to defend duly enacted laws, there are limits to this duty. And indeed, the United States Trustee in this case does not seem to have much inclination to provide a meritorious defense in this appeal. Not a decision I fully understand (indeed, it defies my prediction of no appeal in this case.)

Speaking for me only