Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

Matt Yglesias:

What Theda Skopcol said

“FEMINISTS” who are pushing on abortion-funding limits rather than supporting American women need to examine their consciences. NOW’s obsession over abortion is, in effect, betraying a long tradition of American women’s advocacy on behalf of the wellbeing of families and the poor.

(Emphasis supplied.) I like the quote marks around "feminists," and the "obsession over abortion" especially. Nice touches.

Speaking for me only

A judge in Texas has ruled the state's death penalty is unconstitutional because of the risk innocent people will be texecuted. He believes it's already happened.

“Based on the moratorium (on the death penalty) in Illinois, the Innocence Project and more than 200 people being exonerated nationwide, it can only be concluded that innocent people have been executed,” state District Judge Kevin Fine said. “It's safe to assume we execute innocent people.”

Fine said trial level judges are gatekeepers of society's standard for decency and fairness. “Are you willing to have your brother, your father, your mother be the sacrificial lamb, to be the innocent person executed so that we can have a death penalty so that we can execute those who are deserving of the death penalty?” he said. “I don't think society's mindset is that way now.”

New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced he's starting a program to monitor convictions to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions.

The New York Times says Lindsay Graham and Republicans are hijacking our courts.

Is anyone excited about the Oscars Sunday? I'm looking forward to the Red Carpet.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The Washington Post reports President Obama's advisers are ready to kow-tow to Republicans and reverse course on the 9/11 defendants, recommending trials by military commissions instead of in federal criminal courts.

The recommendation follows Obama's advisers' negotiations with Republican Senator Lindsay Graham

Depending on what Bart Stupak gains in his hardball negotiations with the White House, I think it is better for the health bills to pass than not to pass. But it is not a big deal imo. If it fails, it's not a big loss on policy. I am not even sure it is a loss on the politics frankly.

In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.

In my view, they should not lift a finger to get these bills passed. If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want. Let the winners in this bill do the work for getting it passed. It's their bill after all. Not progressives.

This is an Open Thread.

The Democratic Strategist makes a call to arms to progressives:

This will likely be the pivotal vote in enacting a decent health care bill, and we can imagine the lobbying pressure the insurance industry will be putting on these House members in the weeks ahead. Much depends on them hearing from progressive constituents and organizations in impressive numbers.

(Emphasis supplied.) I'm sure it will happen. After all, President Obama gave them a pat on the head, though nothing else. After the capitulation to Stupak on abortion is complete, I'm sure progressives will be even more enthused. Yes We Can!

Speaking for me only

Via Chris Bowers, the progressives in the House cut their deal with President Obama on the health bill - they got a private pat on the head:

President Obama met with House Progressive leaders today on health reform. Apparently, he thanked them for their advocacy, saying it made the bill better. [. . .] [I]t feels good to hear President Obama acknowledge our efforts in a positive, rather than a derogatory way. And it is appreciated.

Meanwhile, Bart Stupak won't be so easily assuaged. D-Day writes:

Stupak is reportedly negotiating on something with House leaders, which may be the “third bill” strategy, a standalone vote on his amendment attached to the overall bill, which must pass as a condition of his bloc’s support.

I disagree with Stupak on the policy, but I think he provides lessons on political bargaining.

Speaking for me only

Another disaster in the making: Via the ACLU, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have introduced the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010.

The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), would also create an entirely new system of interrogation by requiring intelligence officials to be consulted about how to handle terrorism suspects after their capture. The bill was precipitated by misguided objections to the Obama administration’s correct decision to charge accused Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal court system. The legislation would have a “high value detainee” team, made up of members of different intelligence agencies, interrogate and determine whether alleged terrorist suspects are “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” If so, and if the suspect is then charged, the legislation would mandate the use of the discredited and unconstitutional military commissions.

[More...]

New York Imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, who told Najibullah Zazi's father the police had inquired about his son, pleaded guilty today to making a false statement to the FBI. There is no terror component to the charge. He faces up to six months, but the Government is not requesting incarceration. He will be deported.

Outside the courtroom, Mr. Afzali appeared distraught about leaving the country he has called home since he left Afghanistan as a young boy. His wife and two children from a previous marriage all hold United States citizenship. He said he did not know where he would go.

“My whole tribe is here,” Mr. Afzali said. To return to Afghanistan, he offered, would be to “sign my death sentence.”

Considering that Afzali also told the elder Zazi he would set up a meeting between Najibullah and his friend and the cops, I think this is too harsh. [More...]

Open Thread.

Glenn Greenwald with a great catch:

[B]ack in mid-January, a mere six weeks ago, Grayson went on Hardball and advocated that the Democrats pass health care reform through reconciliation, which would enable them to avoid a GOP filibuster. But back then, all Serious People (i.e., dutiful Party Loyalists) insisted that the mere suggestion was crazy [. . .] Now that Party Leaders have embraced reconciliation, it's been magically and instantly transformed from Crazy Fringe Loser Talk into Serious, Sane, Responsible Advocacy -- all within a matter of weeks.

The Serious Person/Party Loyalist Glenn links to is, of course, Nate Silver, who wrote: