This bit from a TNR puff piece on 'poor Rahmbo' made me laugh:

As Obama closed in on the presidency, he and his top aides turned to Obamaland’s unofficial head-knocker for the role of chief of staff. [. . .] Emanuel not only had the right sensibility. His loyalty and Washington know-how were beyond question. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Indeed, Rahmbo's loyalties are unquestionable -- they are to burnishing Rahmbo's image and power. That is precisely why he should never have been picked to be White House Chief of Staff. A WH Chief of Staff should have no personal agenda -- his agenda must be the President's. To be honest, I do not blame Rahmbo for this blunder. He is who he is and makes no secret of it. This is President Obama's mistake.

Speaking for me only

This dkos diary quotes Ezra Klein saying:

At the end of the day, it is up to Congressional Democrats to pass this [health] legislation and when they don't, it's on them. And I do think that there's an element of political dodge when what they say is, "Well the White House didn't lead sufficiently." We don't have a system built for us only to be able to solve problems when the White House is strategically perfect. Our presidents are going to fail us and our Legislature is going to have to do its job.

(Emphasis supplied.) The President laid out a health proposal, further refined by the addition of some GOP proposals and today the White House will lay out the legislative roadmap it wants for the health proposals (what happened to the separation of powers/impotent President argument the Village Dems used to trot out?) Whatever happens(passing the Senate bill or not passing the bill) is, as it always was, on all of them -- the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress. Is passing the Senate Stand Alone health bill with "assurances" of a reconciliation fix the smart and right thing for the House to do? I doubt it, but if the House does this, I want no whining about how the Senate "promised" anything and then failed to deliver. That is what you should expect from the Senate. That is what they always do. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 290 times, shame on me.

Speaking for me only

I'm done with court for the day, but have to be back again at 8:00 am. I'm hoping to be done by tomorrow afternoon, but ultimately, that's not up to me. BTD is traveling to a court appearance he has somewhere tomorrow.

Since I haven't been online today, I have nothing to report. I'm heading out to dinner, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

If and when the House votes for the Stand Alone Senate bill, and as what seems at least a strong possibility, the Senate reneges on a reconciliation bill, House Dems will have to explain why they voted for:

(a) The Cornhusker Kickback;

(b)the Louisiana Purchase: and

(c) the excise tax.

They'll get to explain to their progressive base how they got the public option, Medicare buy-in, better affordability credits, um, how they got . . . nothing. Good luck with that in November House Dems.

Speaking for me only

Q-Poll:

Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter leads Democratic primary challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak 53 - 29 percent and has pushed ahead of Republican Pat Toomey 49 - 42 percent in a general election matchup, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, up from a 44 - 44 percent tie December 18. In a battle of the unknowns, Toomey leads Sestak 39 - 36 percent with 24 percent undecided.

Rep. Joe Sestak has done both progressives and the Democratic Party a great favor - he has pushed Senator Specter to take progressive positions that have helped him politically.

Speaking for me only

One reason to have an up or down vote on the public option is to clear the brush of people like Tom Harkin. Jon Walker reports:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) spent most of the year claiming he was a champion of the public option. Now that there is a possibility of getting a public option with a simple majority using reconciliation, Harkin has made clear that he will actively work to kill the public option, while tying himself in incoherent, illogical knots trying to justify his actions–while still trying to claim he supports the public option.

As Walker demonstrates, a vote for a public option amendment will not threaten anything. Harkin shows yet again again that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer AND has trouble with the truth. At least for me, that is my realistic goal for up or down vote on the public option --smoke out the fakers, like Tom Harkin.

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) says that is a possibility:

Conrad said that under Congressional rules, for a reconciliation fix to be “scored,” it’s not necessary that it become law, but it is necessary for it to have passed both houses of Congress before getting fixed. “For the scoring to change it has to have passed Congress, and that means both houses,” he said. “The only thing that works here is the House has to pass the Senate bill,” Conrad continued. “Then the House can initiate a reconciliation measure that would deal with a limited number of issues that score for budget purposes.” After that, the Senate would pass the same reconciliation fix, Conrad explained, because even on the fix itself the House must go first because the lower chamber must initiate “revenue bills.”

(Emphasis suppied.) Conrad is full of crap imo. He says "reconciliation rules" dictate this. He cites no provision of the rules for this nonsense. And indeed, it is not in the rules. David Waldman explains:

Another day, another court. Another evening, another flight. And tomorrow, another day in a different court. I've never had three court hearings in 3 different jurisdictions on 3 consecutive days before. Suffice it to say, I hope I never have to do this again.

This is an Open Thread.

I still haven't seen any news today outside of the courtroom. And I'm determined to watch the finale of the Bachelor (even though it's been the most boring season ever and it's been known who Jake will pick forever), "After the Final Rose" and "24." I have to be back in court at 8am, so I'm unlikely to catch up tonight about things of greater import.

BTD is traveling, here's another open thread for those of you online. What happened today?

Update: The oral arguments in (Enron's) Jeff Skilling's case. Sounds like he has a shot on the jury issue. Has Alito ever sided with the defense? [More...]

I'm headed to court for the afternoon, but here's some things to check out:

The Supreme Court won't hear the Uighur detainee case, but at least it vacated the lower court's opinion finding a federal judge can't order the release of the Uighur detainees into the U.S.

Also today, Enron's Jeff Skilling lawyers are arguing about the constitutionality of the "theft by honest services" statute and denial of a change of venue from Houston. White Collar Crime Blog is following closely.

Tomorrow, the Court hears argument on whether states can enact gun laws that restrict a person's right to possess handguns. The gun case is Otis McDonald v. City of Chicago.

There's also a case in which the court may further restrict Miranda rights. And the Court refused review today in U.S. v. McCane, a Tenth Circuit case that held Leon's good faith exception applied to vehicle searches that violated Arizona v. Gant. The petition was considered at the court's private conference.

In non-criminal law news, Think Progress reports John McCain may propose an amendment to ban changes to Medicare through reconciliation.

This is another open thread, all topics welcome.

Court and then back on a plane this evening for me. I think Jeralyn is swamped as well.

Talk to you tomorrow.

This is an Open Thread.

I'm getting on a plane again. You're on your own until Jeralyn gets back.

This is an Open Thread.

Update (Jeralyn): It's going to be a while before I can blog today, I've got a big brief due tomorrow. I hope you all will carry on without us for a bit.