Mother Jones: Why Stupak is more radical than you think.

The two parts to the Stupak amendment:

The Stupak amendment mandates that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion or "cover any part of any health plan" that includes coverage of an abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Part 1 is just the Hyde Amendment. But, part 2?

Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.

[More...]

I watched the opening episode of "V" yesterday, it's pretty far out there. Some are linking it to the "hope and changers" that followed President Obama last year. Others say that's silly. The show denies it, saying it's just about blind devotion. If you haven't seen it, you can watch online for free here.

I'm watching DWTS tonight. Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

The report that President Obama had decided to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan is false, according to his national security adviser.

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false,” [National Security Adviser James] Jones said in a e-mailed statement today. “Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”

The AP reports the number will not be quite 40,000, as CBS reported. I bet it's close.

Update: Here's Obama's video address on the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared for the U.S. at today's celebration in Germany of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Bon Jovi performed his new song, We Weren't Born to Follow." (Official song video here, and yes, he's more than just a pretty face.)

Thousands cheered as 1,000 colorfully decorated dominoes along a mile-long route were toppled to symbolize both the moment the wall came crashing down and the resulting fall of communist governments in Eastern Europe. It was the finale to a day of memorial services, speeches and events that attracted leaders from around the world, including former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

More news of the speeches and celebration.

Chief Justice John Roberts signaled today at oral arguments in the Supreme Court in two cases involving the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes, that he's not inclined to find them unconstitutional. Neither are Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.

More receptive were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. (Update: transcripts of oral arguments here and here.)

Roberts suggested allowing a case by case review for proportionality rather than a constitutional ban.

Background on the cases is here. A more positive analysis of today's arguments at the LA Times. CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen at Vanity Fair makes a good point about a related issue:

The same rationale behind the stupendous rise in our prison population — retribution over rehabilitation — has given rise to the practical demise of consistently meaningful parole review.

My view: Parole exists for good reason. It should not be used to convert life with parole into life without parole sentences.

"D.C. Sniper" John Muhammad will be executed in Virginia tomorrow unless Gov. Tim Kaine intervenes. The Supreme Court today refused to block the execution.

Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor issued this statement (pdf), expressing frustration with Virginia for rushing the process: [More...]

Either the House Roll Call misrecorded Jim Cooper's vote on the Stupak Amendment, or Jim Cooper is trying to pull a fast one on Ezra Klein:

[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

[JIM COOPER:]They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.

(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.

Speaking for me only

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

Greg Sargent:

A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and the source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill:

[. . .] The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

This is excellent. Whether this is a real threat or merely a bargaining position, it is precisely how to fight on health care reform to the end. This is Madman Political Bargaining. Good to see progressives trying it.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein wants to reason with Joe Lieberman. I assume it is for rhetorical effect. But the real question is how do Democrats reason with him? I think the answer is quite simple. You tell him what you will do if he filibusters health care reform - to wit, you will use reconciliation.

Of course we all understand that is not the preferred course (the Parliamentarian, etc.), but here's the thing - you need to let people know that is what you will do if you have to. The point here is to neutralize Lieberman (and Lincoln and Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh.) And that is how you do it. You tell him - we can pass "something" on healthcare via reconciliation, and we will, if you make us. And that something will be done without any input from you. (This goes for Snowe's gang as well.) Either these obstructionists get with the program and fight for influence on the bill, or they vote No. And if they vote No, then the folks voting Yes call all the shots. I think it is a simple but important point.

Speaking for me only

Busy day.

This is an Open Thread.

I am leaving health care behind to begin my outline on challenging the Government's expanded use of electronic surveillance in drug cases, for the NORML Key West legal seminar, which is just around the corner (Dec. 3-5.) My title: "Snoopy's New Tricks: Getting Around the 4th Amendment and Title III in Drug Cases." If you're a defense lawyer and would like to join us, there's still time to sign up. (Even the TL kid is attending this year.)

I trust there are things going on the world (besides health care and football) to discuss, so here's a place to do so.