Anthony Marshall, the 85 year old son of philanthropist Brooke Astor, was convicted today of 16 crimes related to his handling of his mother's $200 million estate. The trial lasted 5 months. Astor, who died at age 105, had Alzheimer's.

What do you do with an 85 year old man who's convicted of a non-violent offense? Marshall can be sentenced to anywhere between 1 year and 25 years in prison.

What's next? The charities fight over which of Astor's wills is valid to get the most money they can. [More...]

Q Poll:

American voters oppose 47 - 40 percent President Barack Obama's health care reform plan [. . .] but they support key parts of the plan, including 61 - 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans[.]

(Emphasis supplied.)

According to reporter Cara DeGette, Michael Dowling, co-counsel for terror suspect Najibullah Zazi, has applied to the Court to have the federal government pick up the cost of expenses related with the case.

The legal team has applied for federal funding to defray what will likely be a costly defense he said.

I'm not surprised. As I wrote here,

Aside from legal fees, ....who will help Folsom pay the cost of experts needed to assist the defense? Handwriting computer, fingerprint, explosive and terrorism experts will be required, at a minimum. Most lawyers would also use a jury selection expert. Zazi's father has the public defender, so his family isn't footing the bill.

[More...]

Whenever people ask why we should primary Democratic incumbents, you can talk about Jane Harman and now, Arlen Specter:

As debate continues on much needed health care reform, I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan.

Here's the trick though, Specter writes "It's important that the President's ideas on the public option be implemented to maintain a level playing field." That's not a robust public option. Joe Sestak, Specter's primary challenger, will likely support a true robust public option in the House and beat Specter over the head with that vote. Would Sestak be a robust public option supporter otherwise? Hard to say. But we can say that because he is a primary challenger, he will be one.

Therein lies the value of primaries. Not necessarily winning them, but as a discipline mechanism.

Speaking for me only

Signatures are being gathered in California for three 2010 ballot initiatives to legalize adult marijuana possession for personal use by adults.

If any of them pass, California would be the first state in the nation to legalize possession of marijuana. While it would still be illegal under federal law, it might not matter in practice:

Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive government-sanctioned pot industry.

....some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug. Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.

[More...]

Apparently in need of a fundraising outrage, Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) said:

We've got a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution and one of those sits in the speaker's chair of the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi.

Censure? Apologies? Denouncing? Aren't we tired of all the poutrage? Of course Broun is an idiot. But my gawd, we have serious issues in this country and are wasting half of our time on this type of nonsense. In any event, I am pretty sure Dems will make a big deal out of it and probably should politically speaking. But I am tired of it.

Speaking for me only

The issue in a 6th Circuit case decided yesterday upholding a search warrant for a home computer (opinion in U.S. v. Frechette here):

The issue in this case is whether it is probable that someone who pays approximately $80 for a subscription to a web site is likely to use that subscription.

The majority opinion finds probable cause, even though the subscription was ordered 16 months earlier and never renewed. The dissent is what makes the opinion worth reading. [More...]

TPM:

One of the key questions to consider about the the Federalist Public Option (BTW, see Ezra Klein's very good post on the subject) is how a state opt out of the federal public option would occur. To wit, what is the trigger for a state opt out of a national public insurance program offered in the national exchanges?

Ezra writes "[w]e can see, over time, what happens to state insurance markets that include the national public option and compare them with those that don't." I agree with that but I am not of the mind to make an opt out a simple exercise, such as a Governor's decision or a referendum. I think a state should be required to pass a law that states that its residents will NOT have the option to select the national public insurance program within the national insurance exchange. Let the removal of the option by a state be explicit, on the record and by the mechanisms of state governance. The opt out trigger should be in the open -- no hiding. Let them do it in the daylight where everyone can see them.

Speaking for me only

The Hill:

[Lynn Woolsey] told House Democrats that they have nearly enough votes to pass their preferred version of health insurance reform. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told a closed-door caucus meeting that the group’s “whip count” showed it had 208 of the 218 [BTD - There are currently only 433 House members and thus the magic number is 217] votes needed to pass what liberals call a “robust” public option. That version would link rates to Medicare plus 5 percent.

Blue Dogs and others don't like that and are disputing it but it is obvious that the momentum is strong. Oh BTW, the Progressive Block seems to have really learned how to play this game.

Speaking for me only

The debate in progressive circles over the Federalist Public Option (see here and here) mistakes, in my view, the basic state of play in the political bargaining on health care reform.

In the House, the debate is between the Progressive Block view that the public option needs to be robust (Medicare +5) or level playing field (negotiated rates.) the good news is that the house seems headed to passing a national public option. there is no doubt which of these is superior - the robust public option.

In the Senate, where the Federalist Public Option is being debated, the option of a robust public option is not even in the conversation. the best you will get out of the Senate would be a meek level playing field public option, which is not a sure bet at all. Triggers, co-ops, the Carper opt-in (which is not really an opt in but rather providing for state run public options) and nothing at all are still in the mix. For political bargaining purposes, it would be a major step forward if the Federalist Public Option became the Senate position on the issue. More . .

The big story of the week remains 'will Tim Tebow play?' in Florida's game at Baton Rouge on Saturday night. Florida coach Urban Meyer says it will be a game time decision. I think Tebow should sit this one out myself, but that's easy for me to say.

On a related note, excessive celebration penalties have been rampant in the SEC. The rule is ridiculous - something about not calling attention to yourself. Absurd. That said, coaches must have been briefed on the fact that this penalty would be called. Tebow, the most excessive celebrator in all of college football certainly has toned it down this year. So apparently he got the memo. This is a coaching issue as well as a ridiculous rule issue.

This is an Open Thread.