Morning!

Christy! It’s shaping up to be an interesting day.

So, this does argue that we should vote for whatever Democrat crawls on to the ballot for president?

Rep. Issa on the floor saying everything possible to under-mine over-sight.

Damn no need to wonder why there has not been any oversight.

Good morning Christy! Looks to be an exciting day.

One case which was declined for the term (H/T to Toby) is going to make religious right folks unhappy: the court let stand a prior NY court ruling which “forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.” Guess that short ride didn’t seem so short to the court.

Well, well. My only question is: Did Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy do this because they agreed with the lower court ruling, or because they want to keep this alive as a red-meat issue for anti-choicers to draw them to the voting booths next year?

Christy! May the Blog Goddess smile upon your fingers today!

Good morning, Ms Christy – I have fortified myself with a solid breakfast. I figure I’ll need all my neurons firing off smartly to follow what will be going on and following all the good work you guys do for us poor folks out here in the hinterlands.

Do religious-based social service agencies object to contraceptives for married employees?

We are going to hear Erik Prince tell the committee how great Blackwater is. If they are so great why have they been unwilling to be under any ones watch and held up to certain standards

Rep Blumennauer bringing up the Iraqi refugee issue. Not much about this critical issue brought up in congress. Many of these people helped create the Iraqi refugee problem, somehow they seem puzzled or completely in denial. Rep. Kucinich is the only one to go and visit the Iraqi refugees in Syria.

This morning on NPR Anne Gerls (very brave reporter in Iraq) finally started addressing this very serious situation. Really respect Anne but it has taken NPR a long time to address this very sad situation that our invasion created. 4 MILLLION IRAQI REFUGEES. Are they safer yet?

Can you stand being appreciated one more time? I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes thinking about how FDL throws light for us in these dark times. Like Portia’s candle: “so shines a good deed in a naughty world.”

Thank you.

Christy – This is sort of OT, but are there any plans to discuss/address the new Clarence Thomas book? I read an OpEd in this morning’s NY Times from Anita Hill. I think we might describe her mood right now as “ticked off”.

Laura Doty @ 11

Can you stand being appreciated one more time? I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes thinking about how FDL throws light for us in these dark times. Like Portia’s candle: “so shines a good deed in a naughty world.”

Thank you.

What Laura says,

raven @ 3

So, this does argue that we should vote for whatever Democrat crawls on to the ballot for president?

I’m grudgingly coming to that conclusion. I suppose if it comes down to it I’ll HAVE to vote for Hillary. But if, God forbid, she gets into office, we progressives will have to be as vigilant as if a Republican were in office, because on a lot of issues there will be very little difference.

We can’t let our guard down if a Democrat becomes the new unitary executive.

In fact the Supreme Court is the ONLY reason I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I’m forced to do that in the general election.

ot
the loser media is defending Big Pharma and attacking media mattter

especially amusing is morning jerk and his crew of news dwarfs..especially since morning joe is a phony soldier –parading around in a flight suit for pr purposes

the gop is nothing but phony soldiers

So, given Lieberman’s past statements, were he now a Supreme, the case of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo, 06-1550 would be being reviewed, rather than let stand? No doubt, some far-right religious shill is already out there screaming “we need more moderates like good ol’ Joe Lieberman on the high court.”

Up early for a long day, with clear skies, morning stars and, somehow, it isn’t freezing.

Laura Doty @ 11

Can you stand being appreciated one more time? I’m sitting here with tears in my eyes thinking about how FDL throws light for us in these dark times. Like Portia’s candle: “so shines a good deed in a naughty world.”

Thank you.

I think we’re in the dark as much as anyone else, but we have found a small lantern, which we will try to hold high for others.

Kathleen @ 4

Rep. Issa on the floor saying everything possible to under-mine over-sight.

Damn no need to wonder why there has not been any oversight.

Used to live in his district- when you’ve got Issa the Furious Hairball disparaging your oversight efforts, you know you’re close to pay dirt. Get back in the corner w/the rest of the dust bunnies, Darrell.

I agree w/commenter on last thread (musicsleuth?) who said w/all this live blogging being done today, a donation is in order. Bit o’ the folding coming FDL’s way via PayPal.

SufiLizard @ 14

raven @ 3

So, this does argue that we should vote for whatever Democrat crawls on to the ballot for president?

I’m grudgingly coming to that conclusion. I suppose if it comes down to it I’ll HAVE to vote for Hillary. But if, God forbid, she gets into office, we progressives will have to be as vigilant as if a Republican were in office, because on a lot of issues there will be very little difference.

We can’t let our guard down if a Democrat becomes the new unitary executive.

In fact the Supreme Court is the ONLY reason I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I’m forced to do that in the general election.

That’s why the goal all along has been a veto-proof Democratic majority in Congress — and as many new grassroots-born officials as possible, to weed out Democratic deadwood. It would not matter who was in the White House if we had a strong enough Congress.

SufiLizard @ 14

raven @ 3

So, this does argue that we should vote for whatever Democrat crawls on to the ballot for president?

I’m grudgingly coming to that conclusion. I suppose if it comes down to it I’ll HAVE to vote for Hillary. But if, God forbid, she gets into office, we progressives will have to be as vigilant as if a Republican were in office, because on a lot of issues there will be very little difference.

We can’t let our guard down if a Democrat becomes the new unitary executive.

In fact the Supreme Court is the ONLY reason I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I’m forced to do that in the general election.

The ‘BEST’ aspect of ‘Least Worst’. And we’ve no guarantee that her choices will not bolster the ‘Unitary Executive’. How pathetic, indeed, are our choices and our options.

This morning NPR’s Nina Totenberg’s coverage on the upcoming Surpreme court hearings was exceptionally great.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..d=14887211

Am I the only one creeped out by the Red Mass held for the Supreme Court on Sunday?

I know it’s a tradition but with more than half the court Roman Catholic…

Am setting up a second laptop in case the webstream crashes out on the first one on Goldsmith. Eeep…I much prefer the C-Span broadcast when I can go back and forth on my TIVO.

The ‘BEST’ aspect of ‘Least Worst’. And we’ve no guarantee that her choices will not bolster the ‘Unitary Executive’. How pathetic, indeed, are our choices and our options.

And I wonder why I gave up on all this shit in 1974!

Elliott @ 22

Am I the only one creeped out by the Red Mass held for the Supreme Court on Sunday?

I know it’s a tradition but with more than half the court Roman Catholic…

Must have made Ruth Ginsburg feel special..

Eliott at 22 — It tend to be a ecumenical service asking for wisdom. It’s been held forever — it’s not an exceptionally preachy sort of mass, more a “give us widom and strngth” sort of thing. No big…truly.

Rayne @ 19

SufiLizard @ 14

I’m grudgingly coming to that conclusion. I suppose if it comes down to it I’ll HAVE to vote for Hillary. But if, God forbid, she gets into office, we progressives will have to be as vigilant as if a Republican were in office, because on a lot of issues there will be very little difference.

We can’t let our guard down if a Democrat becomes the new unitary executive.

In fact the Supreme Court is the ONLY reason I’ll be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I’m forced to do that in the general election.

That’s why the goal all along has been a veto-proof Democratic majority in Congress — and as many new grassroots-born officials as possible, to weed out Democratic deadwood. It would not matter who was in the White House if we had a strong enough Congress.

Why do folks think that the MSM basically ignores John Edwards? What is up with that, you barely hear his name mentioned. This plus his stance on the Iraq war “no timeline, no funding, no excuses” and other issues makes me think he is the candidate to support. That is unless Gore declares.

Hillary lost me on her Kyl/Lieberman vote.

Let’s not forget Harriet Myers history with Bush and the whole funeral gate thing in which she knows where the bodies are buried as to the one scandal from Texas and abuse of power which should have sunk his Presidential aspirations.

She’s on the team and passes the loyalty test.

Christy,
Love the photo!
I’m thankful Harriet Meirs was denied. Just think if she had passed muster…yikes!!!!

kdh22 @ 29

Christy,
Love the photo!
I’m thankful Harriet Meirs was denied. Just think if she had passed muster…yikes!!!!

That would have made two people who sit in their Supreme Court offices not doing anything.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 26

Eliott at 22 — It tend to be a ecumenical service asking for wisdom. It’s been held forever — it’s not an exceptionally preachy sort of mass, more a “give us widom and strngth” sort of thing. No big…truly.

OK, thanks.

and thanks for this Christy,
and I like the second lap top at the ready.
Be Prepared!

Toby Wollin @ 30

kdh22 @ 29

Christy,
Love the photo!
I’m thankful Harriet Meirs was denied. Just think if she had passed muster…yikes!!!!

That would have made two people who sit in their Supreme Court offices not doing anything.

Two? I beg to differ. :)

Elliott @ 31

Christy Hardin Smith @ 26

Eliott at 22 — It tend to be a ecumenical service asking for wisdom. It’s been held forever — it’s not an exceptionally preachy sort of mass, more a “give us widom and strngth” sort of thing. No big…truly.

OK, thanks.

and thanks for this Christy,
and I like the second lap top at the ready.
Be Prepared!

Yep – belt AND suspenders.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Am setting up a second laptop in case the webstream crashes out on the first one on Goldsmith. Eeep…I much prefer the C-Span broadcast when I can go back and forth on my TIVO.

Thanks in advance for all your efforts “above & beyond” today. And every day.

I see the WaPo editorial on Blackwater says the Democrats hate them because it gives $$’s to Repubs and they shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Boo-hoo Fred. Oversight should drown that particular baby.

Fred kisses Blackwater’s butt

if the corporate lawyers weren’t thinking reflectively about long-term consequences and ripple out problems from their clients’ actions, then they were doing a piss poor job for their clients.

Christy, this is most always done in the corporate world as a cost-benefit analysis where the option with highest Net Present Value gets the nod in the “go – no go” decision. It is a widely held view that punitive and remediation costs can me minimalized or eliminated over time (Valdez, Hudson River etc.), so naturally the people and the environment get screwed.

Marie at 34 — I’m just lucky Mr. ReddHedd is at the office today, or that option wouldn’t be available. LOL

T- at 36 — On the corporate decision-making end of things, I think that is true. But a good corporate counsel is paid to think about the good and the bad, weigh out all the attendant risks and benefits, and present the entire scope of the issues to the client — good and bad. You try to minimize the exposure by maximizing the thought process of the surrounding potential pitfalls and benefits.

If counsel isn’t doing that, then they really are not doing their job.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 38

T- at 36 — On the corporate decision-making end of things, I think that is true. But a good corporate counsel is paid to think about the good and the bad, weigh out all the attendant risks and benefits, and present the entire scope of the issues to the client — good and bad. You try to minimize the exposure by maximizing the thought process of the surrounding potential pitfalls and benefits.

If counsel isn’t doing that, then they really are not doing their job.

Christy,
Speaking of corporate (BushCo) counsel, what’s your opinion of Fielding…not your personal feelings :), but as a lawyer?

Good morning, Christy and all. I’m listening to Joshua Bell play “Ave Maria.” I need these moments more and more because, invariably, as the day goes on I become increasingly disgusted by the outrages of our government.

But for now I have Joshua Bell, a strong cuppa, and FDL. ‘Tis a good morning, indeed.

CHS @ 38 -
I don’t disagree, but the risks and benefits are viewed through these glasses. Not ones that would include indirect costs or moral values.

kdh at 39 — I don’t know Fielding, but I did have a discussion with John Dean about him when we were at YKOS2. Dean says he is very cautious, good with working every angle of a problem, that he has maintained a stellar reputation through the years of integrity in terms of following through on deals when he makes them — which is just the sort of interface that you want witha Congress that doesn’t trust your Administration, and likely why they picked him. Dean was puzzled as to why Fielding would want to put his personal reputation on the line for the Bush Administration — said he likely felt an obligation to help because he was close with James Baker and Bush I, and that there is some connection through the years with the Cheneys as well.

As with all of these folks, it is a layered set of reasons for doing things, with some question of “what’s in it for me?” in there somewhere. I’ve been trying to keep an eye out for Fielding fingerprints on things, but I’m wondering more now if he was brought in as more of a figurehead/PR ploy for cover, letting him think he’d be helping to fix things while really they are continuing to do as they please with or without his approval. I just don’t know…

Just want to add my thanks to the goddesses of the Lake.

T- @ 41

CHS @ 38 -
I don’t disagree, but the risks and benefits are viewed through these glasses. Not ones that would include indirect costs or moral values.

Appreciate you ‘views’ and GREAT optic ’scanner’ pic. Sums it up
in golden fashion!

mc @ 40

Good morning, Christy and all. I’m listening to Joshua Bell play “Ave Maria.” I need these moments more and more because, invariably, as the day goes on I become increasingly disgusted by the outrages of our government.

But for now I have Joshua Bell, a strong cuppa, and FDL. ‘Tis a good morning, indeed.

I was listening to Joshua Bell last night, while I was grading papers – Prokofiev’s 2nd Violin Concerto. What a performer!

T- at 41 — I think that is true for the most part, but that also is dependent on the lawyer involved. And the corporate culture of a particular company as well. Some are better about long-term considerations than others — because the bottom line can be adversely affected in a lot of ways, including declining perception of trust. It depends on how you can present the facts in front of you — and what the short-term needs of the management are perceived to be.

I didn’ realize the Supreme Ct is taking up the two Americas ==crack cocaine v powdered cocaine.
The drug laws –all of them are stupid
but this of course is just another excuse to put black people in jail

Adding my agreement of support for all the good work CHS does.
And, thanks for comment #26. I think that rituals do have a place in our lives and a reminder for us to choose our battles.
(no offense to Elliot, really).
I guess we can light a candle And curse the darkness.
I’m off to go make some money. You firepups staying here, fight the good fight and keep seeking the truth.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 42

kdh at 39 — I don’t know Fielding, but I did have a discussion with John Dean about him when we were at YKOS2. Dean says he is very cautious, good with working every angle of a problem, that he has maintained a stellar reputation through the years of integrity in terms of following through on deals when he makes them — which is just the sort of interface that you want witha Congress that doesn’t trust your Administration, and likely why they picked him. Dean was puzzled as to why Fielding would want to put his personal reputation on the line for the Bush Administration — said he likely felt an obligation to help because he was close with James Baker and Bush I, and that there is some connection through the years with the Cheneys as well.

As with all of these folks, it is a layered set of reasons for doing things, with some question of “what’s in it for me?” in there somewhere. I’ve been trying to keep an eye out for Fielding fingerprints on things, but I’m wondering more now if he was brought in as more of a figurehead/PR ploy for cover, letting him think he’d be helping to fix things while really they are continuing to do as they please with or without his approval. I just don’t know…

Dean says that Fielding has “maintained a stellar reputation” Frightening to think that a “stellar” Fielding is willing to stand up for those who have done everything in their power to undermine our constitution and National Security.

Did anyone see the ‘60 Minute’ story on
Justice Thomas?

It was as mindless as it was mendacious.
Thomas actually seemed to give the same import to being 5′8″ tall as to being black.

In many respects it was embarrassing to watch.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 42

kdh at 39 — I don’t know Fielding, but I did have a discussion with John Dean about him when we were at YKOS2. Dean says he is very cautious, good with working every angle of a problem, that he has maintained a stellar reputation through the years of integrity in terms of following through on deals when he makes them — which is just the sort of interface that you want witha Congress that doesn’t trust your Administration, and likely why they picked him. Dean was puzzled as to why Fielding would want to put his personal reputation on the line for the Bush Administration — said he likely felt an obligation to help because he was close with James Baker and Bush I, and that there is some connection through the years with the Cheneys as well.

As with all of these folks, it is a layered set of reasons for doing things, with some question of “what’s in it for me?” in there somewhere. I’ve been trying to keep an eye out for Fielding fingerprints on things, but I’m wondering more now if he was brought in as more of a figurehead/PR ploy for cover, letting him think he’d be helping to fix things while really they are continuing to do as they please with or without his approval. I just don’t know…

Thanks for your insight (and Dean’s). Very interesting. I took him for a firewall. It appears to me, he emerges and then recoils at opportune times for the Administration and himself. Clever guy.

kathleen at 49 — They certainly are not clients that I would select for myself, but sometimes as a lawyer you step into a situation where you know there is a profound problem to try and mitigate the damage — inside the client as well as to people who are suffering from their poor choices. It may be that Fielding sees himself as being in a position to right some of the wrongs and to save some measure of things for the GOP as a whole if he can do so.

Or it may be that he’s a kool-aidy kind of guy, and that Dean has read him incorrectly. I simply don’t know him well enough to say one way or the other personally.

Has anyone found the webcast feed for the SJC as yet? I’m not getting anything on the website as a precursor feed…

Christy Hardin Smith @ 23

Am setting up a second laptop in case the webstream crashes out on the first one on Goldsmith. Eeep…I much prefer the C-Span broadcast when I can go back and forth on my TIVO.

good luck! i’ve got the stream up and running here on my laptop and will do my best to record the audio.

selise — Where did you find the stream — I’m not getting it. Do you have a link?

Christy:

You are very ‘hot’ ( in all the best senses) today!

@ 46, it is always the ’short term’ which is the crux – often overwheming ‘long term’ considerations and leading to consequences, perhaps unintended, but afflicting everyone, nonetheless.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 55

selise — Where did you find the stream — I’m not getting it. Do you have a link?

i had it save.. give me one sec and i will post the url.

I sure hope they ask Blackwater what they specifically have planned for the U.S., and I want them to be asked about their potential participation in extraordinary rendition in relation to the contract they just received.

because the bottom line can be adversely affected in a lot of ways, including declining perception of trust.

This is exactly correct, at least in the environment I am in daily, that of a corporate/financial giant.
One of our first underwriting criteria is, “Will it pass the WSJ front-page test?” I.e. if the public had access to the information around the company/project we were financing or if some of the downside scenarios arose, would it cause enough of a backlash (loss of trust) that would affect the bottom line?
If the answer to that question is “No it wouldn’t pass that test,” we don’t bring the deal up to the investment committee.
One recent case was looking at financing Blackwater, and the front page test was applied then the deal was summarily dismissed.

selise @ 57

Christy Hardin Smith @ 55

selise — Where did you find the stream — I’m not getting it. Do you have a link?

i had it save.. give me one sec and i will post the url.

rtsp://avs2.senate.gov/judiciary

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2958

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1509

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs…..p;Code=CS2

Found it on Mr. ReddHedd’s laptop. Not working on mine for some reason…

selise @ 60

selise @ 57

i had it save.. give me one sec and i will post the url.

rtsp://avs2.senate.gov/judiciary

Thank you, selise. I couldn’t find it either.

Helen @ 64

selise @ 60

rtsp://avs2.senate.gov/judiciary

Thank you, selise. I couldn’t find it either.

the link hadn’t been posted on the SJC hearing webpage until about 60 ago.

but, it’s there now…

egregious @ 61

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cf

m?id=2958

Thanks

Christy Hardin Smith @ 26

Eliott at 22 — It tend to be a ecumenical service asking for wisdom. It’s been held forever — it’s not an exceptionally preachy sort of mass, more a “give us widom and strngth” sort of thing. No big…truly.

That may be true in most places, but here in OC the Red Mass is effectively a Federalist Society event. Gives me the creeps, and I’m Catholic.

Blackwater hearing starting on C-SPAN 3 right now.

Kathleen @ 62

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=1509

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs…..p;Code=CS2

Blackwater will be on CSPAN-3

Christy Hardin Smith @ 53

Has anyone found the webcast feed for the SJC as yet? I’m not getting anything on the website as a precursor feed…

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2958

David W. Bartoo -
It’s not very often that I can contribute with all these mental/moral giants swimming around at the lake…

T- @ 59

because the bottom line can be adversely affected in a lot of ways, including declining perception of trust.

This is exactly correct, at least in the environment I am in daily, that of a corporate/financial giant.
One of our first underwriting criteria is, “Will it pass the WSJ front-page test?” I.e. if the public had access to the information around the company/project we were financing or if some of the downside scenarios arose, would it cause enough of a backlash (loss of trust) that would affect the bottom line?
If the answer to that question is “No it wouldn’t pass that test,” we don’t bring the deal up to the investment committee.
One recent case was looking at financing Blackwater, and the front page test was applied then the deal was summarily dismissed.

Fascinating and timely! Good choice, obviously. Appreciate your informed participation immensely.

Blackwater is an up standing organization with no need for oversight or accountability… Erik Prince.

What the hell could this guy say to make what Blackwater has done on more than one occasion acceptable?

Christy has a new thread for the SJC hearing.

Leahy is up

Christy, Scarecrow, Selise, ALL you pups.

Good Morning.

You guys just refuse to let me give up hope, don’tcha?!

T.H.A.N.K.Y.O.U.! ;->

Lotsa work going on around here (sanding & painting & prepping stuff for recycling, oogh) but I’ll be in and out. Just can’t stay away from the Lake. I tried to keep track of what th’ hay was goin’ on by turning on the MSM every so often. Had to snap that button OFF within milliseconds every blasted time; and got myself into a funk wondering when someone would wake up to all the mayhem in the world, much of the worst aided and abetted by this dreadful boosh/chaingang.

Go get-em pups! I’ll do what I can. ;->

I presume folks here are aware: ACLU has pleas out for people to light up the wires to Congresscritters, most definitely including leadership.

During our liveblogging please keep *all* comments to a minimum, especially in the liveblog threads, thanks.

New thread: Goldsmith Testimony Part I

Second new thread, Marcy liveblog House Oversight Blackwater Liveblog One

T- @ 71

David W. Bartoo -
It’s not very often that I can contribute with all these mental/moral giants swimming around at the lake…

You appear quite well endowed in those attributes youself. Really. And size is always relative to the concepts and ideas that one is willing to take on.

John Dean has a low opinion of Cheney’s understanding of law. He compares Darth to Nixon. (’Nixon knew nonsense when he saw it’, IIRC.)

And, WRT Thomas’s book, I read the LA Times review, and got the impression that (a) the reviewer wasn’t overly impressed by it, and (b) Thomas’s grandfather should not have been the person raising him. The abuse (physical and mental) came through clearly in the review.

ANITA HILL STRIKES BACK!!!!

David Ehrenstein @ 79

ANITA HILL STRIKES BACK!!!!

Thanks for this link. It might be interesting were HRC, should she attain the Presidency, to select Anita Hill for SCOTUS.

Just a stay thought. She would certainly bring a perspective different to that of Justice Thomas.