The Commentariat -- SCOTUS Edition

Internal links removed.

Illustration by Dana Verkouteren for the AP.

Here's the transcript of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell (pdf).

The stock market foresees a government win; hospital stocks surge on the strength of Justice Kennedy's questioning of the plaintiffs' attorney.

Lyle Denniston of ScotusBlog: "One of the most important functions of oral argument in the Supreme Court is that it can strongly shape the next round: the private deliberations among the nine Justices as they start work on a decision. The much-awaited hearing Wednesday on the stiff new challenge to the Affordable Care Act strongly suggested that Topic A in private could well be: how bad will we make things if we rule against the government?"

Dahlia Lithwick: "... To the extent that anyone believed that Chief Justice John Roberts was the only one to watch in this appeal, this morning Kennedy gave them someone else to talk about: Kennedy."

Jeff Toobin unpacks the one substantive question Chief Justice Roberts asked & explains why it might bode well for the government. He acknowledges that neither Roberts nor Kennedy really tipped his hand, so the outcome is very much up in the air.

It's No Slam-Dunk, People. David Nather of Politico: "Still, legal experts point out that both sides got tough questions, that Chief Justice John Roberts' views are a big mystery, and that oral arguments aren't always decisive in the Supreme Court, anyway."

Daniel Strauss of TPM: "Michael Carvin, the attorney arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case, said this challenge is different because the argument against the law centers on a statute that was 'written by white women and minorities.' Carvin's comments were published in a Wall Street Journal profile of him on Tuesday, a day before oral arguments began in the King v. Burwell lawsuit." ...

     ... CW: Who could have guessed that opposition to ObamaCare is based, at least in part, on racial & gender animus? Oh, everybody who knows the entire confederate movement is based in large part on racial & gender animus. This case, like so many "controversial" subjects, gets down to a core issue of equal protection. Most of the grand old white boys know enough to use "politically correct" language like "freeeedom" & "limited government" to justify their exclusionary policy positions, but the dirty little not-so-secret is that the party of Lincoln has become a club for angry, deranged bigots. ...

... Dave Weigel: "The irony is that Carvin's joke demonstrates one of the defendants' best arguments: The people who wrote the law are still with us, and can explain what they thought. Whenever they've been asked, the Democrats (and it was all Democrats) who passed the ACA explained that the language in the bill that reserves subsidies for plans purchased 'exchange established by the state' was never meant to deny subsidies. The federal exchange was always intended as a stopgap.... New York Representative Joe Crowley, who attended Wednesday's arguments, said the same thing.... Crowley, while not a woman or minority, was in the room, looking at the justices. Calvin was arguing that the intent expressed by people like him did not matter when one read the law itself."

Dana Milbank got a bad seat at the spectacle. "The conservative majority could still knock down the law, of course, but given the ambiguity exposed Wednesday, it would now be a breathtaking surprise for the justices to cause such massive upheaval -- taking health-care immediately from 8 million and causing a death spiral for the rest of Obamacare -- based on such a slender legal reed."

Amy Howe of ScotusBlog describes the arguments "in plain English."

Jonathan Cohn & Jeffrey Young of the Huffington Post highlight ten key moments in the arguments -- and one that didn't happen.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed bitterly divided during heated arguments over the fate of President Obama's health care law. As expected, the court's four liberal members voiced strong support for the administration's position. But the administration must almost certainly capture the vote of either Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to prevail. The chief justice said almost nothing." ...

... Here's the Washington Post report, by Robert Barnes. ...

... CW: Until today, I would have labeled Justice Scalia "mostly corrupt." Unless he decides for the government, I revise my observation to "completely corrupt."

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed: "When [plaintiffs' attorney Michael] Carvin argued that there was no legislative history to support the 'death spiral' concern regarding the federal subsidy, Sotomayor shot back that it was 'the entire point of the legislation.' Kagan described the 'draconian choice' Carvin's argument would have states make, asking why the court should believe this is the most logical reading of the statute when 'it took a year and a half' for this issue to be raised."

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress: "Obamacare is not out of the woods yet, and neither are the millions of people who will lose coverage or the thousands who will die if this case goes badly for the government. After Wednesday's argument, however, those individuals have good reason to be optimistic. At least one of the Court's Republicans appears to have come to work wearing his judicial robe, and not his partisan hat."

Mark Stern of Slate: "ObamaCare dangles by a single vote, again."

ScotusBlog will not liveblog the King v. Burwell arguments. CW: I couldn't find any other news outlet that will. If you find one, please share. The New York Times says it "will have updated coverage throughout the day," but it has no liveblog. If you want to keep checking back & don't have a Times subscription, open the front page in a private browser window. If you access more than nine stories, you'll have to close the private window & open a new one.

Hey, the NYT is liveblogging the Boston Marathon bombing trial. Weird.

The Washington Post has been deadblogging the hearing. They're posts are now (at 11:55 am ET) an hour-and-a-half behind the action. Update: the Post deadblog has been updated to cover the entire hearing.

But for a Preposition, the Case Was Lost. Post Liveblog: "11:12:Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli 11:12: Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked Verrilli what seemed to be the toughest question for him to answer: Why does the law use those four words, 'established by the State,' if it meant federal exchanges could substitute? Why not say exchanges established 'in the state?'"

Here's the "first mid-argument update" from ScotusBlog. CW: I assume this means ScotusBlog will post more such updates. Kennedy sounds squishy. Update (2): The original "first mid-argument update" has been updated! Kagan seems to have got the better of the petitioners' lawyer on the "context" point. Update (3): Now the original post has been re-titled "Mid-argument updates," and there's a third update. CW: So I think it's safe to stick with the post linked at the top of this graf. Keep refreshing the page. "Kennedy ... pointed out that, under petitioners' reading, the federal government would be all but forcing states to create their own exchanges.... Justice Scalia attempted to respond on petitioners' behalf.... " Update (4): Roberts "asked no questions to the petitioners and seemed skeptical of Justice Ginsburg's efforts to question standing when the government stood up to give its case. ...

... ** Wait, Wait. There's a new blogger at ScotusBlog: Here's his first update of oral arguments. This is a different link. This post has been updated. And again at 11:33 am. "Scalia seemed to be drawing an even harder line than the petitioners." CW: Shameful asshole. ...

... Here's a new ScotusBlog post on Kennedy's concerns.

** The Wall Street Journal is liveblogging the hearing, and it is not subscriber-firewalled. Thanks to Akhilleus. It's self-refreshing. 11:28 am: Chief Justice Roberts made a little crack that suggested -- ever so obliquely -- that he might side with the plaintiffs.

Arguments are over, but the bloggers are still blogging.

Tea Leaves. Greg Sargent has some suggestions on what to look for in the conservative justices questions & comments in the oral hearing. Not that we'll know what those questions & comments were until later in the day.

Washington Post Editors: "WHEN THE Supreme Court examines the Affordable Care Act again Wednesday, it will have several logical, principled paths to avoid tearing apart a law that has slowly but surely found its footing. It should take at least one of them.... The justices need not rule based on any feared or preferred policy result. They only need to read the law reasonably."

Jeff Shesol in the New Yorker: "The Supreme Court v. Reality."

The Stealth Campaign to Destroy "Liberal" Jurisprudence. Nina Martin of ProPublica: "For more than 30 years, the Federalist Society has worked behind the scenes to shape Supreme Court outcomes to a conservative agenda. In King v. Burwell, its influence could eliminate health insurance subsidies for millions of people."

Brian Beutler: "You have to be delusional or dishonest to claim that Congress imposed a huge condition on the subsidies, or that we can't know what Congress was trying to accomplish. Yet a swing justice could decide that 'by the State' does not equate to 'by the federal government on behalf of the State' -- to ignore the fuller context.... That would be a huge coup for diction scolds and people who get angry at the thought of poor people going to the doctor. It would also reflect a conscious decision to ignore the clarity of the law's purpose. If that's the thin reed on which the Supreme Court interprets Obamacare, in defiance of the democratic process that brought it into existence, something will have gone very, very wrong."

Jonathan Bernstein: "Just how stupid does Paul Ryan think we are? The Wisconsin Republican and two other House committee chairmen claim in an op-ed [Tuesday] that they are just about ready to propose an Obamacare 'off-ramp' if the Supreme Court decides in King v. Burwell to destroy the federal health-insurance markets in more than half the states.... [They give us] a 'working group' and another promise that their plan is in the mail. C'mon."

... CW: Yo, Bernstein. The Ryan, et al., op-ed is about giving the Supremes cover to gut the ACA; it's not even about fooling a gullible public.

Mitch McConnell Is Not Cooperating with the Plan. Sahil Kapur of TPM: "Senate Republican leaders wouldn't commit Tuesday to having health care legislation ready by June to avert a potential crisis if the Supreme Court wipes out Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans.... TPM asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at his weekly Capitol press conference if the GOP would have bill ready to mitigate the potential health care crisis. The short answer: We're working on it, but won't commit to anything."

Robert Schlesinger of US News looks at all the horrible consequences of a ruling in favor of King in a column titled, "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid."

Pancakes! Jonathan Cohn of the Huffington Post explains King v. Burwell to homemakers: "... you shouldn't read one part of a law in isolation any more than you should read one part of a recipe -- because, just like the Joy of Cooking, the Affordable Care Act allows for substitutions." CW: Thanks, Jonathan! And thanks, Irma Rombauer!

The Commentariat -- March 4, 2015

Internal links & defunct video removed.

CW: See also yesterday's Commentariat. I posted quite a few links (labelled "NEW") after noon.

Boehner Ends Another Crisis of His Own Making. Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "The House on Tuesday passed a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year, averting a partial shutdown of the agency after weeks of uncertainty, but inflaming conservative lawmakers. The legislation passed, 257 to 167, with only 75 Republican votes, and it now heads to President Obama's desk, where he is expected to sign it." ...

... Steve Benen: "Since the Republican victories in the 2010 midterms, Congress has become dysfunctional on a historic scale. Lawmakers have no meaningful legislative accomplishments since the Democratic majorities of 2010, and tasks that were once simple are now nearly impossible. But since January 2011, Congress has excelled in one area: manufacturing avoidable crises. If there's one thing a GOP majority has guaranteed, it's that the nation's legislative branch will careen, over and over again, from one self-imposed crisis to the next." Benen has the list. Very impressive. ...

... Scott Wong of the Hill: "The opening weeks of the 114th Congress have been nothing short of a disaster for Republicans, who declared upon taking control of both chambers last fall that the era of governing by crisis and fiscal cliffs was over.... Counting an emergency measure to keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) running through Friday, Congress has sent President Obama a total of only four bills, even as Republicans promised to get off to a fast start this session." CW: Mind you, this is a straight report, not an opinion piece. ...

... BUT "disaster"? Maybe not. ...

... Digby: "Who know what any of this really adds up to for the GOP but in their view it's been worth a lot. Over the course of these last few years of rolling from one crisis to another they have increased their margin in the House dramatically and they won a majority in the Senate. So I wouldn't expect these games of chicken to stop any time soon." ...

... Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg View: "Pundits and reporters have portrayed the chain of events as a disaster for the speaker, and are in jeopardy. So why do I think Boehner's 'defeat' was actually a brilliant maneuver? ... On one hand, the speaker gave the radicals and those who voted with them a moment of triumph when they spiked the bill. On the other, it was a good reminder for most mainstream House conservatives, who oppose Obama's immigration actions but don't want a shutdown, that the alternative to Boehner is chaos.... Boehner is wise to accept these 24-hour fiascos, even if they spread reports of coups against him. The griping is just for show."

Arhsad Mohammed of Reuters: "Iran rejected on Tuesday as 'unacceptable' U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it would continue talks on a deal, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported. Iran laid out the position as the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers met for a second day of negotiations and as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a stinging critique of the agreement they are trying to hammer out." CW: Yeah, thanks for your help, Bibi. ...

... Here's the transcript of Benjamin Netanhayu's speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. Video of the speech is here. ...

... William Booth & Ruth Eglash of the Washington Post: "Israeli commentators generally gave the Netanyahu speech high marks, with supporters calling it one of the best of the prime minister's political career. Others said that the speech was rousing and demonstrated the support that Israel and Netanyahu enjoy in Congress, but that Netanyahu did not break new ground or offer a new way of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions." ...

... Thomas Erdbrink of the New York Times: "The tensions between the United States and Israel over how to address Iran's nuclear program and a politically divisive speech Tuesday by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to the United States Congress are playing to an eager audience in Tehran. The news media [in Tehran] has [sic.] highlighted the division as evidence that Israel is being isolated by its otherwise steadfast ally and analysts are examining how the rift might affect the outcome of the nuclear negotiations." ...

... Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, an Israel hawk, reflects on the possible impacts of Netanyahu's speech. ...

... Matthew Duss of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, in Slate: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did President Obama an enormous favor Tuesday. Given the opportunity, on perhaps the world's biggest political stage, to articulate the best possible case against the nuclear deal currently being negotiated with Iran, Netanyahu came up empty. He whiffed.... Netanyahu had the chance Tuesday to offer a better plan, with the whole world watching. He failed miserably, and in so doing demonstrated conclusively that there isn't one." ...

... Ed Kilgore: "It's pretty shocking that Netanyahu was able not only to dictate a speech to Congress and its timing, but the scope of issues he'd need to address. It's less a reflection of his cleverness and audacity than of the peculiar needs of our country's Republican Party." ...

... Jim Fallows of the Atlantic: To Bibi, it's 1938 all over again. To others, not so much. Fallows runs down some of the ways in which Iran is not like Nazi Germany. ...

... Here's another excellent post by Fallows on how Netanyahu's objectives are at odds with the interests of the United States. CW: It would be nice if Republicans had the brainpower to see that they are undermining their own country's -- as well as the world's -- security interests by promoting Bibi's narrow worldview. Instead, Republicans still hold to a policy of Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran All of the Middle East Except Israel. That's worked out brilliantly so far (See Iraq, Libya). And it's so humanitarian. ...

... AND, to make Fallows' point, here's Ted Cruz. Betsy Woodruff of Slate: "Ted Cruz Compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain and Iran to Nazi Germany." ...

... Kevin Drum of Mother Jones: "There's really no Plan B here, and even the hawks are mostly reluctant to explicitly say that we should just up and launch a massive air assault on Iran." ...

... CW: Hey, let's check in to see how international policy expert & all-around fine human being Rush Limbaugh assesses the situation:

You look at how Obama has treated and does treat Netanyahu, you would think that Netanyahu was a white policeman from Ferguson, Missouri. I mean, that's the conclusion that you would come to. Or that he was one of the cops that choked Eric Garner, or he was one of the jurors in the Trayvon Martin case.

... ALSO, Sen. Lindsey Graham says he's sorry about making a crack about Nancy Pelosi's facial "surgeries." CW: Apparently Graham was unaware that when you say stupid stuff at a "private fund-raiser," some person in the room is likely to share it with the press. Someone might point him to Not-President Forty-seven Percent and, way two weeks back, to Rudy Obama-Doesn't-Love-Me.

Republicans Show Their Concern for Income Inequality. Jordan Carney of the Hill: "The Senate will vote Wednesday on a GOP-backed motion that would undo a controversial National Labor Relations Board rule that makes it easier for workers to hold union elections. Republicans are using the Congressional Review Act that allows lawmakers to undo regulation through a motion of disapproval, which needs a majority vote in both chambers. The motion can't be filibustered or amended, which will help it bypass Democratic opposition. If the bill gets to his desk, however, the White House says President Obama will veto it. Republicans say the rule is unfair to businesses."

... we expect the firms we oversee to follow the law and to operate in an ethical manner. Too often in recent years, bankers at large institutions have not done so, sometimes brazenly. These incidents, both individually and in their totality, raise legitimate questions of whether there may be pervasive shortcomings in the values of large financial firms that might undermine their safety and soundness. -- Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair

Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times: "As this recovery gains momentum, and the labor market starts to look more normal, a new report offers a reminder that black workers once again are lagging behind.... Tthe problem is a good illustration of the limits of monetary policy."

Carrie Johnson of NPR: "A federal civil rights investigation of the Ferguson, Mo., police force has concluded that the department violated the Constitution with discriminatory policing practices against African Americans, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the report.... The full report will be released on Wednesday, but the source described two emails included in the report that were exchanged between police and local court employees. One says Obama will not be president for long because 'what black man holds a steady job for four years.' Another says a black woman in New Orleans was admitted to a hospital to end her pregnancy and then got a check two weeks later from 'Crime Stoppers.'"

Jon Swaine & Oliver Laughland of the Guardian: "The Department of Justice announced on Wednesday that after a six-month inquiry it has concluded no civil rights charges should be brought against [Darren] Wilson for killing Michael Brown. A grand jury in St Louis decided last November not to indict Wilson on state charges." Read on: this didn't satisfy Wilson's supporters.

Annals of "Justice," "General Amnesty" Edition. David Graham of the Atlantic: "The Obama administration is against intelligence officials leaking classified information -- but some conditions may apply. If you're a CIA analyst who talks to reporters, you might end up serving 30 months in federal prison or facing more. Even a reporter could end up being named a co-conspirator by prosecutors. But if you're a decorated general, a former CIA director, and a former member of the Cabinet, you might get off with a $40,000 fine and two years of probation. Just ask David Petraeus...." ...

... ** Marcy Wheeler provides some details of Petraeus's "indiscretions" that show the affair itself was a trivial sideshow: "For mishandling some of the most important secrets the nation has, Petraeus will plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Petraeus, now an employee of a top private equity firm, will be fined $40,000 and serve two years of probation. He will not, however, be asked to plead guilty at all for lying to FBI investigators[, which he did]. CW: Read the whole post. Let's hope the judge rejects the plea deal. It is as corrupt as is Petraeus himself. Several journalists have noted that pleading guilty to only a misdemeanor would allow General Betrayus to return to "public service." ...

... CW: Will the Senate now pass a resolution apologizing to MoveOn.org? Don't hold your breath. ...

I'm proud of the fact that basically you've had an administration that's been in place for six years in which there hasn't been a major scandal. -- David Axelrod, former Obama advisor, last month ...

... CW: Sorry, Axelrod, this is a scandal, a scandalous misuse of "prosecutorial discretion." I don't doubt that in view of Petraeus's prominence, Eric Holder signed off on this deal. This is classic Holder; he was a tool of the "connected" people going in, and he's a tool going out.

Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.

Michael Tomasky rips the New York Times' reporting on the Hillary e-mail story. Tomasky asserts that Michael Schmidt's Times report was purposely misleading.

CW: We learned last week that Bill O'Reilly lied to his mother. (Of course we learned that from Bill O'Reilly, so that could be a lie, too.) Now we learn that Bill'O also lied to children & teens for fun & profit.

Presidential Race

Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin "Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday embraced a move to ban abortion after 20 weeks after repeatedly declining to spell out where he stood on the issue in last year's re-election campaign. It is the latest example of Walker downplaying a major issue until after being re-elected and climbing to the top tier of likely 2016 presidential candidates. Walker did not campaign on plans to spin off the University of Wisconsin System as a public authority and now says he will sign so-called right-to-work legislation even though he insisted for years he would keep the measure from reaching his desk." ...

... See also Nadd2's commentary in today's thread. Also, as Nadd2 suggested in yesterday's thread, now that Hillary Clinton is in deserved hot water for her peculiar/stupid/careless decision to use her personal e-mail account for all her State Department correspondence, she can expect a pass from Scott Walker. ...

... Michael Schmidt & Amy Chozick of the New York Times: "Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record. An examination of records requests sent to the department reveals how the practice protected a significant amount of her correspondence from the eyes of investigators and the public.... The White House, in its first response to the news, said it frowned on the practice of officials using their personal email accounts.... But political groups and news organizations said requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly gone unanswered." ...

... CW: Schmidt & Chozick directly contradict Michael Tomasky's assertion, in the post linked above, that "The new regs apparently weren’t fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State.... Clinton left the State Department on February 1, 2013.... The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn't issue the relevant guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use." Take your pick. ...

The Washington Post story, by Karen Tumulty & Anne Gearan is here. Clinton reportedly used multiple personal e-mail accounts. ...

... Ron Fournier, the sanctimonious dope at the National Journal, equates Hillary Clinton's private e-mail stupidity with her husband's lies about Monica Lewinsky: "... here again is a reminder of the 1990s: When cornered, the Clintons denied facts and demonized detractors. The most obvious example is Bill Clinton's lying about his affair with a White House intern.... Less remembered is an independent counsel's finding of 'substantial evidence' that then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath about her role in the 1993 White House travel office firings." But Fournier, if he could get over his hyperbole, does have a point: "[Hillary] Clinton's problem is ... a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency." ...

... Julian Hattem of the Hill: "Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct official business as secretary of State ... seems to have stayed within the law, experts say. 'What she did was not technically illegal,' said Patrice McDermott, a former National Archives staffer and the head of the Open The Government coalition, a transparency group. However, 'it was highly inappropriate and it was inappropriate for the State Department to let this happen,' she said." ...

... Andrew Prokop of Vox: "The specific legal issue at play here, however, doesn't appear to be Clinton's use of her personal email -- but instead, the failure of Clinton and her aides to properly keep records of her work-related communications from that email account on State Department servers." ...

... Shane Harris of the Daily Beast: "A Clinton aide, who asked not to be named, flatly denied that Clinton let slip any secrets through her personal email. 'Using her own email account broke no laws, and ... was used for communicating non-classified information only,' the aide told The Daily Beast." CW: Why the anonymity? Probably so Trey Gowdy won't subpoena her/him. ...

... ** Digby: "Maybe there's something truly nefarious going on. I'm open to believing it. But at this point what I see is that Villager hysterical impulse asserting itself once again.... Villager handwringing over how it doesn't really matter if it's true or not because 'it's out there' and it 'exposes her character', is cheap and shallow journalistic masturbation." ...

... Steve Benen: "Politically..., Republicans find themselves in an awkward position. The RNC issued a statement asking, '[I]t all begs the question: what was Hillary Clinton trying to hide?' Putting aside the misuse of 'begs the question,' the Republican track record makes this a difficult question to ask." Benen cites both Karl Rove, who got caught flouting the Official Records Act & Mitt Romney, who destroyed e-mails for the admitted purpose of hiding official correspondence. "... Republicans will have to somehow come up with an explanation for why Clinton's misstep is scandalous, while GOP officials and candidates who did the exact same thing are beyond reproach." ...

... Steve M.: "Remember the huge Mitt Romney email scandal of 2012? No?... Which is not to say that what Hillary did was justified -- it put her above the law and it suggests that she's hiding something, or at least that she has a neurotic tendency toward concealment even when there's nothing to conceal.... This reveals bad judgment, but it's not going to be an enduring scandal unless there's much more to it." ...

** Jaime Fuller of New York has an excellent rundown of what reporters have learned about Hillary Clinton's e-mail account scandalette. Here's one factoid: "John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely on government email." And another: "The regulations requiring Clinton to save emails weren't in place until after she left the State Department."

Beyond the Beltway

Lyle Denniston of ScotusBlog: "Sharply criticizing the Supreme Court for its recent actions on same-sex marriage, the Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday evening ordered all state judges who have the duty to issue licenses to wed to stop doing so immediately for same-sex couples.... The seven-to-one decision, made in three opinions running to a total of 148 pages, put at least some of the sixty-eight probate judges in the state in the position of having to obey directly contradictory court orders.... Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, who had undertaken on his own to try to stop the state probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples..., did not take part in Tuesday's ruling. His absence from it was not explained." CW: Up next: secession. Really, this is extraordinary. ...

... The New York Times story, by Campbell Robertson, is here.

John Danforth, the former Republican Senator from Missouri & an Episcopalian priest, whose claim to fame is bringing us Clarence Thomas, delivered the eulogy for Missouri state auditor Thomas Schweich, who committed suicide last week. CW: Here's the part I find curious. Danforth blames dirty politics for Schweich's suicide, then launches into a related graf that begins, "Words do hurt. Words can kill." But Danforth says in the eulogy that he advised Schweich to be politically expedient & pursue any complaints about antisemitism sub rosa. Danforth admits he may have let down Schweich. Nonetheless, Danforth seems to absolve himself while blaming others. ...

... CW: I may be reflecting my own limitations here, but I feel certain an antisemitic whispering campaign was not the cause of Schweich's suicide. And neither was Danforth's failure to see it Schweich's way. Dirty politics is as old as the nation, & being "accused" of being Jewish is not normally life-shattering in a country where even the usual bigots strongly oppose antisemitism.

Not Photoshopped. Really.

Akhilleus asked in yesterday's thread, "Just wondering if Nelson (Mr. Morals) Shanks included the shadow of a TOW missile in his portrait of Ronald Reagan."

CW: Ha ha, very funny. If you were more into art appreciation, Akhilleus, you would know that the shadow behind Reagan in the Shanks portrait at left is of a Contra in camo. You can see where the Contra is wearing a bandana to hide his identity. Or else it's Davy Crockett.

See also yesterday's Commentariat for context.

News Ledes

AP: "Mark Lippert, the US ambassador to South Korea, has been slashed on the face and wrist by a man armed with a razor and screaming that the two Koreas should be unified. Pictures showed a stunned-looking Lippert staring at his blood-covered left hand and holding his right hand over a cut on the right side of his face, his pink tie splattered with blood."

Boston Globe: "The trial of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" begins today.

The Commentariat -- March 3, 2015

Internal links removed.

Here are the New York Times' live updates on Netanyahu's speech before the U.S. Congress. CW: Happily for me, I unexpectedly had to be away during the whole thing. ...

... The Washington Post story, by Katie Zezima, is here. "Any agreement 'doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,' Netanyahu said. 'So why would anyone make this deal?'” (CW: Sadly, no reports that Netanyahu employed high-tech cardboard cartoon visuals aids to emphasize his point. I guess he just couldn't be bothered to bring his magic marker. Maybe he doesn't respect the U.S. Congress.) "Netanyahu praised President Obama, who was participating in a teleconference at 11:30. A White House spokesman said he likely would not watch the speech." ...

... as one who values the U.S. – Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation. -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

NEW. Echoes of Dubya. Paul Waldman: "You don’t have to be some kind of foreign policy whiz to grasp that there’s something weird about arguing that 1) Iran is a nation run by genocidal maniacs; 2) they want nuclear weapons so they can annihilate Israel; and 3) the best way to stop this is to abandon negotiations to limit their nuclear program and just wait to see what they do. But that’s the position Netanyahu’s supporters in the Republican Party are now committed to." ...

... Jeff Mason of Reuters: "Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but the odds are still against sealing a final agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters on Monday. Interviewed at the White House, Obama moved to dial back tensions over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress on Tuesday opposing the Iran deal, saying it was a distraction that would not be 'permanently destructive' to U.S. Israeli ties":

... Here's the full transcript of the interview. ...

... Dana Milbank: "In the brawl between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran nuclear negotiations, AIPAC has joined congressional Republicans in siding wholeheartedly with the Israeli hard-liner.... They gave a boisterous standing ovation to his invocation of a 'moral obligation' to give his views on the Iran negotiations, declaring an end to 'the days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us.' Added Netanyahu: 'Today we have a voice. And tomorrow . . . I plan to use that voice.'” ...

... Ted Nesi of WPRI Providence, R.I.: "U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse won’t be among those in attendance when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes his controversial address before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday." ...

... Here's the Hill's latest list of which Members of Congress will & won't be attending Netanyahu's speech.

NEW. Jaime Fuller of New York: "Boehner is so ready to be done with all this DHS drama. Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that the House will vote on a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security this week — perhaps by the end of the day. News organizations have reported that Boehner told his colleagues that a partial shutdown was not an option...." ...

... NEW. Sean Sullivan of the Washington Post: "The House will vote as soon as Tuesday afternoon on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year. The measure will not target President Obama's executive actions on immigration, giving Democrats what they have long demanded and potentially enraging conservatives bent on fighting the president on immigration." ...

... Paul Lewis of the Guardian: "In the Senate, Democrats blocked an attempt by Republicans to force negotiations between both sides of the legislature over a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The failed vote immediately put pressure on the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner...." ...

... Mike Lillis & Rebecca Shabad of the Hill: "House Democrats expect Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a 'clean' Homeland Security funding bill to the floor this week, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday."

NEW. Barely a Tap on the Wrist. Adam Goldman & Sari Horwitz of the Washington Post: "Lawyers for David H. Petraeus have reached an agreement with federal prosecutors for the retired general and former CIA director to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge in connection with his handling of classified materials. As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted to improperly retaining classified material, according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court in Charlotte. Petraeus has also acknowledged he misled FBI investigators, officials said." ...

... NEW. CW: As a recall, Martha Stewart, a private citizen who did not hold a position of public trust, much less the power of a CIA director with vast capabilities to betray individuals & the nation, went to jail for misconduct no worse than Petraeus's. Oh, well, she's a girl. Besides, she was a role model who had to be held up as an example.

Julie Davis of the New York Times: "President Obama on Monday called for prompt action to change police practices across the country after the deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island at the hands of white officers exposed frustrations about law enforcement in minority communities. Mr. Obama, unveiling the recommendations of a White House task force created in the wake of the killings, said local law enforcement agencies should consider requiring independent criminal investigations and independent prosecutors in cases where the use of force by police officers results in injury or death."

Sarah Ferris of the Hill: "President Obama said his administration is not preparing a backup plan in case the Supreme Court rules against ObamaCare because he believes there is no 'plausible legal basis' for such a ruling. In his first public remarks on the high-stakes case, Obama stuck with his health secretary’s previous remarks that the administration is not concerned about how to protect the subsidies at the heart of his healthcare law. 'If they rule against us, we'll have to take a look at what our options are. But I’m not going to anticipate that. I'm not going to anticipate bad law,' Obama said in an interview with Reuters."

Attorney General Eric Holder in a USA Today op-ed: "Over the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide whether state restrictions on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.... This week, the Justice Department will file a brief setting forth our position that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the fundamental constitutional guarantee of 'equal protection of the laws.' It is clear that the time has come to recognize that gay and lesbian people deserve robust protection from discrimination."

AP: "The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from same-sex marriage opponents in California who want to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret.... The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in part because the names have been publicly available for five years."

Jim Inhofe, National Embarrassment. Washington Post Editors: "SEN. JIM Inhofe (R-Okla.) chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee — and he seems determined to make that fact a national embarrassment. Mr. Inhofe delivered a Senate floor speech about the 'hysteria on global warming' last week with two conspicuous props. One was a blown-up photo of his family standing in front of an igloo labeled 'AL GORE’S NEW HOME.'" Then he threw a snowball at the presiding officer.... Neither science nor evidence trouble Mr. Inhofe’s benighted complacency.... The Republican Party should be mortified by the face of their environmental leadership."

Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Brendan James of TPM: "Fox News issued a clarification on Friday on behalf of its star host Bill O'Reilly, saying that he said he'd "seen" bombings in Northern Ireland because police showed him photos of them. The Washington Post spotted a passage in O'Reilly's 2013 book, 'Keep It Pithy,' in which he described seeing lethal bombings in Northern Ireland.... A Fox spokesperson told the Washington Post that O’Reilly did not witness any bombings or injuries in Northern Ireland but was simply shown photos by police officers. The Northern Ireland clarification marks the second time this has happened: On Wednesday, O'Reilly told Mediaite that when he repeatedly said he had seen nuns 'get shot' in El Salvador, he was referring to 'images' he had seen." ...

... CW: Apparently "pithy" means leaving out long words like "photographs." ...

... David Corn & Daniel Schulman of Mother Jones: "Mother Jones has obtained the CBS News report [Bill] O'Reilly filed at the end of the Falklands war. It makes no reference to the dramatic and warlike action — soldiers 'gunning down' Argentine civilians with 'real bullets'— O'Reilly has claimed he witnessed." With video.

Portrait by Nelson Shanks.The Shadow of Her Dress. Stephanie Farr of the Philadelphia Daily News: Portrait artist Nelson Shanks on an official portrait he made of President Clinton:

If you look at the left-hand side of it there's a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him. And so the Clintons hate the portrait. They want it removed from the National Portrait Gallery. They're putting a lot of pressure on them. [... A spokeswoman from the National Portrait Gallery denied that.]

David Graham of the Atlantic elaborates.

Presidential Race

Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.... Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach." ...

... Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "Examining the registry information for 'clintonemail.com' reveals that the domain was first created on January 13, 2009 -- one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton's confirmation hearings began before the Senate." ...

... NEW. The Shadow of Her Shades. Margaret Hartmann: "Take a moment to enjoy the 'Texts from Hillary' meme one last time, because henceforth the image of Hillary Clinton scrolling through her BlackBerry with her eyes concealed by dark sunglasses will have an entirely different meaning." In her post, Hartmann gets to the gist of Hillary's little e-mail problems. (Yeah, there's more than one.)

NEW. Charles Pierce: "Hillary Clinton finds a rake to step on." CW: Actually, it was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-Benghaaazi!) who put the upturned rake in the middle of her primrose path to the presidency. Nonetheless, Hillary sent Trey the map to the path.

How to Look Tough AND Smart. OR Sneering & Pointing Fingers While Bespeckled. Jane Timm of NBC News: "Following a weekend full of conservative attacks on Hillary Clinton at the Conservative Political Action Conference, former Texas Governor Rick Perry added to the list, questioning the former secretary of state’s 'loyalty' in an interview that aired Sunday. Responding to news that the Clinton foundation had not notified the State Department when it previously accepted a donation from a foreign nation, Perry argued that Clinton was disloyal." ...

... Steve Benen: “'Where’s your loyalty?' is an exceedingly difficult question for Rick Perry, of all people, to ask. ... Perry flirted openly with the idea of state secession a few years ago, which makes it a little awkward, to put it mildly, when the governor decides to question others’ patriotism or loyalty to the United States." Thanks to Akhilleus for the links on Perry.

Election 2016

Marc Fisher of the Washington Post: "Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the Maryland Democrat who is the longest-serving woman in congressional history, announced Monday that she will leave the Senate next year at the end of her fifth term. Mikulski, 78 and in good health, departs the way she came in — with a sharp tongue, an unabashed liberalism, and a reputation for straight talk. She won all ten of her elections to the House and then the Senate with support from more than 60 percent of voters."

Beyond the Beltway

Richael Oppel of the New York Times: "Moving to stem fresh anger over how Cleveland has handled the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, Mayor Frank G. Jackson apologized on Monday for language that the city’s lawyers used in court filings to assert that the boy’s death was his own fault.... The newest controversy was spurred by a filing made in federal court late last week by lawyers for the city in response to a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Tamir’s family. The city’s lawyers argued in the filing that the boy died because of his own actions and not because of police department errors."

Emma Margolin of NBC News: "Yet another same-sex marriage ban has fallen – this time, in Nebraska. On Monday, U.S District Judge Joseph Bataillon – a President Bill Clinton appointee – struck down the Cornhusker State’s voter-approved amendment prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying.... The decision also comes just days after Nebraska’s child welfare officials agreed to stop enforcing the state’s policy blocking same-sex couples from becoming foster parents." ...

Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post: "Former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell on Monday fired the opening salvo in a bid to get his public corruption conviction thrown out, arguing in a filing that the case against him was 'built on a boundless definition of bribery' and that the judge made legal errors throughout the process that warrant a new trial."

Kate Brumback of the AP: "Georgia postponed its first execution of a woman in 70 years late Monday because of concerns about the drug to be used in the lethal injection. The pentobarbital was sent to an independent lab to check its potency and the test came back at an acceptable level, but during subsequent checks it appeared cloudy, Georgia Department of Corrections spokeswoman Gwendolyn Hogan said. Corrections officials called the pharmacist and decided to postpone the execution 'out of an abundance of caution,' she said. No new date was given."

Marissa Payne of the Washington Post: "In response to two male athletes on its volleyball team coming out in an article published on OutSports.com last year, [Erskine College of South Carolina], which is aligned with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian tradition, released a strongly worded denouncement of homosexuality on campus that many read to be a behavioral ban."

NEW. Katie Baker of BuzzFeed: Another woman accuses Bill Cosby of drugging & raping her. Baker puts the number of Cosby accusers at more than 30 now.

Way Beyond the Beltway

Besides providing updates on the assassination of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, the BBC provides a list of the violent deaths of opponents of Vladimir Putin since 2003. You'd have to pretty credulous to believe these were "accidental" or "coincidental" or some such. Via Steve Benen.