Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn’t made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A “no” vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left’s fire at the Finance Committee chairman.

Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week’s floor vote on Sotomayor.

“I have no idea,” Baucus said. “I haven’t paid any attention and I haven’t announced … I’ve been so busy with healthcare. It’s under consideration. I’ll certainly know when I vote, but right now I can’t tell you.”

ACTION ALERT FROM PROGRESSIVECAUCUS.ORG
SHAUNNA THOMAS

I need your help – and the Congressional Progressive Caucus needs your help. Urgently.

Today, the Energy and Commerce committee accepted a compromise with the Blue Dogs which would have the effect of crippling the public option. (As reported, it specifically makes it so that the public option no longer pays Medicare+5%, but instead has to individually negotiate rates with providers. In addition to dramatically increasing the overall cost of reform, this has a big negative impact on the public option’s ability to jumpstart operations.)

This compromise is in direct conflict with one of the core tenets of the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s criteria for a robust public option. The belief appears to be that the progressives will once again just roll over.

Not this time. Not this fight. Read the rest of this entry »

Sen. Max Baucus has shown his true colors by successfully proposing a health care bill that eliminates the public option and rewards his insurance industry and GOP buddies.  So even though the American people roundly support a public option, President Obama wants a public option, and the majority of the Democrats in the Senate and the House want a public option, Baucus thumbs his nose at the will of the nation, the Executive, and the two chambers in his quest for bipartisan support and his desire to appease the insurance industry.  We voted last November for the Democratic agenda…IMPLEMENT IT!

The following is food for thought for Baucus and Conrad before they make their final decision.

Sen. Baucus, Sen. Conrad, and Sen. Nelson did you by chance read about the 2700 people who showed up as Wise County Fairgrounds in Wise, Virginia this week in hopes of receiving life saving medical treatment that they could not afford otherwise?  The scene is being compared to that of a Third World country.  American citizens slept in tents and beds of pick-up trucks for two days just to make sure that they received much needed treatment.  Baucus, Conrad, and Nelson how do you think these folks feel about achieving bipartisan support at the expense of strong and effective health care reform?  Is compromise more important than effectively tackling an issue that have plagued our nation and our people for generations?   People traveled from several states in hopes of obtaining medical treatment that they have been unable to receive due to lack of insurance, underinsurance, or unaffordable copays.  What is the problem Sen. Baucus?  See full story here.

Further, 72% of Americans want a public option.  Who exactly do you represent?

It turns out that Baucus wants bipartisan support so bad that he may be willing to repeal the SCHIP expansion and deny 11 million children health care.  Unbelievable!

But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board.

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked.

Sen. Baucus can be reached at (202) 224-2651 or baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Sen. Conrad can be reached at (202) 224-2043 or conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm 

Sen. Nelson can be reached at (202) 224-6551 or http://bennelson.senate.gov/email-issues.cfm

When Sen. Chuck Grassley (ranking GOP member in Senate Finance Committee) with all smiles beams that we are close to agreement it should be a red flag to Democrats and is likely a bad sign for proponents of TRUE health care reform.  Baucus and Grassley have been holding secret meetings behind closed doors to draft their plan.  Considering how Grassley receives a wealth of contributions from the insurance industry, as does Baucus, Democrats should be very concerned about their final product.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Committee released a report yesterday dispelling the GOP myth that a public option would drive private insurers out of business resulting in no choice for citizens regarding their health care.

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives pounced on a congressional budget analysis to bolster their plan for a government-run health insurance option on Monday, as party leaders said they were closer to agreement on healthcare reform.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers.

Next obstructionist argument please?

Republicans continue to make the following arguments against health care reform.  However, Paul Waldman of the American Prospect has demonstrated why they are also the dumbest.  This demonstrates in black and white why what the Blue Dog Democrats are worried about and what the GOP continues to regurgitate ad nauseum is lack of cojones by the blue dogs and obstruction and obfuscation by the GOP.  Take a look at the list below and find the argument that best resonates with you. 

Per Paul Waldman of American Prospect

What we really need is a “bipartisan” health-reform bill — and if Democrats act properly, they could get one. The myth that “bipartisan” legislation works better than partisan legislation is widespread, but virtually no real evidence supports it. For every successful program passed with support from both parties, you can find another one that failed. There are also plenty of popular programs that enjoyed the support of only one side. Republicans aren’t afraid to attack Medicare because some party members voted for it in 1965; they’re afraid to attack Medicare because it has been hugely successful at achieving its goal of providing quality, affordable health care to seniors. The future popularity of the current health-care reform will be a function of whether the program works, not how many Republicans voted for it.

More important, Republicans are not going to vote for this health-care reform, no matter what the final bill looks like. Chances are it will get zero Republican votes in the House and maybe two Republican votes in the Senate, tops. Anyone who thinks more optimistically has been partaking of too many free samples from pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Whatever we do, we shouldn’t ruin “the best health-care system in the world.”Progressives confronted with this common argument often respond with incredulity. “Are you kidding me?” they shout. Fifty million uninsured, the highest per-capita costs in the world, millions of people pushed into bankruptcy by medical bills, worse health outcomes than most of the industrialized world? Are you kidding me?

But this is not a practical argument — it’s a moral argument. Those who make it believe that our system is the best precisely because of its inequality. Systems like those of our European friends, in which everyone has access to high-quality care at a reasonable price, just don’t sit right with many conservative Republicans. If a captain of industry can’t buy better health care than the guy who cuts his lawn can, then the world just isn’t functioning as it should. Read the rest of this entry »

A very weak and watered down health care reform bill is in the process of  being approved by the Senate Finance Committee and the $1.4 million dollars used by the insurance industry to lobby the Senate and Congress is working.  Call Sens. Max Baucus, Ken Conrad and Bill Nelson  and let them know that a bill without a public option is not true health care reform and is unacceptable.

WASHINGTON – After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Did President Obama speaking with Sergeant Crowley sanction bad behavior amongst police officers who regularly engage in “overreactions?”  Having read Sergeant Crowley’s written report  this writer can say that even if every word in the report is true it was pretty clear that the sergeant coaxed Professor Gates out of his house so that he could arrest him.  It is also clear from Crowley’s report that even if we accept, as Crowley claims, that Professor Gates was speaking to him in a “tumultuous manner” and calling him “racist” (the other officer on the scene said that he did not hear the word ”racist” as Crowley claims) that is not an excuse for the sergeant to abuse his position simply because he was offended.    It is hard to believe that the professor was behaving in a “tumultuous manner” given the height and stature advantage that Crowley had on him.  Not to mention that the sergeant had a GUN.  My point is that Crowley is a police officer employed to “protect and serve” not to use his position to get angry and get even.  ”Tumultuous” speech inside a person’s home aimed at the officer is not against the law regardless of whether its racial or otherwise.  It is the officer’s job to deescalate the situation by walking away.  Instead, Crowley arrested a 5′7″ 57-year-old disabled man who walks with a cane at his home.  Crowley did so after establishing almost as soon as he arrived at the residence that Gates was the owner of the home and no law had been broken.   Crowley also continued to engage Gates inside his home by Crowley’s own accounts.  Why didn’t Crowley just leave?  The sergeant had done his job why continue arguing?  According to Crowley’s report, Gates asked him for his name and badge number several times.  Crowley reports that he gave his name and badge number to Gates once but Gates did not hear him because Gates was speaking over him.  Crowley further reports that Gates continued asking for his name and badge number but he told Gates that he would only speak with him if Gates stepped outside.  Gates reports that after he stepped outside  his home Officer Crowley said to him “thank you for accommodating my request, you’re under arrest.”  Crowley does not claim that he ever felt threatened.   Why did Gates have to step outside his home for Crowley to give him his name and badge number?  Why would Crowley coax Gates outside his home to arrest him?  Because he could not arrest Gates inside his house without a search warrant.  Is this good policing?  Is the fact that Sergeant Crowley is now invited to the White House a license to rogue police officers to act with abandon the next time they are confronted with a similar situation?  We are not sure that this is a good message to send to law enforcement given the number of instances reported each year concerning police misconduct and abuse of position by police officers.

How is the Cambridge Police Union speaking out in support of Sergeant Crowley without having witnessed the incident or asking Professor Gates his side of the story any different from the President speaking in support of his friend?  One wonders if such a strong reaction would have occurred if President Obama had spoken out in support of  his white friend which could have just as easily been the case.  The guy is a friend of the President’s and the President spoke out in support of him…newsflash…the President is….is….HUMAN!

As for the larger issue of  racial profiling?   It is a reality.  The Department of Justice conducted a study in 2005, released in 2007, where 17.8 million drivers were stopped.  The study showed that blacks were almost three times as likely to be searched when stopped by a police officer than whites, 9.5% to 3.6%.  In terms of arrests, blacks were more than twice as likely to be arrested than whites, 4.5% to 2.1%.  When it came to drivers being subjected to force or threat of force, blacks were almost four times as likely to be subjected, 4.4% to 1.2%.  Racial profiling exists. The majority of African-Americans and Latinos have experienced it.  Now can we all sit down and have a rational and constructive discussion about it?

47,000 more Americans lost their health insurance

17,000 more Americans filed for bankruptcy due to health care costs

346 more Americans died because they did not have health insurance

With the billions of dollars at stake in the fight for health care reform the health insurance and drug industries and many of its bought-and-paid-for politicians consider the death of 18,000 Americans each year due to lack of health insurance as collateral damage.  Collateral damage necessary to maintain its obscene profits made from YOUR continually increasing premiums and decreasing benefits.   

We Need Health Care Reform With a Strong and Robust Public Option Now.  Call your Representatives and Senators.

The Republican party has cited a few horror stories in Canada in its effort to frighten Americans away from insisting that a public option be included in the health care reform bill.  First, a purely government run only health care program is not on the table.  In other words, single-payer health care is not on the table.  Therefore, the continued disengenious claim being perpetuated by the right that Canadian and English health care systems demonstrate why we do not want a government  plan is a specious and straw man of an argument built up so as to be easily knocked down.  Second, this writer will take Canada’s isolated cases of being put on a wait list to our 18,000 American citizens who die EACH year because of lack of health insurance ANY DAY. 

Americans must realize what is at stake.  The Administration is not proposing a single payer health care system like those in Canada and Britain.   The health care reform plan being proposed allows for both private and public insurance.  Therefore, if you want private insurance then keep your private insurance.  The public option that would be made available is simply there so that you will not have to pay as much for your private insurance.  It is a public OPTION.   Unlike the proposed American plan, Canadians are prevented from buying private insurance or private health care inside Canada.  That is not being proposed here.  It will not be illegal for you to buy private health care or insurance like it is in Canada.  You simply are given a choice. 

However, a public option will provide competition for the insurance companies and perhaps companies like United Healthcare (parent company of the Lewin Group, authors of the study being cited by the GOP in opposition of the public option) will not continue to make $22 billion in profits (in a single quarter) off your back by raising premiums in an ailing economy.  For those who want to pay more for their private insurance I am sure that there are quite a few insurance companies and doctors in the US who would be more than willing to accept your money.   With a public option the 18,000 people who die each year because they lack health insurance can choose life. 

By the way, Canada is the fifth healthiest country in the world while the U.S. is only the eleventh.  Canadians also have one of the longest life expectancies in the world.  Check out America’s statistics:

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then, the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM’s methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.

A different source:

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can’t get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, “Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late,” examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don’t provide insurance and who don’t qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation’s fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV.

“Our purpose is simply to deliver the facts, and the facts are unequivocal,” says Reed Tuckson, an author of the report and vice president for consumer health at UnitedHealth Group in Minnetonka, Minn.

Among the study’s findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

• Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
• Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
• About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

So the false argument that a public option will result in rationing and waiting lists is ridiculous on its face because it is comparing apples and oranges.  So for the Republicans and blue dog conservative Democrats who are being overly influenced by the health care industry or your so called out-of-state dollar constituents (Sen. Max Baucus D-MT), 18,000 deaths is non-negotiable. 

Call YOUR Senator especially the Blue Dogs.

Obama’s prepared remarks prior to the Q&A:

Good evening. Before I take your questions, I want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we’re making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our broader economic strategy.

Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones; delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses; and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.

Of course, we still have a long way to go. And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years – just like it was designed to do. I realize this is little comfort to those Americans who are currently out of work, and I’ll be honest with you – new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession. 

And the fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for folks at the very top, but not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of America. It’s an economy that simply wasn’t ready to compete in the 21st century – one where we’ve been slow to invest in the clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries; where we’ve watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world; and where we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren’t any healthier for it.

That is why I’ve said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort. Read the rest of this entry »

The following talking points memo is being circulated within the Republican National Committee in its effor to sabotage health care reform and “Waterloo” the President in the process.

Obama’s plan for health care is deemed an “experiment” and a “risk” that could bankrupt the country and dangerously change the doctor-patient relationship.

More

“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,” the memo affirmatively declares.

In an effort to slow down reform, the RNC advises its advocates to use a whole host of political tools, from organizing town halls, to writing letters to the editor, to booking surrogates on radio and television, to engaging in “Street Theater” protests outside Democratic events. And in a bit of irony, the memo’s authors encourage readers to frame the president as the one acting out of political motivations.

and MORE:

* President Obama and Democrats are conducting a grand experiment with our economy, our country, and now our health care.
* President Obama’s massive spending experiments have created more debt than at any other time in our nation’s history.

* The President experimented with a $780 billion dollar budget-busting stimulus plan and unemployment is still rising. The President experimented with banks and auto companies, and now we’re on the hook for tens of billions of dollars with no exit plan.

* Now the President is proposing more debt and more risk through a trillion dollar experiment with our health care.

* Democrats are proposing a government controlled health insurance system, which will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see.

* This health care experiment will have consequences for generations, but President Obama and Democrats want to ram this legislation through Congress in two months.

* President Obama’s health care experiment is too much, too fast, too soon. Our country cannot afford to fix health care through a rushed experiment.

* Americans want health care reform that addresses, not increases, cost or debt.

* Government takeover is the wrong way to go — health care decisions should remain between the doctor and the patient.

While Republicans like Sen. Jim (“If we can stop him on this, [Health care ]will be [Obama's] Waterloo.  It will break him“) Demint of South Carolina are attempting to use health care reform to score political points against the President. One prominent Republican is looking out for her constituents and the nation as a whole by standing up for what is right.  Sen. Olympia Snowe said this past weekend that she will support a public option that is available on day one.  This is important because Sen. Snowe is a key member of the Senate Finance Committee which is one of the committees that have jurisdiction over the proposed health care bill.  The following statement was released by Sen. Snowe this past weekend:

Congress must implement long overdue insurance market reforms such as the guaranteed issue of a policy for every American and no refusal or adverse pricing of policies on the basis of health status or gender. We also must insure that those plans include a very strong benefit package, from preventative services to comprehensive medical benefits. And offering extra assistance to families who need help in affording a plan must be part and parcel of any legislation.

I believe that the reforms we are creating will result in more competitive, affordable and innovative options for Mainers, yet we can all agree that we must not leave universal access to chance. That is why I also support a public plan which must be available from day one.

So I urge all of you here today to join me in partnership to secure for our nation that which every other developed nation already embraces, the provision of health security for all of its citizens. The time has long come, and I promise you I will continue to work to move heaven and earth to make it happen.

President Obama spoke at the Centennial Anniversary of the NAACP last night.  To be honest it was the first time that this writer has been moved and inspired by one of his speeches since the Philadelphia race speech.  The speech was poignant, inspiring, stern, humorous, reflective, honest, deferential, authentic, and all in all one of his best speeches to date.  Bravo Mr. President!

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
July 16, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
NAACP Centennial
New York, New York
July 16, 2009

It is an honor to be here, in the city where the NAACP was formed, to mark its centennial. What we celebrate tonight is not simply the journey the NAACP has traveled, but the journey that we, as Americans, have traveled over the past one hundred years.

It is a journey that takes us back to a time before most of us were born, long before the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board of Education; back to an America just a generation past slavery. It was a time when Jim Crow was a way of life; when lynchings were all too common; and when race riots were shaking cities across a segregated land.

It was in this America where an Atlanta scholar named W.E.B. Du Bois, a man of towering intellect and a fierce passion for justice, sparked what became known as the Niagara movement; where reformers united, not by color but cause; and where an association was born that would, as its charter says, promote equality and eradicate prejudice among citizens of the United States.

From the beginning, Du Bois understood how change would come – just as King and all the civil rights giants did later. They understood that unjust laws needed to be overturned; that legislation needed to be passed; and that Presidents needed to be pressured into action. They knew that the stain of slavery and Read the rest of this entry »

Wendell Potter was a very successful head of Public Relations for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest insurers.  Potter testified before Congress last month as a whistleblower speaking out against the industry’s recission rates and lack of transparency.  Below is a riveting transcript of the dirty details of how the health care insurance industry fought and continues to fight against health care reform even though it claims to support it.  Potter said the following before Congress,  ”I didn’t intend to [speak out], until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they’ve used over the years, and particularly back in the early ’90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.”

See FULL VIDEO HERE

Why he left Cigna in spite of being very successful there?

WENDELL POTTER:“……Robert Kennedy said that one of the president’s, one of his favorite quotes was a Dante quote that, ‘The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain a neutrality.’ And when I read that, I said, ‘Oh, jeez, I– you know. I’m headed for that hottest place in hell, unless I say something.’ ”

“Sicko” Sabotage

BILL MOYERS: You were also involved in the campaign by the industry to discredit Michael Moore and his film “Sicko” in 2007. In that film Moore went to several countries around the world, and reported that Read the rest of this entry »

Progressive Democrat of California and Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor (one of the Committees with jurisdiction over health policy) Representative George Miller gave the following details of what the House version of the Affordable Health Choices Act entails in a press conference lead by the House Democratic Leadership yesterday.

CHAIRMAN MILLER:  Our bill addresses America’s economic and fiscal health and its medical well being of all our people. Let me be specific about what our bill means to the average American.

• Our bill will lower costs for health care.
• There will be no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care;
• no more rate increases because of pre-existing conditions or because of your gender or where you happen to work.
• There will be an annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses.
• Group rates will be available for individuals who have to purchase insurance for themselves.
• Guaranteed and affordable oral, hearing and vision care for our children.
• Protects consumers and reduces waste, fraud and abuse

 Our bill will provide choice of care.

• You can keep your doctor and your current plan if you like them. Your choices will be protected and enhanced.
• You will have access to a wide variety of choices for quality and affordable plans, including a high-quality public health insurance option to compete with the private insurers.

Our bill will increase the quality of care.

• You and your doctor will make health care decisions, not your insurance company.
• More family doctors and nurses will be able to enter the workforce, helping to guarantee your access to better treatment that meets your needs.
• Mental health care will be covered.

Our bill will offer stability and a peace of mind.

• Never again will you go without health insurance.
• You will have the peace of mind of knowing that you will never lose coverage.
• If you lose your job, you switch jobs, you start a business, you will keep your coverage.
• You will never be denied coverage because of those pre-existing conditions.
• And you won’t — and you won’t face any lifetime limits on how much instance companies will pay, meaning that never again will you be one treatment away from bankruptcy. 

The bill will ensure that 97 percent of Americans will be covered by a health care plan that is both affordable and offers quality, standard benefits by 2019.

We will in this year produce a bill that is fair and fully paid for, reduces cost, preserves choice, and expands access for all Americans. That was the charge that President Obama gave this Congress when he was sworn into office. It was the charge that the American people gave President Obama when they voted for him in the election. And this Congress is delivering on that promise for the first time in the history of this country.

See FULL House version of BILL here. Committee markups of the bill  should take place the remainder of this week and next.

The health care industry is storming Capitol Hill in droves to gain access to the health care bill currently being debated.  Lobbyists and special interest groups have resorted to paying the homeless to be place holders in line in order to gain entry into the Committee mark-ups and hearings exercising jurisdiction over the health care reform bill.  The homeless person shows up at the Capitol at 5am or sleep there all night.  Once the hearing room is determined, the homeless person then goes and stands in line with a sign identifying teh requisite lobbyist or interest group.  Once the lobbyist or special interest representative arrives said rep pays the homeless person and takes his or her place in the line for the hearing.  No questions asked.  Their goal…to insure that their interests are represented and prevent the American people from having a seat at the table.  See video below.

Citizens strike back!

URGENT CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS.

PLEASE SIGN UP HERE. CAN YOU COME TO WASHINGTON? THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO, PLEASE GO TO THE SIGN UP SHEET AND LET US KNOW HOW YOU CAN HELP. AND THANK YOU! ALL THESE RESPONSES ARE GOING DIRECTLY TO JANE HAMSHER.

IF YOU CANNOT COME TO WASHINGTON THEN COULD YOU DONATE A FEW DOLLARS TO FIGHT THE LOBBYISTS MILLIONS?
YOU CAN DONATE HERE:

https://secure.firedoglake.com/…

Schedules of Committees and locations:

Wednesday, July 15
Education and Labor
3:00 p.m.
2175 Rayburn * Opening statements only.

Thursday, July 16
Ways and Means
9:00 a.m.
1100 Longworth House Office Bldg.

Education and Labor
10:00 a.m.
2175 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
*Consideration of amendments will begin.

Energy and Commerce
2:00 p.m.
2123 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
*Opening statements.

Friday, July 17
Energy and Commerce
Time TBA (We’ll keep you posted)
2123 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
*Will focus on Division C of bill (public health sections and least controversial items)

Action plan once arriving on Capitol Hill:

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET IN LINE?

I’ve discussed this isssue with Jane Hamsher.

We’re going to need leaders to step up once on line and organize yourselves.  Go up and down the line and identify who belongs with us, and who is being paid to wait on line for the lobbyists.  

Be very kind to the paid line waiters.  They are our friends and are doing what they must in order to survive. If you can convince them to stand down, that’s great, but these line standers are not the enemy. This will be a true test of spontaneous community organizing.

We’ll expect everyone to maintain line decorum and be sure that our allies get bathroom brakes and any other necessary needs taken care of, in a manner that does not jeopardize their place.

So don’t be shy. Take control. Introduce yourselves to one another and take charge.

In his effort to circuitously accuse Judge Sotomayor of being racist and potentially discriminatory as a Justice, Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions asked the following question:

You say you’re bound by the superior authority. But the fact is when the re — the question of rehearing that 2nd Circuit authority that you say covered the case, some say it didn’t cover so clearly — but that was up for debate. And the circuit voted, and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit.

And, in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of — of — of Puerto Rican ancestry — had you voted with him, you — you — you could have changed that case.

Perhaps someone can explain to me what Judge Cabranes’ ancestry has to do with the context of Sessions’ question?  Do all Puerto Rican judges vote as a block?  Perhaps Judge Sotomayor did not get the memo that says if you are a Puerto Rican appellate court judge you vote in favor of the Plaintiffs in all reverse discrimination cases regardless of precedent.  Sessions ended up unwittingly demonstrating exactly who he is and exactly why he was blocked in Committee from becoming a District Court judge in 1986.  Projection is a BIATCH!

Lets also not forget the patronizing tone of Senator Lindsey Graham.  Graham took every opportunity to take a condescending tone with Judge Sotomayor and this writer found it quite offensive.  Below is just a couple of examples:

GRAHAM: I think, for a long time, a lot of talented women were asked, can you type? And were trying to get beyond that and improve as a nation. So when it comes to the idea that we should consciously try to include more people in the legal process and the judicial process, from different backgrounds, count me in.
But your speeches don’t really say that to me.

They — along the lines of what Senator Kyl was saying — they kind of represent the idea, there’s a day coming when there’ll be more of us — women and minorities — and we’re going to change the law. [translation:  And I'm scared shiteless of my peeps not controlling the rules]

And what I hope we’ll take away from this hearing is there need to be more women and minorities in the law to make a better America. And the law needs to be there for all of us, if and when we need it.
And the one thing that I’ve tried to impress upon you through jokes and being serious, is the consequences of these words in the world in which we live in. [YUCK! The condescension makes me want to puke!]

You know, we’re talking about putting you on the Supreme Court and judging your fellow citizens. [Thank you so much Sen. Graham for explaining to me why I'm here. I didn't judge a single citizen throughout my last 17 years on the bench.....I could have sworn this was an audition for "Whose Got Talent?"  Anyway, now that you have so patiently explained to me the reason for my presence here I just want to say that my entire fate is in your hands.  Please oh please grant me this great wish that only you have the power to give oh kind sir....Give me a freakin break!] 

And one of the things that I need to be assured of is that you understand the world as it pretty much really is.

[ Oh thank you again for bringing to my attention "the world as it really is."  I never had to think about it.  You see, I have spent my entire adult life either in the military (admirable but not the real world) or in politics so I have no concept of  "the world as it really is."  It is incredulous that Graham thought it necessary to question whether a former prosecutor from the Bronx knows how the world really is. SERIOUSLY!!]

Then there was this doosey of an exchange:

GRAHAM: …..When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the 2nd Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

GRAHAM: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?  [Dripping condescension]

SOTOMAYOR: No, no, not at all. I can only explain what I’m doing, which is, when I ask lawyers tough questions, it’s to give them an opportunity to explain their positions, on both sides, and to persuade me that they’re right.

I do know that in the 2nd Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral arguments each, that the processes in the 2nd Circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country, and that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a “hot bench.” It’s a term of art lawyers use. It means that they’re peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the 2nd Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

GRAHAM: If I may interject, Judge, they find you difficult and challenging, more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out when you — you know, there are many positive things about you. And these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad. And I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. [ Grow up! You're a lawyer deal with it!  the court room isn't Show & Tell in kindergarten class] It’s hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem? [ I don't know perhaps the former presidential nominee of your party of whom you were the senior advisor to can explain to me the definition of a "temperment problem"]

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

GRAHAM: In fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line. But I would just suggest to you, for what it’s worth, Judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They’re not about your colleagues. You know, the 10-minute rule applies to everybody. And that, you know, obviously, you’ve accomplished a lot in your life, [thank you for your validation] but maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection. [Thanks for the advice.  I'll be sure to take it under advisement as soon as you pick up your knuckles that are dragging in the dirt ] This is pretty tough stuff that you don’t see from — about other judges on the 2nd Circuit.

During his questioning Graham went so far as to test Sotomayor on her knowlege of such 1L legal terms as “legal relativisim,” “strict construction” and “originalism” in the context of the Constitution.  In his first statement above, Sen. Graham shows his true anxiety regarding Sotomayor’s nomination.  His fear that some day men that look like him will not be in charge and thus will be subjected to playing by the rules and laws enacted as a result of a diverse populace that makes up Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branch.  Sí, SE PUEDE!

One more offender, Sen. Jon Kyle of Arizona.  Sen. Kyle attempted to badger Judge Sotomayor into agreeing that as an Associate Justice she will recuse herself from cases granted review by SCOTUS concerning any ISSUE (Any issue! NOT one of her prior cases but any ISSUE) that she presided over and decided as a lower court judge????? SERIOUSLY???  Is he short of a full deck or does he think she is??  If Judge Sotomayor were to grant such a request, having presided over and decided thousands of cases involving as many issues throughout her 17-year career as a District and Appellate court judge, she would never leave her chambers let alone preside over any cases brought before the Court.  Well that’s one way of diminishing her impact on the Court.  Wow Sen. Kyle……think much.

One final point regarding the GOP Senators and Judge Sotomayor.  Isn’t it baffling that the Republican senators continue to interrogate Sotomayor about an alleged inclination to use “empathy” to judge cases yet when it comes to issues such as abortion, the Second Amendment, a right of privacy, etc. they continually ask her to answer according to what her gut tells her she would do in such a case?  So you tell me.  In the context of the Republican senators primary “empathy has no place in judging” argument, what is the relevance of Sotomayor’s “gut feeling” regarding the aforementioned hot button issues when in it comes to the law?  Same ol hypocracy.

Message to Judge Sotomayor:  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, stop answering “no sir” and “yes sir” when you’re responding to questions.  These folks are your peers and should be treated as such.  Please refer to them as Senator and not “sir” or “ma’am.”  You being a New Yorker, not a Southerner, use of such pleasantries make you appear meek and subservient especially when being spoken to in such a condescending way by the likes of Sens. Graham and Sessions.

Senator Jeff Sessions was a United States Attorney who was nominated to become a District Court Judge in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan.  However, the nomination failed in the REPUBLICAN controlled Senate Judiciary Committee due to Sessions’ “gross insensitivity”  on racial issues.  For those who follow the logic of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk who have surmised that if a white man ever said what Judge Sonia Sotomayor said about a “wise Latina woman” he would be banned from public life or his career would be over.   Well one white man from Alabama named Jeff Sessions said much worst and he is now the ranking Republican member in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.  As a matter of fact, that same ranking member is questioning a SCOTUS nominee about her ability to apply the law without racial or gender bias.   Go figure.

Sen. Jeff Sessions opening remarks during the United States Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law. In truth it’s more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.

… That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Some of Sessions more inspiring comments and positions regarding racial equality:

• J. Gerald Hebert, a career Justice Department lawyer, testified that Sessions had once called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” He also said they “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”
• A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions recalled an instance when he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans. Sessions later acknowledged having made many of the controversial remarks attributed to him, but claimed to have been joking.
• A black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures testified that Sessions had called him “boy” and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”
• Sessions also said that the only problem with the Klu Klux Klan is that the members smoke marijuana
• Sessions initially opposed the Voting Rights Act calling it “a piece of intrusive legislation.”

In defense of his racist comments Sessions said that he is not racist because he sent his children to an integrated school and shared a hotel room with a (singular) black attorney several times.  He didn’t even claim to have shared a room with several black attorneys (no several does not absolve him either).  I guess he figured sharing it with one was bad enough. 

Our comments regarding Senator Sessions are hypocrite, hypocrite, blatant hypocrite.  Shall we use the same standard to Sessions that he is using against Sotomayor and conclude that Sessions’ past comments demonstrate an inability by him to represent all of the people of Alabama making him only capable of representing those whose skin color matches his own?

Most people know that today begins the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  Most also know that the GOP plans to respectfully put Sotomayor through the ringer knowing full well that she will be confirmed overwhelmingly in the end.  I was very curious as to why given the current economic state of the country the Republican Party would needlessly draw out the Sotomayor hearings and waste tax dollars knowing that it is all for naught.  Well I asked one GOP insider who runs a high profile conservative think tank in DC.   This conservative GOPer first agreed with me that Sotomayor is very qualified and would absolutely be confirmed but added that Democrats must pay a price for their nominees to the Supreme Court.  Meaning that there must be political capital paid to nominate and confirm Sotomayor.   So all this talk about “empathy” and the Ricci case and activist judge allegations are about trying to find something that will in some way justify the GOP’s ramblings regarding everything except Judge Sotomayor’s actual judicial record and tarnish the Democrats as much as possible in the process.  Yes folks even though the judiciary branch is suppose to be separate and distinct from the executive and legislative branches surprise it is still all about politics and the never ending campaign.  Instead of looking at Sotomayor’s actual cases to determine what type of Justice she will be the GOP has relied entirely on snippets of speeches taken out of context and made outside the court room to make their case against Sotomayor.  The main point being to try and smear Sotomayor and paint Democrats and the President as bleeding heart liberals incapable of restraint.  What we think that the GOP will be successful at demonstrating is their continued lack of fiscal responsibility when it comes to tax payer dollars.