Politics Plus

More power to them.

Remember that whole ‘separation of powers’ dealio? Congress writes the laws, and the courts punish those who break ’em. Neat system; worked OK so far.

If Congress passes a law punishing someone for doing something it thinks wrong, it’s usurping the role of the courts, and the Constitution frowns on it! Legislators aren’t empowered to punish wrong-doers, both because the "Founders" appreciated the value of a good trial and because they understood that politicians are often motivated by considerations other than the rule of law (shocking, I know!).

So they prohibited the passage of "bills of attainder" — laws singling out specific groups or individuals for retribution. Which is double-plus good today, when our Congress includes frothing-mad right-wingers shouldering massive grievances and not a few members who are dumb-as-the-proverbial-box-of-rocks.

Speaking of which, you’ll recall that the GOP pushed hard back in September to pass a bill that prohibited any federal funding from going to ACORN, the right-wing bogeyman-of-the-day. Perhaps sensitive to the Constitutional issue, they wrote the law so broadly that it could apply to just about any contractor, and some suggested at the time that in theory it could, if applied consistently, lead to the entire military-industrial-complex being "defunded." Proponents said it passed Constitutional muster because it applied to everyone.

But here’s the thing. If you’re going to thread that Constitutional needle by writing a bill that applies to all contractors — and therefore in theory doesn’t target ACORN specifically — it’s probably best not to title it the Defund ACORN Act. And it’s probably not wise to have a wingnut like Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns introduce the bill by saying: "Somebody has to go after ACORN. Well, I suggest today, on the floor of the Senate, that ‘somebody’ is each and every U.S. Senator."

Just sayin!

Anyway, ACORN is suing. TPM reports:

The complaint, brought on behalf of ACORN by the Center for Constitutional Rights, also mounts a broader push-back against ACORN’s conservative critics. According to a draft version examined by TPMmuckraker, it claims that the law to defund ACORN was passed thanks to "a public relations campaign orchestrated by political forces" that are hostile to its work registering low-income voters. And it charges that ACORN "earned the animosity of political forces who are dedicated to the proposition that the fewer poor people who vote the better."

"It is outrageous to see Congress violating the Constitution for purposes of political grandstanding," said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Congress bowed to FOX News and joined in the scapegoating of an organization that helps average Americans going through hard times to get homes, pay their taxes, and vote. Shame on them."…

Inserted from <Alternet>

From where I sit, it looks like they have an excellent case.

When I saw this one, my chin bounced off my chest.  You will remember that every single Republican without exception voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health care bill, and that that amendment essentially forbids a woman from buying an insurance plan that provides abortion services through the public exchange, even if she gets no subsidy.  Well get a load of this!

Last week, 176 House Republicans joined with 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, which could “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage. However, Politico reports today that the RNC’s own employee health care plan covers elective abortion — “a procedure the party’s own platform calls ‘a fundamental assault on innocent human life’”:

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said. […]

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

Recently it was also revealed that the health insurance plan used by the right-wing, anti-choice organization Focus on the Family also covered “abortion services.” [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

So a woman who works for the RNC can get abortion services through her health care police.  And a woman who works for Focus on the Family, one of the most rabid religious right organizations, can get abortion services.  But these hypocrites are trying to deny the same coverage to millions of women.  Scheeeesch!!

In a surprise development, President Barack Obama appears to have rejected all the options offered him by his national security team and wants more options before he decides.

A senior White House official says U.S. President Barack Obama is calling on his national security team to revise the options for the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan. 

Mr. Obama asked for the revisions Wednesday during the latest review of his Afghanistan policy.  The official says the president wants his advisors to determine how and when U.S. troops can hand over security responsibility to the government in Kabul.  Administration officials say Mr. Obama wants to make clear to Afghan President Hamid Karzai that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not "open-ended."

The president’s call for revisions comes as the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has expressed serious reservations about sending additional troops to the country.

Officials say Eikenberry sent two classified cables to Washington last week expressing doubts about Mr. Karzai’s leadership.  The Afghan president has been blamed for allowing rampant corruption under his watch.

Eikenberry served as the commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007.  He became ambassador to Afghanistan earlier this year after retiring from the military.

His position puts him in stark opposition to General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, who has requested 40,000 more troops.

The United States already has about 63,000 troops in Afghanistan… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Voice of America>

This is the first good news that Obama might be bucking the the flawed escalation policy of Stanley McChrystal, infamous for his role in the Pat Tillman cover-up.  Let’s hope that he actually wants a viable exit strategy.