Deja Vu all over again

I started Blogging back in May of 2005. The reason was that I was deeply concerned over the direction this country was taking and was being promoted by the Bush Administration. Today, a new story was reported by the NY Times. Here is their quote: "Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001."

The story is important to read so please click on this link and read it before you read any additional comments.

Back when I started Blogging in 2005, one of my first Blogs seemed appropriate to repost here today, given I was concerned then about violations to the Geneva Convention. If I, a person of average intelligence could deduce then, something was drastically wrong with our government, as so many others concluded, how did we slip into so much compliance and allow this degradation of our country to take place? Why weren't there protesters in the streets, as there had been in prior years? Why have the American people gone so silent and labeled someone like Dennis Kucinich "a kook," when he has shown more backbone than most of Congress and all the Senate? Here is what I wrote back in 2005:

May 2005. Where are all the street protesters?

As we approach June 4th , the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, and I reflect on our own history of student protests, it got me to wonder where are today's student protesters, as certainly there are many disturbing trends in America today, threatening the very fabric of our democracy as we search for bipartisanship in Congress and a more humble America in our rhetoric abroad and at home. But we still seem very arrogant as a nation with little understanding of the very cultures we are trying to change. I am not talking about Iraq here. I am talking about the "Divided" States of America, that's right, the good ole D.S.A., one nation, (partly) under God, very divisible, with liberty (until we can change those Senate Rules), and justice for (a few).

There was once a time of idealism, of standing up and being taken seriously by society, a conscience for all of us. This was the time of Student protests. Students protested the Vietnam war, the May 4th, 1970 Kent State shootings, Tiananmen Square and support for democracy in China, the outrage at the Chinese Government’s reaction to the protests and some recent protests of the Iraq war in selective cities.

As a nation, we have a lot to be angry about with our government. First there was the misleading “intelligence” of the lead up to the Iraq invasion and then the letters of former White House General Counsel and current Attorney General, Roberto Gonzales, regarding new interpretations of what is and what is not torture. Then the pronouncements by our President that certain prisoners would not necessarily be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention. Add to this more recent assertion about additional abuse in Guantanamo and the shameless deceit to get recruits on High School campuses to enlist, and you wonder what it takes to get Student protesters engaged again. There have been some protests of the Iraq war but they fade away quickly. What captures the focus and attention of the bulk of our students today? Could it be survival, as the job market still looks bleak? Or is it just apathy? What do you think? I don’t think they care much about what the Senate is proposing in its Nuclear Option to end the filibuster and allow judicial nominations through who by the minority see as extreme in their views. Stay tuned."

Headline reads "Waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture: U.N."

That's right the Bush Presidency and Administration have now been put on notice by the U.N. Human Rights Chief that waterboarding qualifies as torture. The exact quote was, "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," said the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, at a news conference in Mexico City yesterday.

I have been saying this for the past 2 years. I wrote on Nov. 26, 2005 the following with regards to Mccain's Bill to ban the use of torture and waterboarding:

"As I stated in an earlier posting, Cheney seems to be defying all logic with his attempt to stop the McCain Bill from becoming the law of the land. His lobbying efforts on this matter has shown his true colors. Maybe he is worried that eventually he will be brought up on War Crimes by the UN and he wants to prevent that by having a law that protects him. I doubt that he will ever leave this country again as a former VP, as he will be afraid they will arrest him, as well as Rumsfeld."

And yet today, we have a Senate and Congress that continue to give President Bush and especially VP Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a pass on this. But the UN now has taken a stance with one broad brush that it is torture, so setting into motion the possibility of countries arresting any of these officials should they be so unwise to travel abroad. You see by the U.N. making a pronouncement on this it raises the stakes as a violation of the Geneva Convention and in that domain the World Court has jurisdiction.

It sets up several moral questions for our country and several issues needing full discussion by the American people. Here are some questions to ask yourself:

Are we willing, as a nation, to allow our leaders to be tried in the World Court when they violate International laws and treaties? If we say no, that we can't allow a World Court to have jurisdiction over our leaders, then we face the argument that why should other countries be subject to the World Court? You see our leaders have been most active in bringing others to the World Court under Crimes against Humanity.

Do we as a country have the only moral authority in the world to decide what is right and what is wrong? I don't think so.

Should we be asking our Presidential candidates questions on where they stand on the use of torture and waterboarding?

Where do they stand on whether the World Court should be the final authority on Crimes against Hiumanity for all countries?

You see it is my opinion that when we fail as individual citizens to stand up and be counted on issues like this, we lose part of our rights and freedoms, one drip at a time. All those before us who have given their lives to protect the ideals of this country and protect our freedom are turning in their graves because we haven't had the courage to do the right thing and say STOP. The Republicans, who were in charge and gave blanket permission to President Bush and Vice President Cheney to do anything they wanted under the umbrella of protecting America against terrorists, have taken away many freedoms we once had. Then when the Democrats got elected with a majority in 2006, they also didn't have the courage to STOP the Administration. They used the argument they didn't have the votes. They did. They could have shut down the entire government by not passing the bills that provided the funds for the government to continue the war. They could have started impeachment proceedings on many issues like the authorization to use torture or trying to redefine the use of torture, which would fall under High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They refused to take the risk.

Even Presidential candidate John McCain, who was a former Prisoner of war and understands torture must never be condoned, caved in to this Administration when he, and Sen. John Lindsey, were opposed to the language of the bill on torture was before the Senate. They caved in and allowed the changes in language that Bush wanted and they opposed, to pass the Senate. And this was from "a man of principle" John McCain. This hero didn't stand up then and hasn't stood up since, except in his rhetoric on the use of water-boarding as torture.

I have been waiting for this day for over 2 years and I am so pleased that the Human Rights commission of the U.N. has put a stake in the ground on this and raised awareness around the world. President Bush doesn't have to worry about being arrested in a foreign country today and he won't after he leaves office, as he never traveled out of the country before he was president and most likely won't after as he will be relegated to obscurity after he leaves office. I have never been so ashamed of a president in my life. But Vice president Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales should be worried, for they will not have peace of mind if they travel abroad again. And you know what, I'm thrilled!

About 6 months ago Rumsfeld had traveled quietly to France and when it was discovered he was in the country, some rushed to bringing papers to the Magistrate, to have him arrested while on France's soil on War Crimes? The papers were not issued and served in time and so he did not get arrested, but France's laws are quite clear and it was certainly possible he could have been arrested there.

I would be more proud if my own government had the courage to do the right thing here but they don't and won't, no matter who becomes President, and that is where we have decayed to in the past 8 years. This President and Vice President act as thjough they are above ALL laws. Sorry folks, these self proclaimed Emperors have no clothes!

To read the entire news story about the U.N. click here.

CIA destroys video tapes of torture- An Adminstration that has abandoned the laws of the land in a shameless way

Headline story: "The CIA destroyed videotapes it made in 2002 of two top terror suspects because it was afraid that keeping them "posed a security risk," Director Michael Hayden has told agency employees.

Hayden's revelation to the CIA employees became public Thursday and it caused a commotion on Capitol Hill where members of the Senate Intelligence Committee immediately vowed to conduct a thorough review. A leading human rights group voiced alarm about it.

In his message to agency workers, Hayden said that House and Senate intelligence committee leaders had been informed of the existence of the tapes and the CIA's intention to destroy them to protect the identities of the questioners. He also said the CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes in 2003 and verified that the interrogation practices were legal. Hayden said the tapes were destroyed three years after the 2002 interrogations." (To read the entire story by Pamela Hess, AP Writer click here.

Come on folks, they destroyed the tapes because they knew it would reveal violations of our laws AND the Geneva Convention! The real criminals here are their bosses all the way up to VP Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and Alberto Gonzales. If our lawmakers had any courage and principles they would start Impeachment proceedings immediately and after they are found guilty the whole bunch should then be turned over to the World Court and stand trial there as well.

It is apparent to me these so called leaders, are traitors to our Constitution and our beloved country and have done more to destroy America and our way of life than anything Bin Laden and Al Qaeda could have accomplished on their own. Wake up America! While you are sleeping, you are losing your freedom, but maybe it doesn't matter to you?

Gonzales gone & Rove gone. Was there a quid pro quo?

The timing of both Karl Rove leaving the White House and now today, Roberto Gonzales announcing his "resignation" is suspicious to me.

I bring forward another suspicious event which happened just 2-3 weeks ago and cause me to wonder what was going on. The evening before the summer recess was to start for Congress, the Senate was embroiled in late night voting on a number of issues. One which passed surprisingly, was the bill that gave the President more, rather than less, authority to expand the wiretapping and surveillance program which Senate Democrats had proclaimed is unConstitutional. Many on the Left have wondered how this could have happened.

My question is this. Was there a Quid Pro Quo with the President and the Administration which was agreed to that if they promised to get rid of Rove and Gonzales, the Democratic controlled Senate would pass the bill?

Attorney General Gonzales resigns but why now?

This is the story's background, "One of Gonzales' chief critics, Sen. Charles E. Schumer released a statement Monday praising Gonzales for resigning.

'It has been a long and difficult struggle but at last, the Attorney General has done the right thing and stepped down,' said the New York Democrat.

'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of."

So why now? The President wants to control the flow of information and as sure as I am sitting here typing this now, President Bush will make a recess appointment of someone with guaranteed loyalty to the President, so he can keep the information, regarding the Attorney General's firing of U.S. Attorney's as well as the illegal wiretapping surveillance program, secret and out of the hands of Congress. Just watch the maneuvering. With the quotes he made above, Schumer is baiting the President not to announce a replacement while Congress is still in recess, but we all know there is no hope of that happening with this President, nor this Vice President. They simply do not want to be investigated.

For the rest of the story click here.

Court rules again against Bush's detention of U.S. resident

First a summary of the story: AP Writer Zinie Sampson writes, "The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaeda sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have 'disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country.'

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree.

'To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,' the court panel said."

For the rest of the story click here.

Once again the Court has ruled based upon the Constitution as this President and his minions, defy the Constitution and the Rule of Law. This is from the same President who put his hand on their Bible and swore to God and us. In a sense he has profaned his God and us all by using his name in vain. Go back and read your Bible. What you have done is hypocritical. My guess is you will try to appeal this decision too to the Supreme Court and delay the inevitable, the verdict that you were wrong again. Shame, shame, shame on you, sir.

Now let's make this a fine day by having the Senate pass a vote of no-confidence of former General Counsel and current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Any Senator that doesn't vote in favor of this vote of no-confidence should be replaced, as they are endorsing un-Constitutional actions by this Administration.

Cheney Urged Wiretaps over objections of Justice Dept

This from the Washington Post today, June 7th, 2007

"Stand-In for Ashcroft Alleges Interference
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 7, 2007

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

The disclosures also provide further details about the role played by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. He visited Ashcroft in his hospital room and wrote an internal memorandum on the surveillance program shortly afterward, according to Comey's responses. Gonzales is now the attorney general. He faces possible congressional votes of no-confidence because of his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

"How are you, General?" Gonzales asked Ashcroft at the hospital, according to Comey.

"Not well," replied Ashcroft, who had just undergone gallbladder surgery and was battling pancreatitis.

The new details follow Comey's gripping testimony last month about the visit by Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then President Bush's chief of staff, to Ashcroft's hospital bed on the night of March 10, 2004. The two Bush aides tried to persuade Ashcroft to renew the authorization of the NSA surveillance program, after Comey and other Justice Department officials had said they would not certify the legality of the effort, according to the testimony and other officials.

Ashcroft refused, noting that Comey had been designated as acting attorney general during his illness.

The episode prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who questioned whether Gonzales and Card were attempting to take advantage of a sick man to get around legal objections from government lawyers. It is unclear who directed the two Bush aides to make the visit.

Democrats said yesterday that the new details from Comey raise further questions about the role of Cheney and other White House officials in the episode.

"Mr. Comey has confirmed what we suspected for a while -- that White House hands guided Justice Department business," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The vice president's fingerprints are all over the effort to strong-arm Justice on the NSA program, and the obvious next question is: Exactly what role did the president play?" To read the rest of the article click on the words, "Washington Post", at the top of this article.

VP Dick Cheney, or Darth Vada as he is usually called by his friends, has been the power behind the throne in so many ways for this Administration, which now becomes more clear with every day. He was the one pushing the claim of a Nuclear threat by Saddam Hussein, the leaking of Valerie Plame's name for which Scooter Libbey, the fall guy and Cheney's close friend and aid, received a 2 1/2 year sentence this week for a crime of perjury in the Patrick Fitzgerald, Special Prosecuter, investigation. And now the revelation that he was behind this story and pushing the illegal Wiretaps against Justice Dept. objections.

Cheney should have been fired in 2004 by President Bush, who has not been served well by this VP. But it's not too late Mr. President to save your legacy and get rid of Cheney. Think about all the positive effect this would have with the Republican party. We could blame Cheney for almost everything wrong in the past 6 plus years and give you a fresh start with the Country.

Gonzales values friendship over his country.

Lest there be any doubt about Gonzales, it is now obvious, with a vote of no-confidence coming in both the Congress and the Senate, that Gonzales puts the friendship and support of his friend, President Bush, above the interest of his country. Gee, come to think of it, so doesn't President Bush.

Ashcroft, Gonzales and Comey: the wrong one remains

Being very honest here, I had been disillusioned by many of the Republicans serving in the Bush Administration. The entire Administration has disappointed me over the past 6 plus years. I didn't vote for Bush but I had voted in the past for another Republican President, Ronald Reagan.

However, I have seen the light now. There were at least two serving the President, who I now admire. Their names: former Attorney General John Ashcroft and his Deputy John Comey. When I heard the testimony of James Comey (how he had to race back to the hospital bed of the then recovering John Ashcroft to prevent then General Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card, Chief of Staff, from pressuring Ashcroft into signing a document to make the Wire taps of Americans law) and how Ashcroft mustered the energy after his surgery to rebuke Gonzales and Card. It was important testimony that came to light. As much as I didn't like Ashcroft as I thought he was drinking the Kool-Aid too. I take it back now and want to publicly praise Ashcroft for his stand.

The Democrats are doing the country a service by initiating these hearings. It is obvious that the President knew these Wire-Taps were illegal. It is therefore an impeachable offense. But the Senate and Congress don't appear to have the courage to impeach this President. I don't know if they would have the votes or not, but it is definitely worth pursuing in my opinion. It would say to the entire world, The American People own and claim their country and are willing to confront their own evil doers, especially starting with Alberto Gonzales!

Read today's NY Times Editorial for more on this.

The Gonzales Testimony or Let's Make A Deal

To learn just how incompetent this Administration has become try listening to Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate today. It will be a real spectator sport and offers to provide much material for the likes of Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and the Late night Shows of David Letterman et al. I'm sure I'll have something to add too but will not have availability of a computer for 3 days to post something so just imagine what I would have said. The interesting thing here is that Gonzales will be testifying before Monica Goodling, his liaison with the White House's Harriet Myers and Karl Rove, so there is a good possibility that today he will perjure himself.

Till then.

UPDATE 7:30am PST

As Paul Harvey, famous radio personality would say, "And now the rest of the story..." Well the opening questioning by Senator Arlen Spector was terrific and the responses by Gonzales was as I promised. This is the same incompetent Attorney General who advised the President, while he was his General Counsel, that they could redefine the definition of Torture as noted in U.S Laws and the Geneva Convention. It is why with the advice of Gonzales this President with his Vice President have committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What do Rumsfeld, former FEMA head "Brownie", and Alberto Gonzales have in common?

Words of advice for the next President: When you are filling the many positions in your Cabinet and Administration, use more than one criterion for deciding which candidate you will select. President Bush only used one criterion and look at the trouble we're in because of it. Oh, the single criterion Bush used was "WILLINGNESS" (to do what was asked by him of them). Any good CEO will tell you that at least one other criterion should be used; "ABILITY/COMPETENTCY" to do the job. It is obvious now from the examples of selecting Rumsfeld, former FEMA director "Brownie" and now today from the front page of all newspapers, Attorney General Robert Gonzales that only "Willingness" was the criterion chosen. I would say the same criterion was used to select Cheney but Cheney selected himself as he was the head of the committee charged with the responsibility to find a Vice President. Oh, and the criterion Cheney used was also "WILLINGNESS" (to do as I damn well please!)

Attorney General Gonzales:"I accept full responsibility but..."

With this quote, I accept full responsibility for the actions of the Dept. of Justice but there are over 100,000 employees and I don't know all the conversations, memos etc. within the Dept." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales started his news conference with reporters over the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys.

I learned back when I became a coach that when you use the word "but" in a sentence, it erases everything before the word. For example, "you look great in that dress but..." or "yes I love that gift but..." In this case, although Gonzales says he accepts responsibility, that word "but" was included and therefore he does not accept responsibility. Sounds like his excuse is there are a lot of people here and I can't be held responsible for everything in my Dept. What do you think?

First casualty in bungled firing of U.S. Attorneys, to step down

According to sources quoted by the L.A Times, Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is leaving the Justice Department. My question is when will Gonzales have the moral fiber and backbone to step down?

Roberto Gonzales, U. S. Attorney General, proves to be the center of gravity of most controversy in this Administration

Roberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General who is at the center of controversy again has proven to be a very central figure in the bad decisions at the heart of this Administration. He has been the person at the center of the changed interpretations of the use of torture on prisoners and hence, the Abu Ghraib atrocities. He now is at the center of the firing of U.S. attorneys because they were willing to decide cases on merit rather than based upon with this Administration was pushing for.

From the Washington Post comes a story on Gonzales and the reversal in policy of the President and the Administration under pressure from Congress now that Democrats are providing the necessary oversight that was lacking under Republican stewardship when thye were the majority for the past 6 years.

So now excerpts from the Washington Post story:
Gonzales Yields On Hiring Interim U.S. Attorneys
By Paul Kane and Dan Eggen
Friday, March 9, 2007;

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agreed yesterday to change the way U.S. attorneys can be replaced, a reversal in administration policy that came after he was browbeaten by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee still angry over the controversial firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"Gonzales told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and other senior members of the committee that the administration will no longer oppose legislation limiting the attorney general's power to appoint interim prosecutors. Gonzales also agreed to allow the committee to interview five top-level Justice Department officials as part of an ongoing Democratic-led probe into the firings, senators said after a tense, hour-long meeting in Leahy's office suite."

"...the administration has been battered by mounting allegations that several of the fired prosecutors -- six of whom testified before Congress on Tuesday -- had been the subject of intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and alleged threats of retaliation by Justice Department officials. One prosecutor told lawmakers this week that he felt "leaned on" by a senior Republican senator, and Senate Democrats have readied subpoenas for five key members of Gonzales' inner circle of advisers."

"Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to suggest that Gonzales's tenure may not last through the remainder of President Bush's term."

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Specter said sharply."

"Democrats and some Republicans said they were concerned the Justice Department was attempting to use the new provision to appoint political cronies without Senate oversight and that the firings were a means to that end. Gonzales and other Justice officials have argued that the old replacement system was inefficient and unconstitutional."

"Emerging from what participants called a "frank" discussion, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the attorney general agreed to allow five senior Justice Department aides to be interviewed by the committee in an inquiry that will probably begin in a private setting."

"Specter emerged from the meeting saying he still had no clear understanding why the prosecutors were dismissed. He said he instructed Gonzales to take back remarks he made in an op-ed in Wednesday's USA Today, in which he called the issue an "overblown personnel matter." Specter also asked Gonzales to do something to help remove the "significant blemish" now on the records of the fired prosecutors."

(For the complete Washington Post story click here.

When more oversight is done by this Congress, more revelations will be made from how Halliburton cheated us by not providing the services contracted, not by Millions of dollars, but by Billions. I will predict that when all the investigations are complete, many senior Halliburton officials will be charged with crimes and do jail time.

Where are the student protests today?

As we approach June 4th , the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, and I reflect on our own history of student protests, it got me to wonder where are today's student protesters, as certainly there are many disturbing trends in America today, threatening the very fabric of our democracy as we search for bipartisanship in Congress and a more humble America in our rhetoric abroad and at home. But we still seem very arrogant as a nation with little understanding of the very cultures we are trying to change. I am not talking about Iraq here. I am talking about the "Divided" States of America, that's right, the good ole D.S.A., one nation, (partly) under God, very divisible, with liberty (until we can change those Senate Rules), and justice for (a few).

There was once a time of idealism, of standing up and being taken seriously by society, a conscience for all of us. This was the time of Student protests. Students protested the Vietnam war, the May 4th, 1970 Kent State shootings, Tiananmen Square and support for democracy in China, the outrage at the Chinese Government’s reaction to the protests and some recent protests of the Iraq war in selective cities.

As a nation, we have a lot to be angry about with our government. First there was the misleading “intelligence” of the lead up to the Iraq invasion and then the letters of former White House General Counsel and current Attorney General, Roberto Gonzales, regarding new interpretations of what is and what is not torture. Then the pronouncements by our President that certain prisoners would not necessarily be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention. Add to this more recent assertion about additional abuse in Guantanamo and the shameless deceit to get recruits on High School campuses to enlist, and you wonder what it takes to get Student protesters engaged again. There have been some protests of the Iraq war but they fade away quickly. What captures the focus and attention of the bulk of our students today? Could it be survival, as the job market still looks bleak? Or is it just apathy? What do you think? I don’t think they care much about what the Senate is proposing in its Nuclear Option to end the filibuster and allow judicial nominations through who by the minority see as extreme in their views. Stay tuned.