Kagan Nomination Sure To Spark Predictable Rhetoric

Late yesterday afternoon I started hearing rumors that President Obama had settled on his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. Later, just before I went to bed, my BlackBerry started buzzing with reports that indeed, the President had made his choice, and that he would be publicly announcing it early Monday morning. Well, as luck would have it, I had already booked a tour of the Pentagon for this morning at 10:00 am, the exact time the President would be unveiling his nomination.

When you tour the Pentagon, there are a few rules. Among them: no carrying any weapons of mass destruction. Check. No chewing gum. Check. And most importantly, no cell phone use (the guide makes everyone turn them off). Not wanting to cause a stir, I politely obeyed that last rule. But my obedience came with a price, I would not be able to read all the breaking news and Tweets from reporters covering the major announcement.

My tour ended around 11:00 am. Naturally, the first thing I did was turn my phone on and check Twitter to see what had been written about the announcement. As I had expected, based on numerous reports both yesterday and earlier this morning, the President had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the summer. The next thing I did was check my inbox for press releases. Not surprisingly, I had already received more than a few.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Supreme Court expert -- I'll leave that to my colleague -- so I'll spare you my misguided opinions on whether or not Ms. Kagan is qualified to serve on the High Court. However, as someone who covers Congress, I plan on paying close attention to the forthcoming nomination process because I am interested in seeing how it plays out in a political context.

It's no secret that the divide between the two major parties has only grown larger over the past few years. Now, thanks to one-party control of both Houses, the rise of the anti-big government Tea Party movement and a monumental healthcare reform bill that re-ignited a once politically doormant legion of voters nationwide, that divide is arguably at an all-time high.

The first email I read was a lengthy statement on the nomination from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a sure-to-be VIP in the months to follow. Near the end of his statement, Leahy said the following:

"Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Americans are looking to Washington to cast aside the political rancor and partisanship that has fueled so many recent debates."

Indeed, driven by such partisan rancor, the battle lines have been definitively drawn on every single substantive issue Congress has worked on lately. From health care, to extending unemployment benefits, to Wall Street reform, the debate has become fairly predictable. In a nutshell it's this: if you're a 'D', you're probably with the President and his administration. If you're an 'R', you're opposed.

Case in point, the following three statements were sent to my inbox from Democrats this morning:

"President Obama has chosen a candidate who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Solicitor General Kagan's outstanding service as a lawyer, professor, public servant, and administrator prepares her for this challenge, and she will come to the bench with a deep knowledge of the law and respect for all individuals."

"Elena Kagan has won the respect and admiration of colleagues on both the left and the right for her legal and policy knowledge and for her success in working with advocates of a wide range of viewpoints. I have no doubt that she will bring the same skills to the Supreme Court, as its unprecedented third female justice, where I know that she will be mindful of the impact of the law on the lives of ordinary Americans."

"It appears that Elena Kagan would bring a great deal of knowledge and real-world experience to the Supreme Court...Elena Kagan’s experience outside courtrooms should not be held against her."

Which three Democrats issued those statements, you ask? I say, does it matter? To me, anyone with a D after their name could've written them. 100% of Democrats (at least in the Senate) will do anything the current President asks or demands of them. During last year's confirmation battle over Sonia Sotomayor, Democrats often chided Republicans, saying they wouldn't even vote to confirm Moses if he had been nominated to serve (they're still using that talking point, by the way). I don't know about that, but let's suppose the President had chosen a candidate completely lacking in qualification. I am willing to bet that most Democrats would have uniformly supported a quick confirmation.

To be fair, when it comes to solidarity, the same can be said of the other side as well. Here are some excerpts of a few emails I received this morning from Republicans.

“President Obama's decision to nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice experience and judicial impartiality for political activism. Despite Ms. Kagen's lack of judicial experience and limited legal practice, it is clear  that she will use her position to push her personal and political agenda."

 “We know that several areas warrant close scrutiny. Ms. Kagan’s lack of judicial experience and short time as Solicitor General, arguing just six cases before the Court, is troubling."

“There is nothing that requires the President to replace a liberal Justice with a liberal; but unfortunately it appears President Obama is doing just that.  Though Kagan has no prior judicial record for the Senate to review, her role as an Obama-insider and senior official in the Administration indicates that she shares the same liberal judicial philosophy as the President and his top advisors."

Again, I'd reveal the names of the Republicans that released these statements, but it's a moot issue. They are Republicans, they CAN'T support anything this administration attempts to do. Especially with mid-terms coming up.

Listen, if you're still not convinced that this is about anything more than D versus R, consider Arlen Specter. As a Republican last year, he voted against confirming Ms. Kagan as Solicitor General. Now, as a Democrat, he says he is open to supporting her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Really? Did she change that much over the past 12 months? Hmmmmmm.

The bottom line is this: In the end, Elena Kagan will be sworn in as our nation's next Supreme Court Justice, probably sometime before the Fall. The question is, will her confirmation process go smoothly? That all depends on whether or not the divide between parties diminishes or grows larger. And based on what I'm seeing so far, I'd say it's safe to expect bumpy conditions this summer.

Sanders Defends Amendment To Audit The Fed

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) insisted on Friday that his amendment within a Senate financial regulatory reform bill to audit the Federal Reserve (Fed) would not grant Congress the authority to set monetary policy.

“That was not my intent,” Sanders said to reporters.

Sanders’s effort received a huge boost last night when he was able to strike a deal on the amendment with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Under the agreement, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be authorized to perform a full audit of the Fed, going back to December 1, 2007. If the bill is signed into law, the GAO would be required to publish its findings online no later than one year after the law is enacted.

Most analysts say the amendment is not too radical of an idea. Sanders, on Friday, said it’s really just a matter of bringing about common-sense transparency to the financial system.

“The American people have a right to know what [Fed Chairman] Ben Bernanke has refused to allow them to know,” said Sanders, who admitted that the Chairman “is not one of my best friends.”

Indeed, the powerful banking agency along with firms on Wall Street are aggressively pushing back on the provision. Earlier this week, Bernanke wrote a letter to Dodd urging him to strip the amendment from the bill. But with Dodd -- the bill’s author -- as well as conservative South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint both saying they support Sanders, the measure looks like a safe bet to end up in the final Senate bill. Now, the question becomes whether or not it will survive a potential conference committee.

“Some of [the House bill’s] language is stronger that what we have, some of our language is stronger than what they have,” said Sanders, adding that the only thing on his mind right now is getting the 60 votes necessary to move forward on the legislation.

Unemployment Rate Rises Despite Jobs Increase

According to statistics released on Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor, the nation's unemployment rate rose to 9.9% in April. However, the economy experienced an uptick of jobs, to the tune of 290,000 added.

The biggest gains in employment were seen in the manufacturing, professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality industries. Federal government employment also surged, likely due to the increased hiring of temporary census workers.

Despite the good news, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) slammed the Obama administration for failing to bring down the overall jobless rate.

“These are difficult times for America’s families and today’s unemployment report delivers even more bad news," said Pence. "Democrats continue to advance a liberal agenda that is doing more harm than good. The Democrat policies of taxing, spending and bailouts are having a chilling effect on job creators across the country."

Conversely, White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer viewed the new numbers positively.

"Today’s employment report shows the strongest signs yet of healing in the labor market, as private nonfarm payrolls expanded substantially," she wrote. "The current numbers now show that employment has grown in each of the past four months."

Click here for the full report.

Lieberman Aims To Strip American-Born Terrorists Of Their Citizenship

Just days after a Pakistani-American named Faisal Shazhad was arrested for allegedly attempting to detonate a car bomb in New York’s Times Square, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled legislation aimed at preventing future American-born terrorists from traveling out of the country with the intent to return and wage attacks on U.S. soil.

The Terrorist Expatriation Act would update an existing federal law that strips U.S. citizens of their citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of several acts “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” If adopted, the new law would authorize the State Department to “revoke the citizenship of a U.S. national who provides material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or who engages in or supports hostilities against the United States or its allies,” according to a summary of the bill released by Lieberman’s office.

“This proposal updates the existing law to include American citizens who are found to have joined and worked with a foreign terrorist organization whose aim is to attack and kill Americans,” said Lieberman to reporters. “Those who join such groups join our enemy and should be deprived of rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship and the ability to use their American passports as tools of terror.”

According to reports, Shazhad, who moved to the U.S. when he was 18 and became a citizen last year, has confessed to traveling to Pakistan for a period of several months last year, during which time he attending a terrorist training camp affiliated with the Taliban. He then used his passport to return to the U.S., and shortly thereafter purchased a vehicle along with a series of bomb-making materials, presumably with the intent of blowing up the vehicle. The SUV he purchased was found late Saturday night, rigged with explosives in the middle of Times Square. Shazhad nearly escaped, but was captured Monday night after he had boarded a plane that was 30 minutes from taking off to Dubai.

Though Lieberman said he was prompted to move on the bill by Shazhad's failed attack as well as the failed airline attack on Christmas Day, in which a Nigerian man aboard a flight headed for Detroit attempted to detonate an explosive he had hidden in his pants during the plane's descent, the Senator said the new law would not apply to terror suspects like Shazhad because he was captured on U.S. soil.

Bloomberg Speculates Times Square Bomber Was Protesting Healthcare Law

Hours before U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the arrest of a Pakistani-American suspected of being involved with an attempt to detonate a car bomb in the middle of New York’s Times Square, the city’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, told CBS News anchor Katie Couric that the alleged attacker may have been trying to make a political statement.

Couric interviewed Bloomberg to discuss the possibility that the failed attack might have been a precursor to something bigger and potentially, more deadly. At one point, the veteran anchor asked the Mayor whether or not he thought the suspect was American.

“A home-grown?” she asked, to which Bloomberg responded, “Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

Technically, Bloomberg was right about one thing. It is now known that the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, 30, was born in Pakistan, but had lived in the U.S. for a number of years. He had a home in Bridgeport, Connecticut and was granted American citizenship last year. It is also known that Shahzad traveled to the Peshawar region of Pakistan for a period of about five months last year.

Today, a law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told a reporter with Reuters that Shahzad, who appeared in federal court to face charges of "driving a car bomb into Times Square on the evening of May 1," claimed he acted alone. However, there are reports now that authorities in Pakistan say they’ve arrested a person they believe conspired with Shahzad to carry out the attack. This new revelation contradicts yet another statement Bloomberg made to Couric last night.

"There is no evidence here of a conspiracy,” he said. There is no evidence that it's tied in to anything else. It looks like an amatuerish job, done by at least one person.”