House Democrats Unveil Immigration Reform Bill

By Leah Valencia, University of New Mexico- Talk Radio News

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and more than 20 like-minded House Democrats unveiled new legislation Tuesday to reform immigration. Under the new bill millions of illegal immigrant could legalize their status.

"We have waited patiently for a workable solution to our immigration crisis to be taken up by this Congress and this President," said Gutierrez. "The time for waiting is over. This bill will be presented before Congress recesses for the holidays so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year."

The bill, with full support of the Black, Hispanic, Asian and other progressive Congressional caucuses, proposes that illegal immigrants should have the right to register with the government, and after paying a $500 fine per adult, learning English and passing background checks, become eligible for a six-year visa and eventually a green card.

“Border security, that is a concern of all of ours,” Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.). “We need to know everyone that is in the United States today...Not have people living in shadows.”

Many critics see a rough road ahead for immigration reform legislation, particularly with the U.S. unemployment rate at 10 percent and mid-term elections approaching.

“We want to make sure American workers get the first crack at all American jobs,” Gutierrez said. “But we want to invite immigrants to come here, bring their money, bring their knowledge, bring their entrepreneurship. We’ll let them in as long as they come here and create jobs for Americans.”

President Barack Obama said in August that he is confident that Congress would pass legislation that would overhaul immigration. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to introduce an immigration bill in the Senate by February of 2010.

Attorney General Defends Prosecution Of 9/11 Mastermind In Federal Court, Discusses Prison Reform

By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, through the federal court system in New York rather than through military commissions.

President Barack Obama revived former President George W. Bush’s military commissions, also known as military tribunals, in May 2009 for a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Obama's tribunals, deemed “Bush Light” by critics, provided terror suspects and war prisoners with more legal protections. However, the tribunals have been criticized for sacrificing American judicial values in order to prosecute prisoners quicker.

In his argument for employing federal courts rather than military courts, Holder cited the 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He claimed that the United States could prosecute terrorists “safely and securely” in the federal system because “we have been doing it for years.”

“I studied this issue extensively,” Holder said in his opening statements. “I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in the federal court.”

While Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) defended Holder, saying that “we can rely on the American justice system,” the decision was met with criticism from Republican members of the committee. In one instance, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Holder’s choice “a perversion of the justice system.”

“You’re a fine man,” Graham said to Holder. “I know you want to do everything to help this country be safe but I think you’ve made a fundamental mistake here.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) mentioned that Mohammed had already said he would plead guilty to the terrorists acts.

“How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?” Kyl asked, garnering scattered applause and laughter from some audience members. “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in an Article III [federal] court than that?”

In response, Holder said, “the determination I make ... does not depend on the whims or the desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said he wanted to do that then. I have no idea with what he wants to do now with regards to these military commissions that now [have] enhanced protections. My job is to look at the possibilities."

Holder also touched on issues such as prison reform legislation, claiming that drug courts specifically established for non-violent crimes have so far been effective, responding to Senator Al Franken's (D-Minn.) opinion that too many prisoners were in prison for drug possession.

“We’re essentially [taking] kids who are in possession of drugs and sending them to crime school," Franken said. "They learn from other criminals how to do crime, and two-thirds of them come back [after] they’re released within three years.”

“I’m familiar with the [drug court] we have here in Washington, D.C.... that has [proven] to be very successful in dealing with people who are selling drugs because they are addicted to drugs,” Holder said. “These are low level dealers, not the people who live in penthouses and drive big cars and all that.”

Holder recommended a data driven analysis of the U.S. prison system. He said that a “sentencing group” is looking at a “wide variety” of issues in U.S. prisons.

“Who is in jail?” Holder asked. “Are they in jail for appropriate amounts of time? Is the amount of time they spend in jail a deterrent? Does that have an impact on the recidivism rate? This group will be reporting back to me within the next couple of months. It is on that basis that we’ll be formulating policy and working with the Committee.”

Graham Climbs Aboard Climate Change Bandwagon

By Ravi Bhatia - Talk Radio News Service

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has teamed up with Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to find common ground on creating bipartisan climate change legislation, with hopes of making progress before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next month.

“The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead,” Graham said at a press conference on Wednesday. “Those countries who follow will pay a price. those countries who lead in creating a new green economy for the world will make money.”

Graham and Kerry wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times published on Oct. 11 that highlighted some of the goals of the legislation, which include acknowledging that climate change is real, investing in wind, solar and nuclear energy and breaking U.S dependence on foreign oil.

Republicans boycotted the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markups of the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act on Tuesday and Wednesday in an attempt to urge the committee to submit the legislation to the Environmental Protection Agency for economic analysis. Ranking member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) was the lone Republican to attend Wednesday’s meeting, although he departed after only 15 minutes.

“I do believe that all of the cars we have on the road and the trucks and the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet,” Graham said. “But if environmental policy is not good business policy you’ll never get 60 votes.”

According to Lieberman, the stakes are “too high” to wait on drafting climate change legislation.

“We will be held accountable by history unless we make every effort to find common ground,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Says He'll Vote "Yes" For Sotomayor

Annie Berman - Talk Radio News Service

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced today that he would vote in favor of Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a decision that goes against many of his Republican colleagues.

“While I’m not bound to vote for Judge Sotomayor, it would be the path to least political resistance for me...We’re talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has 17 years of judicial experience, 12 of those years she was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I’ve looked at her record closely. I believe that she follows precedent,” said Graham.

Graham also addressed the controversial speeches, particularly the now famous “wise Latina” comments, that many of Sotomayor’s opposers continue to use as a reason to vote against her. Those who oppose Sotomayor claim that those comments indicate that she is a racist and that she will be an “activist” judge who bases her decisions on her feelings rather than the law.

“To my colleagues who vote ‘no’, I understand your concerns and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. The speeches. The speeches that she has given in the past are troubling because I think they embrace identity politics. Something I don’t embrace. The ‘wise Latina’ comment...we had a long discussion about how that does not sit well with most Americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become Supreme Court nominees.”

Graham also took the time to say that though he may strongly disagree with a decision she has made here and there, it doesn’t matter to him, just as long as Sotomayor is qualified for the position.

“The advocacy role of a lawyer is unique. I have represented people who I disagree with. I have represented people who were accused of child molesting. I have been a criminal defense lawyer. There’s nothing more noble in our system in making the government prove their case regardless of how you feel about the defendant,” said Graham.

“I didn’t choose her, but I understand why President Obama did choose her and I am happy to vote for her,” said Graham.

The Sotomayor Hearing Saga

The Senate judiciary hearing room in the Hart building is a monument to power in our democracy.

In a series of seats fashioned like a horseshoe, senators sit with their aides behind them. Each seat has a microphone, and the Democratic chair sits in the middle with the Republican ranking senator sitting beside the chair. Next come the still photographers, then the witness table. Behind the witness sits their family members and sometimes their advisers. In back of them are a few more rows of seats and then long tables for the press to write longhand or type directly into their computers. In back of them sit the general public.

Unlike the older Senate hearing rooms, the Hart building has special balcony-type places for the radio and television journalists so they can do their reporting while looking down on the hearing room. With all of these delicately designed ways of holding hearings you would expect more from our democracy. In fact, we got a whole lot less this week.

I am referring to the Sotomayor hearings for Supreme Court justice. This is something that the American public has been part of for years, with much of the hearing the time being boring beyond comprehension. Sure there was the Clarence Thomas hearings and Anita Hill, but, in general, the hearings are a snore. This week was no exception to the snore rule.

Our Constitution provides for "advice and consent" by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2) of Supreme Court judges. This provision was a compromise between the founders who wanted a strong federal government and those who wanted a stronger legislative branch. It has become a place to address the folks at home and enrich the political platform upon which many senators operate. In fact, if you were going to teach high school civics, it would be shameful to show a video tape of the "questions" that were asked by many senators. The Republicans used the hearings this week as place to make the Democrats agenda look radical, and the Democrats used their questions as a kiss up opportunity. Our Supreme Court reporter, Jay Tamboli, a lawyer by training, just shook his head at the missed opportunity for having a real discussion about law and justice.

I was in the hearing room during the last day of the Sotomayor testimony and was pretty horrified that intelligent people were asking such dumb questions. Much of the concern from the Republican senators focused on personal experience of a judge and if it should influence decisions from the bench. They acted as if it never happens in true justice. It was hard to sit there and not laugh. A grade school child could tell you that the Supreme Court is filled with ideologies that impact on final decisions. If they had only had some basic interviewing skills, the Republican senators would have asked more probing questions that were designed to really get information. They could have asked questions like, "Tell me a time that you made a decision based on law but that you personally disagreed with the outcome." Instead they harped time and time again to her speeches which they felt showed she would be biased in her judgments.

Then JAG military lawyer Sen. Lindsey Graham used his time to deliver a long speech about Guantanamo justice and why people who don't play by the rules should get more trial rights than those who do. He was referring to captured fighters who do not wear a uniform of country and thereby do not fully come under the Geneva Conventions. After several minutes of Sen. Graham's monologue, I began to wonder where is the question and what does he expect Judge Sotomayer to answer.

The point is that no one knows what a judge will do when they get on the court. Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg played it safe by not commenting on "hypothetical" cases, no one has been able to make headway with a potential judge. They can hide behind the fact that something might come up before the court in the future.

So, what can be done? There is no law that says there needs to be four days of hearings. If they know they have the votes to confirm, then they should hold shorter hearings and the chairman should limit it to real questions and stop the speeches.

They should put all the pro and con letters up on the Internet and let the American public call their senators with their comments. Senators should stop playing to their base with hostile or kiss-up questions. Everyone knows they accomplish nothing. Finally, we should treat this process as something that allows us to discuss important questions of the day, which could include the influence of foreign law on ours, the impact of current science on legal decisions etc. We missed an opportunity to make these hearings relevant and interesting. They turned out to be boring and dull, a missed opportunity to engage Americans in a meaningful and important process.