... Sessions of Alabama led the opposition, lecturing the standing-room-only crowd on Capitol Hill before the vote about how he believes Kagan's liberal politics and judicial philosophy are a dangerous combination for the court. "The greatest threat to the independence of the federal judiciary . .. is judges who become political and see they have a right to advance a political agenda. This can undermine the respect of the American people for the institution as an independent entity," Sessions said. "And based ... on her actions throughout her life and the political nature of her background, I've concluded that she cannot be the kind of justice the court needs."
Sessions thinks anyone left of Ghengis Khan is not "the kind of justice the court needs." I think J. Beureguard Sessions III is just jealous because Elena Kagan is going to be confirmed -- to the Supreme Court, mind you! -- but his own words kept him from being confirmed as a federal judge during the Reagan administration. Accountability is hell.
The vote emphatically warned Republicans that with only 40 senators, they're too outnumbered to prevent Obama from making major inroads into a judiciary that was populated over eight years with conservative judges chosen by President George W. Bush.
Republicans who refused to support Sessions' filibuster attempt were Alexander (TN), Chambliss (GA), Collins (ME), Cornyn (TX), Gregg (NH), Hatch (UT), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Snow (ME) and Thune (SD). Hutchison of Texas did not vote -- busy running for governor, you know. Alabama's other Senator, Richard Shelby, went along with Jeff's little bright idea.
Jeff Sessions, 7/25/2003: "Of the many reasons why we shouldn't have a filibuster, an important one is the Article I of the Constitution. It says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply "shall advise and consent" on nominations. Historically, we have understood that provision to mean and I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean that a treaty confirmation requires a two-thirds vote, but confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote. That is why we have never had a filibuster. People on both sides of the aisle have understood it to be wrong. They have understood it to be in violation of the Constitution."
Jeff Sessions, 11/5/2003: "Even though there are a majority of Senators prepared to vote and confirm a series of highly qualified nominees for the Federal bench, for the first time in the history of this Nation, the Democratic leadership-Senator Daschle and his team-have deliberately and systematically filibustered. That has never been done before on Federal judges. It should not be done. It is a complete change in the history of this body."
Jeff Sessions, 11/6/2003: "For the first time in the history of this country, we are facing a filibuster of judges, and it is not right. It is time to deal with this situation. I hope our colleagues on the other side will yield. If not, I hope they hear from the American people."
Jeff Sessions, 3/15/05: "I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote."
Jeff Sessions, 5/23/05: "The vote, historically, since the founding of this Republic, is a majority vote. Lets look at that. The Constitution says that the Congress shall advise and consent on treaties, provided two-thirds agree, and shall advise and consent on judges and other nominees. Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds super majority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful."
Yesterday: Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., decried the current "sad state of affairs" involving the nomination process when he told reporters Monday afternoon that he intends to filibuster Judge David Hamilton's selection to the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals.
The rules have changed?Reckon that hypocrisy burns much? I submit that it isn't the rules that have changed, it's the President.
Sessions' spectacular flip-flop is barefaced, flagrant, shameless partisan politics as usual.
He opposed filibusters of Bush nominees on principle, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, Jeff Sessions is tossing his precious "principles" right out the window in an attempt to block President Obama's judicial nominees. And it isn't just Judge Hamilton either, Republicans have delayed floor votes for other Obama nominees and Sessions has hinted that other filibuster attempts are possible.
Republican senators are somehow surprised by negative publicity over their vote endorsing Halliburton's gang rape cover-up. Both of my senators have attempted damage control. In response to my email, Senator Jeff Sessions has sent a letter that is a scandal in its own right.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Franken's amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 3326.
Unfortunately, a number of media personalities have portrayed the amendment in a misleading manner. The truth is the amendment prohibits basic contract rights between all defense contractors and their employees. This is one of the reasons President Obama's administration strongly opposed it.
Senator Sessions is the one misleading. Here is what White House spokesman Tommy Vietor actually said: "We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable." Hardly the words of strong opposition. The Department of Defense was against the amendment; but then again, DoD always supports its contractors.
Arguing against the amendment in the Senate, Sessions claimed that it "would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law." But the amendment isn't retroactive, applying to the fiscal year 2010 defense bill and after. Perhaps that naked untruth is why Sessions has changed his story:
I take a few days off from the TeeVee Talking Pundits heads, XM radio, the print media we have and the blogosphere and all hell breaks loose! WTF happened? How the heck did we go from single payer, to the public option, to states having the option to "opt out" of health insurance reform? I mean seriously, WTF went wrong? Why are we the people getting the shaft again?
I knew we were in trouble when I heard Morning Joke, I mean Joe Scarborough, bought to you by Starbucks, sounding like a know it all on Meet the Pest, I mean Press.
To hear Joe Scarborough on Meet The Press, you would think he was sitting on Harry Reid's lap clutching an E-Ticket during the healthcare bill negotiations. Not only does he know exactly how many votes the "opt-out" option has in the Senate, he knows for a bonafide fact that the White House wants to protect "conservatives and Blue Dogs" during the 2010 election cycle by favoring a "trigger" scheme over the public option.
In my mind, the decision is just getting pushed back. The Opt-Out seems to be just a cop out by the Senate. They are saying (if I read this correctly), "Screw this. We can just let the states decide."
Drivng on the interstate today I noticed an American made, late model car with a Sweet Home Alabama personal license plate that said PRO GUN, and a yellow bumper sticker that read "I was anti Obama before it was cool." So you see, this isn't about health care reform. It was never about health care reform, it's about President Obama. It's time to fight for CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.
Note: Insert Jeff Sessions/Dick Shelby to replace Olympia Snow and insert Alabama to replace Maine. Disregard the mandate part because we know Alabama voters didn't have the same good sense Maine voters had.
Unbelievable! I am mad as hell at Sen. Sessions for his vote against the Al Franken amendment. The amendment would provide justice to prevent what happened to a Haliburton employee who was gang raped by Haliburton employees and then told that she could not file a lawsuit. The amendment would prohibit government contractors from including such provisions in their contracts with employees. Here is a link to the story:
Barack Obama was effective in cutting through the misinformation and partisan bickering over health care and reaching swing voters, many of whom entered the evening harboring real skepticism about his plan. Obama succeeded in reassuring voters of all political stripes on some of their biggest concerns about reform while also energizing supporters and avoiding the kind of polarization that could drive away independents and Republicans. Moreover, the reaction of Republicans in the audience, including the heckling of the president by Rep. Joe Wilson, generated a strong backlash among focus group participants who expressed deep frustration with Republicans for putting partisan politics ahead of solving the nations’ problems.
As we've noted before, swing voters don't get to decide this question. In fact, the health care reform process is completely out of the voters' hands at this point. Our 435 Members of Congress and 100 Senators are in complete control and a goodly number of them either don't understand or don't care what their constituents want. The Anniston Starnailed the situation yesterday:
We, the audience who will watch President Barack Obama's congressional address on health-care reform tonight, make a simple request of the senators and representatives who will sit in on the speech. Taking a cue from race car drivers and professional golfers, lawmakers should decorate themselves with the logos of their corporate benefactors.
Our senior Senator, Richard Shelby, should wear some banking and financial logos, for sure, but I notice the insurance industry is his number 2 source of campaign contributions for 2010. Contributions from health professionals are number 3 on the list of his cohort, Jeff Sessions. Insurance and pharmaceuticals also make the top 20 for Sessions.
"I don't know who he persuaded tonight, but he didn't persuade me."
"I've never known of a government-run enterprise on health care or anything that was run as efficiently and cost-consciously as a private enterprise."
Umm, is the term Medicare at all familiar Senator?
Jeff Sessions responded with his usual whining:
"He did not treat respectfully the genuine concern raised in town meetings I've been to. I think Republicans felt like it was an attack."
"I cannot take at face value the promise that a new government program is not going to increase more rapidly in cost and not result in denial of choice."
But you had no problem believing American troops would be greeted as liberators (complete with flowers and sweets) by the Iraqi people, did you Senator?
Our Senators have made themselves irrelevant to the health care debate. That's not particularly good for Alabama, but given who our Senators are, it's probably best for the country as a whole.
OK, "honored" may not be exactly the right word. Jeff Sessions made Salon's list of Senators who can be called knuckleheads. Unbelievably, Sessions clocks in at number 12, not number 1 or 2. Bad as this looks for Alabama, it could always be worse; my native state of Oklahoma is blessed cursed with not one but two Senators on the knucklehead list.
In honor of the most recent Master of the Senate [Ted Kennedy], Salon presents its list of those senators who are not masters, those who have helped turn what was once the nation's foremost debating society into the corporate board of Dunder Mifflin. Meet the senators who for reasons of questionable IQ or eccentricity, because they are vapid, stubborn or ornery, can fairly be called knuckleheads.
...
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Evidence of knuckleheadedness: Sometimes, Sessions seems like a double agent, trying to help liberals prove their point that old-style racism still exists under a thin mask of legitimate politics.
Still, as the senator responded to a question about the lack of bi-partisanship in Washington on this issue, Sessions honestly admitted he has no plan of passing any health care reform bill into law.
So, no matter what kind of reconciliations and negotiations remain to be hammered out, the senator seemingly sees no need for any reform.
In a telling exchange, Sessions suggested that the parents of uninsured children apply for the SCHIP. This is ironic because the senator voted against this provision.
In a broader perspective, this has come to represent the views of a majority of Republicans on this issue.
In the fundamental debate over whether the health and well-being of our nation's citizens is a right or a privilege, the latter has come to define the conservative message on this issue.
There is the idea that the uninsured are wholly responsible for lack of coverage and their ineptitude and lack of responsibility is a burden on the actively insured.
That is exactly the conservative position on the issue, and in their view the insurance profiteers bear no responsibility whatsoever for the situation.
Republicans have never liked Medicare and would like nothing better than to dismantle it -- which is pretty ironic since their whole health care town hall campaign has been about firing up senior citizens to make sure they vote in 2010. Here's Jeff Sessions at a town hall last week weaseling on the question of whether he would introduce a bill to repeal Medicare.
Jonathan Alawine, a USA student, asked Sessions if he would introduce a bill to repeal Medicare as a way to reduce government spending on health care.
"It's a fair question," Sessions said, adding that senior citizens are getting the benefits they have already paid for. "Some people have planned their lives around Medicare. I don't think it's a smart thing for us to try to do."
The straightforward answer would have been "I oppose any attempt to repeal Medicare," but instead Sessions noted that the idea is not politically smart. That's because he'd be more than happy to repeal Medicare (and Social Security, too) if his party didn't desperately need senior's votes next year. Older Americans are the only voting demographic that might stave off Republican irrelevancy for a few years. How ironic that GOP success depends on senior citizens, the very group with the most to lose should Republicans succeed in dismantling the social safety net.
To piggyback (no offense ph) off AB's excellent diary let me say for the first time in my adult life I am undecided about who to vote for in a Democratic primary, or even if I'm going to vote in the Democratic primary. In the past I've scoffed, mocked, jeered, sneered and asked "who are the so called undecided" even asking "what in the world they were undecided about". Well now I understand.
The undecideds are voters like me who find themselves in the position of having to choose between our principles or our party. In this case we have to choose between our principles or our race. Do we vote for the Devil we know or the Devil we don't know? Do we vote for the lessor of two evils or do we just stay our Donkey at home on election day? Do we vote against our self interest and hope for the best? What do do and where to go?
I've outlined my issues with Artur Davis and his right leaning political philosphy in previous diaries and comments, so I won't re-state them (don't clap yet), but I'm undecided if I can throw my principles under the bus so Davis can not only run over them, but put the bus in reverse and back over them. He has not articulated a single issue I can get behind. I'm sorry cats, but ethics reform (although needed) and banning PAC to PAC transfers just aren't top priorities to me. Jobs ( the lack there of), equal access to a quality public education (the lack thereof), economic development in the Black Belt and other areas, equal rights, civil rights and human rights are the most pressing issues affecting most Alabamians. I hear lots of buzz words designed to make "white surbanites" feel good about him and wonder what it will mean to the world if Alabama elects an African American Governor(who cares?), but nothing to the masses, real people, facing real problems. What are we chopped liver?
Here is my delimma. Do I vote for Davis out of race loyalty and against my principles and my self interest, or do I not vote?
Jeff Sessions, leader of the Alabama Wight Wing Party, has finally retired amidst speculation of early Alzheimer's onset.
"It all started with being unable to remember how to tie his tie, and proceeded to escalate into an inability to remember even the ordinary courtesies he knew so well as a child," explained Mrs. Sessions. "It got so bad he even forgot to say, "Excuse me," after producing undesirable noises at the dinner table", added a close friend.
"We knew it wasn't Jeff any more", said his brother in a somber tone. "But he's still as courageous as ever. Even in his present state he refuses to capitulate to disability, and has found gainful employment on a neighboring Plantation".
Socialist is the new N word i.e. Obama is a Socialist. Socialism is the new code word for welfare. Healthcare reform is socialism. Haven't we been down the code word route before?
Seriously, I heard the term socialist and socialism chanted over and over again by the anti healthcare reform people in the parking lot of Jefferson Beauregaurd (Azaela Trail Maids) Sessions town hall meeting yesterday. I wondered if they could even define socialism or even knew what the term meant, because if they did they would know it doesn't apply to President Obama as Sarah ( I can see Russia from my house) Palin labeled him.
PTCruiser at jackandjillpolitics.com reminded me of the historical use of the word;
the terms "socialist" and "communist" were among the favorite epithets hurled at Black Americans, their allies and organizations such as the NAACP before, during and after the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, these terms have been used since the early 20th Century, if not before, to discredit and stigmatize men and women fighting for social justice.
So now we know..the term is used to describe someone who is fighting for social justice, not someone who is trying to take our freedoms away. President Obama and others can wear the lable proudly.
Add this one to the already painfully long list of things that Alabama's junior senator does not know. At his health care town hall meeting in Huntsville, AL this morning, Senator Sessions was asked this:
If health insurance reform passes, "will the government have direct access to our bank accounts?"
Instead of shooting down the latest fad in GOP health insurance reform LIES, Sessions paused, cocked his head and offered this response: "I'm not sure" before joking that the government "sure wants access to our pockets!"
NOT SURE? Let me help you, Senator. NO. It's not true even though talk radio hosts and your fellow Republican Congressmen have been happily spewing the lie for weeks now.
According to PoliFact (the St. Petersburg Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning effort to track statements by lobbyists, journalists, politicians, and intrest groups and rank them on the "Truth-O-Meter"), this claim originated in one of those anonymous chain emails so packed with false claims, scare tactics, and outright lies that it received the rare "Pants on Fire" rating from PoliFact:
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.
Now, I realize that there's a whole subset of people willing to believe any health care lie, no matter how egregious (I'm looking at YOU, Sarah Palin), but doesn't it seem that Senators themselves should have the facts? And shouldn't they be trying to elevate the debate so we can have a real discussion about our health care delivery system and health insurance reform?
In an ideal world, sure. Sessions had a golden opportunity to shoot down a conservative talking point that's just a lie. And he couldn't bring himself to do it.
Pretty sad.
Want to learn more about the various health insurance reform bills pending? The Kaiser Foundation has a point-by-point analysis and side by side comparison of the major proposals. Ok, so it's not an anonymous email - that bastion of rectitude and reliability - but it's great information nonetheless.
OK, the Republican rump status isn't news to most of us, but today Republican Senator George Voinovich (OH) confirmed what all but the party faithful have known for months. From the Columbus Dispatch, emphasis mine:
The GOP’s biggest problem? “We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.' People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’ ”
It's the Southerners. I would go so far as to submit that it's the crazy,white, male, Republican Southerners -- we aren't all crazy down here, after all. What the hell they got to do with anything except their own sense of self-importance and entitlement? And how the heck did Sen. Voinovich manage to omit Alabama's own Sen. Jeff Sessions as he ran through the list of embarrassing Southerners who have ruined the Republican party?
Note to Libertarians: Look what the right wing has done to conservatives and Republicans. You seem to think, like they did, that you’re going to recruit them to your cause, and you, like they, will end up being scalped down to your brain stems. How long until the right wing has you squatting in the woods after midnight, banging a tin can with a stick, waiting to capture the imaginary Marxist Liberal Snipe in your burlap bag? Get out while you still can.
"Scalped down to your brain stems" is definitely going into my favorite phrases file. It perfectly describes what has happened to the Republicans. They thought they could ride the tiger, but they ended up on the menu.
I hope no one is surprised. He basically calls her a liar in a USA Today op-ed:
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions will vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court during Tuesday's committee vote, calling her recent pledge of fidelity to the law a disingenuous attempt to mask a judicial philosophy that would push the court to the political left.
"I don't believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism," Sessions, R-Ala., wrote for an op-ed scheduled to appear today in USA Today. "She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent."
Apparently he's found three decisions (out of hundreds, if not thousands, that she's issued in her 17 years on the bench) that he doesn't like. The article doesn't specify, mentioning only that they involved property rights, racial discrimination and gun control. I don't know which property rights case got his undies in a bunch, but I assume the discrimination one is Ricci, in which a three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling - the definition of judicial conservatism, unless one doesn't like the outcome. The gun control case is probably the nunchuck ruling in which the court upheld states' rights and Supreme Court precedent, which again is the definition of judicial conservativism, unless...well, you get my drift. Anyway, aren't southern lawmakers all about states' rights?
Not that his vote will make any difference. Sotomayor will be confirmed, he'll get to grandstand for his winger base, and most of the country will read this:
Sotomayor was twice nominated for federal judgeships, once by a Republican and once by a Democrat, and she's been on the bench for 17 years, most recently the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. She received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association.
and think, "Sessions is a moron. Well, he's from Alabama; what did you expect?" Gee thanks, Jeff.
NO is the only vote Jeff Sessions has these days. Even Richard Shelby had the fiscal restraint and good sense to vote for cutting production of another 7 F-22 fighters -- which the Pentagon does not want and which would cost $1.75 billion --but what did Jeff Sessions do? He voted NO to the cuts, naturally.
Remind him of that vote next time he starts whining about the need for spending cuts and fiscal restraint. The health care reform debate should provide ample opportunity.
Via Pam's House Blend, we find efforts were being made to kill hate crimes legislation which would protect the LGBT community - not by objecting a proposed bill, but rather by adding a "poison pill" amendment which would revise it to the point of unsupportable. And they just passed last night.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) added amendments to the Matthew Shepard Act which will in effect kill the legislation; for example, one amendment will apply the death penalty in some hate crimes cases. His two other amendments are also seen as burdensome to the bill and a blatant Republican attempt to put the legislation to sleep.
This is another manifestation of thr Party of No standing in the way of progress. Pardon the tiny diary, but I'm blogging via phone.
OK, Mr. Senator, but do you really think it's wise to do crack cocaine during the hearing? Kind of public, isn't it?
Jeff Sessions: Mr. Henderson it's good to work with you. Sen. Leahy and I are talking during these hearings we're going to do that crack cocaine thing that you and I've talked about before.
Kudos to Tommy Stevenson for a great argument that NYT columnist David Brooks needs to come clean as to which (male) Republican Senator was groping on him at a dinner party. The reputations of the innocent (assuming there are innocent Republican Senators) demand nothing less. If you recall, last week Brooks mentioned on MSNBC that he "sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time."
I wonder if any Republican United States senators -- and remember there are only 40 of them and and four are women -- have called on Brooks to come clean because they are being asked by the folks back home if they are the man mentioned by Brooks on national television.
Myself, I think reporters in every state with GOP senators should ask Brooks one simple question, a question I will ask right now:
"David, was it one of Alabama's two senators, Richard Shelby or Jeff Sessions, who fondled the inside of your leg at dinner?"
My money is on Jeff Sessions, but you can never tell about those strong, silent types like Shelby. And he does have big hands.
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Add this one to the already painfully long list of things that Alabama's junior senator does not know. At his health care town hall meeting in Huntsville, AL this morning, Senator Sessions was asked this: 
