Think Progress

	GOOD NEWS A House panel agreed yesterday to boost spending on mental health services for our soldiers and veterans by $2.2 billion, and instructed the Department of Veterans Affairs to devote 20 percent of its research money to mental health issues. DON'T MISS TALKING POINTS: Frist Begins His Power Play. FDA: Why won't the Bush White House let acting-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford testify in front of Congress? PORK: "Uncle Ted" gets Anchorage $1.5M for bus stop. IRAQ: Downbeat generals warn Congress that American enterprise in Iraq "could still fail." DAILY GRILL "And this dependence is a challenge to our economic security.â€? And this dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security. Now, it's also important to realize that the transportation sector consumes more than two-thirds of all the petroleum used in the United States, so that any effort to reduce consumption must include ways to safely make cars and trucks more fuel efficient." – President Bush, 2/25/02 VERSUS "The Senate Energy Committee on Wednesday rejected a Democratic plan to require sport utility vehicles and minivans to become more fuel efficient and achieve the same gasoline mileage as passenger cars in six years." – AP, 5/18/05 DAILY OUTRAGE On air, Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and then began plotting how he would do it. To free himself of questions of right and wrong, he has "stopped wearing" his "What Would Jesus Do?" wristband. ARCHIVES Progress Report STUDENTS Register now for the Campus Progress National Student Conference on July 13 in Washington, DC.

by Christy Harvey and Judd Legum
with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde

JUDICIARY	Frist Goes Nuclear
SCIENCE	The Looming 'Breakthrough Victory'
UNDER THE RADAR	Go Beyond The Headlines
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up | Contact us | Permalinks/Archive | Mobile | RSS

JUDICIARY
Frist Goes Nuclear

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) took another step towards detonating the nuclear option – or blocking the 200-year-old practice of the filibuster – yesterday, shoving the Senate closer to a showdown over President Bush's radical judicial nominations. His reckless overreach has far-reaching consequences; it will overturn the basic system of checks and balances. The American public is not backing this effort: The Pew Foundation recently asked the public if Frist and his allies should be able to eliminate the filibuster in the case of judicial nominees. The poll found that 59 percent of Americans oppose the nuclear option; not even a third support it. Here's a look at Frist's dangerous power play:

FRIST'S VIOLENT BOMBAST: Majority Leader Bill Frist announced yesterday that the opposition to Bush's judicial picks wants to "kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees." His choice of words was recklessly incendiary in today's climate, where real judges are facing real violence against them. There has been a rash of violence against judges this year: In Chicago, the mother and husband of federal Judge Joan Lefkow were murdered in February by a disgruntled plaintiff. In Texas, "a man shot and killed his former wife and a bystander at a courthouse in February." In Atlanta, "a man who was on trial for rape in March is charged with shooting to death the judge in the case, a court stenographer, and a sheriff's deputy at the courthouse, and slaying an off-duty customs agent at his home." The same day Frist exploited these tragedies with his violent imagery, Judge Lefkow criticized lawmakers for "condoning a climate of 'harsh rhetoric' about the judiciary that she said could incite violence and endanger judges' lives."

THE TRUTH ABOUT NOMINEES: Yesterday, Frist also said those opposed to Bush's nominees "had 'radically' altered the traditions of the Senate by blocking votes." A helpful graph in today's New York Times handily disproves that myth. In fact, "the current president's batting average is roughly on par with Mr. Clinton's. Recent presidents have filled the federal bench at roughly the same rate over the past quarter-century – about 45 to 50 new federal judges each year." The numbers match up. President Bush has confirmed 50 judges per year, 87 percent of his district court judges and 53 percent of his appellate court. President Clinton had about 45 judges confirmed each year, 81 percent of his district court and 59 percent of his appellate.

HYPOCRISY ALERT: Frist yesterday also intoned solemnly, "I rise for the principle that judicial nominees with the support of a majority of senators deserve up-or-down votes on this floor." This principle only stands when President Bush's nominees are at stake; throughout the 1990s, conservatives used a slew of tactics to keep nominees from receiving votes. In 1994, for example, Sen. Orrin Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. Known as the "blue slip" policy, it allowed a single senator to secretly block nominations from leaving committee for a vote; compare that to the 41 required to keep a filibuster going. Using this method, Senate conservatives were able to block more than 60 judicial nominations. (After Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure.)

FRIST FILI-BUSTED, PART ONE: On the floor of the Senate yesterday, Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist: "Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?" Frist, caught, hemmed and hawed, finally replying, "The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way." (You can watch the video of the exchange here.) So Frist's bottom line is one filibuster is fine, just not many filibusters? This deftly undercuts his own argument that all judicial filibusters are unconstitutional.

FRIST'S FILI-BUSTED, PART TWO: Referring to his attempt to filibuster the Paez nomination, Frist also said, "Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions." When Frist voted to filibuster Paez's nomination, it had been pending for four years; that's plenty of time to ask questions and get more info. A press release issued March 9, 2000 - the day after the Paez filibuster attempt – shows the truth. Crafted by former Sen. Bob Smith, who organized that filibuster effort, read "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judges."

SHE'S NOT RUNNING FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL: The Fox News profile of Priscilla Owen, the judge who Frist will use to detonate the nuclear option, points out she's "a Sunday school teacher." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) also used this tactic on the floor yesterday, "reciting a long list of achievements and civic works, including Justice Owen's serving as a Sunday school teacher to preschoolers." This would be relevant information if Owen were running for federal Sunday School. However, she has been nominated to the federal courts; it's her judicial record that needs scrutiny. As Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) pointed out: "This is not a debate about a lovely person. This is a debate about a record and judicial decisions, and about whether or not that record merits promoting someone to a lifetime appointment." As a judge, Owen is a judicial activist with a long record of extremist decisions; her own hometown paper, for example, described her as "all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse."

SCIENCE
The Looming 'Breakthrough Victory'

For the past four years, the potential of embryonic stem cell research has been far from realized partly due to President Bush's 2001 decision to limit all federally approved stem cell research to the lines that had already been established, which then later proved to be contaminated and far fewer than the president claimed at the time. As the president stood as a roadblock to "potential cures for horrific illnesses and life-shattering injuries," he continued to declare, "I laid out the policy I think is right for America. And I'm not going to change my mind." Already standing on a rather precarious moral high ground, the president is now finding his support crumbling as Congress stands ready to tread where he refuses to go. At a time when Congress boasts its lowest approval ratings in over a decade, the bipartisan teamwork going on behind the legislation is a refreshing answer to "taxpayers who wonder whether there is hope for moderation and bipartisanship in an increasingly polarized Congress." (For a measured, thoughtful look at stem cell research, read the National Academies of Sciences' new guidelines, which were created by an esteemed panel of scientists and ethicists co-chaired by the Center's Jonathan Moreno.)

HOUSE BILL GAINING STEAM, SENATE NOT FAR BEHIND: Expected to come to the House floor for a vote as early as next week, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 is legislation that "would permit federal money to fund research on stem cells taken from days-old embryos stored in freezers at fertility clinics and donated by couples who no longer need them." Since these types of cells are "able to morph into all kinds of tissues," they "show great promise in treating a variety of diseases and injuries." Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), who is co-sponsoring the measure with Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), is assured that "if the vote on the bill were held today, it would pass." The House bill mirrors a Senate measure being sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). Now, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) "is under pressure to schedule a floor vote on [the] identical bill." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), an extremely vocal supporter of stem cell research, declared, "Whether he brings it to the floor or not, I think we're going to get it to the floor."

THE REVVED UP RELIGIOUS RIGHT: Highly respected former Republican senator and ordained minister John C. Danforth pointed out, "There is only one argument against stem cell research, and that is meeting the demands of the religious right." Danforth's observation is correct; the religious right is set to do battle over this legislation. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops "condemned the legislation," saying that such a measure would "encourage large-scale destruction of innocent human life." In a letter to House leaders, the Conference's chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities wrote, "I urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose all destructive and morally offensive proposals of this kind." He continued on to declare that "government has no business forcing taxpayers to become complicit in the direct destruction of human life at any stage." The supposed controversy behind using such cells – that "embryos must be destroyed to retrieve the cells" – ignores the fact that if not used for research, "the embryos â€? would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics." Still, the legislation's opponents are doing some serious organizing. Proving a child is never too young to be used in their agenda, one of their demonstrations will be "a Capitol Hill appearance by babies who were 'adopted' as embryos."

DELAY TRIES TO SPEAK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: Leading the charge against the House legislation is none other than House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who claims that "[o]nce people understand the issue, more than 70 percent are against embryonic stem cell research." It is unclear what polling numbers DeLay is using. The overwhelming number of polls have found that a clear majority of Americans support stem cell research. And when asked about the core of the issue – discard the embryonic cells or use them for stem cell research – 63 percent of respondents supported stem cell research. Regardless of these numbers, DeLay continues to fight the House bill. Originally, "DeLay had been quietly looking for ways to stall it or complicate its progress through the legislative machinery," but when that effort got blocked, he threw his support behind a competing measure. (For those who actually want to "understand the issue," here's a primer on stem cell research.)