On the last day of the legislative year, a Republican spoke the truth:

“The breakdown of regular order this cycle — indeed the failure to get our bills done — should be squarely placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader who failed to schedule floor time for the consideration of appropriations bills,” Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California and the departing chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said in an unusual public attack on a fellow Republican.

The Republican legislature failed to pass 9 of the 11 spending bills that fund the government, leaving responsible governance to the Democrats next year.

Sen. Arlen Specter has introduced a much-needed bill to protect the attorney-client privilege.

The bill is titled the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2006 (ACPPA).

The ACPPA would prohibit government lawyers from forcing organizations into:

• Disclosing information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine;
• Refusing to contribute to the legal defense of an employee;
• Refusing to enter into a joint defense strategy with an employee;
• Refusing to share relevant information with an employee; and
• Terminating or disciplining an employee.

As for why it's needed:

This hasn't gotten enough play in the media.

Sen. Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy on Tuesday introduced S. 4081 to eliminate the habeas corpus- stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act. The text of the bill is available in the Congressional Record and follows below.

The House of Representatives today rejected the Republican-sponsored bill that would have required notice to women getting abortions that the fetus might feel pain.

In the House, Republican leaders gave its anti-abortion base one final shot at abortion legislation before Democrats take over control of the agenda.

The House rejected a proposal that would have required abortion providers to inform women at least 20 weeks pregnant that abortions cause pain to the fetus. The vote was 250-162, short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate.

The bill defined a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child." That's a controversial threshold among scientists, who don't agree on whether a fetus at that stage of development feels pain or reflectively draws back from stimuli. Abortion has been legal in the United States since a 1973 Supreme Court ruling.

This article previews legislation, in addition to a minimum wage increase, that might be expected to make its way to the president's desk soon after Democrats take control of Congress. The list includes:

• Easing restrictions on travel to Cuba.
• Ending tax breaks for companies that set up offshore.
• Creation of a housing trust fund.
• Providing for the inspection of cargo and increased transportation security.

President Bush might play obstructionist with his veto pen, but that problem disappears in two years.

I know we're headed into a 1 week lame duck session of Congress, but this lame duck of a bill is just a stupid time waster.

The House has scheduled a vote on [NJ Rep. Christopher H.]Smith's fetal-pain bill, which, among other things, would require abortion providers to inform patients of the controversial assertion that the procedure may cause pain. Providers would also have to offer anesthesia for the fetus, which the patient would have to accept or reject in writing.

But GOP leaders put the measure on the fast track to passage, which means it will need the vote of two-thirds of the House. Even if the bill wins that much support, it will go nowhere in the Senate, Republicans concede.

Sen. Arlen Specter is still trying to pass a warrantless wiretapping bill. Happily, that looks like a no-go as well.

This is interesting:

Expecting the executive branch to obey the law and respect civil rights is "shortsighted," according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "Overreaching" is a good description of the president's asserted power to wiretap the conversations of American citizens on American soil without a warrant, but Gonzales accused a court of "overrreaching" when it declared the administration's warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional.

Gonzales and Cheney's attacks on the court order came as the administration was urging the lame-duck Congress to approve legislation authorizing the warrantless surveillance. The bill's chances are in doubt, however, because of Democratic opposition in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to end debate and vote.

Gonzales wouldn't "speculate" about the administration's response if Congress doesn't give the president the power he craves. Of course he wouldn't. He knows that the administration will continue the surveillance program with or without congressional approval -- and will probably ignore "overreaching" court decisions that attempt to stifle the president's lust for power.

Kudos to CT Senator Chris Dodd who will introduce the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006 (complete bill here, pdf) which would amend the Military Commissions Act to restore habeas corpus to detainees and bar evidence obtained through coercive techniques.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

The key provisions, received from his office, are set forth below.

Sen. Russ Feingold, writing at Huffpo, tells us to beware the lame duck Congressional session.

It would be a huge mistake to overlook the potential for damage in the lame duck session. A lame duck session doesn't sound like anything to worry about, but this lame duck may be a lot more dangerous than people think. We can expect Republicans to try to jam through as much of their agenda as they can while they have the chance.

The biggest threat: Bush's push to legalize his warrantless eavesdropping program.

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here's the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President's warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.

Other bills they will try to push through: tax cuts and trade policy.

Yesterday, NPR's "Morning Edition" took a non-celebratory look at the twentieth anniversary of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 -- the law that responded to mindless fear about crack cocaine by creating harsh mandatory minimum sentences for crack, and by irrationally designating crack as 100 times more evil than powder cocaine (i.e., a gram of crack gets the same sentence as 100 grams of powder). The story (about four minutes of listening time) quotes Eric Sterling, who helped write the law for the House Judiciary Committee, and who now speaks out (pdf) against the unfair sentences that the law compels.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission wants Congress to fix the crack-powder sentencing disparity (pdf). Even conservative Senator Jeff Sessions wants to implement a partial reform. The ACLU weighs in with this comprehensive report (pdf).

For driving the getaway car in a home burglary, Joshua Herrera was given a life sentence. Joshua didn't enter the home, but the punishment was harsh because Joshua, the prosecution said, was a gang member.

Joshua's mother, Rebecca Rivera, organized a protest march in San Jose yesterday. She joined with other Latinos who think the district attorney's office targets Latinos by seeking sentencing enhancements for gang membership.

Rivera questions why her son should have received such a tough sentence, considering he was going to college and had what she calls a clean record. And no one was killed in the 2003 event.

Even if Democrats win both the House and Senate in November, and even if they have the courage to repeal the odious Military Commissions Act, the president would veto the repeal. That leaves the judiciary to stand up for the Constitution. After years of being seeded by conservative jurists, will the courts be up to the task? Professor Erwin Chemerinsky's answer: don't count on it.

It is not hyperbole to say that this act is among the worst ever adopted in its disregard for the Constitution. ... What is troubling in looking back at history is that courts have generally failed to stand up to the political process when such clearly unconstitutional laws have been adopted.