The Senate in action today. Dream Act has failed on the cloture vote. DADT is succeeds on cloture vote. Passage of DADT Repeal is now virtually assured.

By a vote of 250 to 175, the House of Representatives today passed a stand-alone bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). The bill now goes to the Senate.

While the initial repeal measure failed in the Senate, Democrats are now confident they can find 60 votes there to pass this standalone bill. The party is working against time, however. Before they take up the "don't ask" repeal, Senate Democrats are committed to taking up other significant issues, like the ratification of a nuclear treaty with Russia and a government-funding bill. The Senate is attempting to take up all of these matters before breaking for Christmas recess.

Update: It looks like the deal will pass.

The House Democratic Caucus has voted to reject President Obama's compromise tax deal.

While this doesn’t necessarily scuttle the whole tax deal, it is “highly unlikely” that the tax-cut agreement will come to the floor as is, according to senior Democratic aides. A tax compromise could still pass if an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it alongside several dozen Democrats.

The White House responds:

“The House and Senate are working through the normal process of bringing a bill forward, and we are confident that the major components of the tax framework that we fought for will remain in the final package brought to the floor and ultimately passed by Congress,”

The Senate is proceeding to consider the bill this afternoon.

The Dream Act has passed the House, by a vote of 216-198. The bill will help immigrant students and servicemembers. It go to the Senate tomorrow, where it faces uncertain odds. What does it mean?

Tn brief, the DREAM Act would enable some immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S. to apply for temporary legal status and to eventually obtain permanent status and become eligible for U.S. citizenship if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military.

Sen. Michael Bennet:

Support for the DREAM Act is not only a matter of conscience for me since it’s the right thing to do; it’s also a practical solution. Continue delay is an irresponsible waste.

“We owe it to the tax payers who have invested in these youth, the teachers who have fostered their development and our military who can benefit from the energy of these youth to move forward on the DREAM Act. ”

Update: The Women’s Marijuana Movement and Just Say Now today launched an online phone banking tool for women marijuana activists from across the country to place phone calls to women voters in California, a key demographic to turn out for Proposition 19.

"If Prop 19 is going to pass in California, it needs the votes of women and mothers,” said Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney and board member of Just Say Now. “Prop 19 is the safe, smart choice for California communities. Thanks to this new organizing tool, women marijuana activists can speak directly with women voters in California about the benefits of Prop 19 and get out the vote. This is a great way to empower women voters and let them know their votes not only count, but can make a real difference on a critical issue facing California communities.”

Original Post:

Jane at Firedoglake reports the Just Say Now phone bank operation (sign up here) is experiencing something unique: voters love getting the calls. [More...]

Let's assume for the moment that there is in fact, nothing malign about the suspicious circumstances by which the Congress passed the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act. The effects of the legislation would be, in my view, to further erode the due process afforded homeowners in foreclosure proceedings. The use of the ambiguous term "recognize" could, and in my opinion, will, be used to further deprive homeowners of due process - perhaps leading to the blanket acceptance of notarized documents without the opportunity to rebut or impeach them. Let me give you an example of unintended consequences. In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (PDF), which heightened pleading requirements in the antitrust context, writing for the Court, Justice Souter stated:

The Interstate Recgnition of Notarizations Act would require state and federal courts to:

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located[.]

What does "recognize" mean in this legislation? In terms of admissibility, most trial lawyers are familiar with the concept of the exception to the hearsay rule for public records and the concept of judicial notice. Is this what the term is intended to mean? Are notarized documents now to be viewed as "public records?" Because they aren't. Notary publics are not public officials and the documents they notarize are not public records. The problems that recent events have demonstrated are that, in fact, notarized documents in foreclosure proceedings are very unreliable. Recent events actually point to a policy that should exclude notarized documents from eligibility for such a presumption. More . .

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that reduces the offense of possession of up to one ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, like a traffic ticket. The penalty has not changed -- both the misdemeanor and the petty offense carried a $100.fine. The Governor, who opposes Prop 19, said:

I am signing Senate Bill 1449. This bill changes the crime of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable only by a $100 fine to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Under existing law, jail time cannot be imposed, probation cannot be ordered, nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime.

I am opposed to decriminalizing the possession and recreational use of marijuana and oppose Proposition 19, which is on the November ballot.

So what's the difference? According to the Governor:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed 21 bills into law yesterday. Some were good for liberty, some were bad.

The good: Incapacitated prisoners will now be eligible for medical parole. Savings to California: $46 million.

The bad: He scaled back the early release of prisoners in county jails by cutting good time for misdemeanors from 50% to 33%.

On drunk driving: He signed a bill that lengthens the time a driver's license is revoked for a third DUI from 3 years to 10 years. It takes effect in 2012. [More...]

There is no social security crisis. Tell Congress not to make changes.

Alan Simpson (R-WY), the Republican co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and other commission members want to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, and push working Americans into private accounts.

Via MoveOn: The Top Five Social Security Myths: [More...]

The first wave of health insurance changes take effect today. Which ones?

• No denial of children based on pre-existing conditions
• No more lifetime benefit limits
• No canceling policies of very sick and benefit-needy peoplefor technical errors on their application
• Coverage of kids up to age 26 on their parent policies
• No co-pays on some preventive procedures, including colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations
• Allowing those on new plans to keep their own doctors and to appeal reimbursement decisions to a third party.

One area of immediate concern: In many states, insurance companies will stop offering child-only policies immeidately. "Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Cigna Corp., are among the companies that plan to halt all or part of their child-only policy sales." More here.

Here's the new White House website explaining the law, the changes and the benefits.

Update: Peter G in comments below reports thee bill was pulled from the calendar last night and is headed to the Judiciary Committee.

Via Drug Policy Alliance, the House is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a sneaky and misleading bill, courtesy of your drug warriors in Congress.

The bill is the "Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2010 (H.R. 5231)." It's the lame-brain idea of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the only congressperson to speak out in opposition to to reforming the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

Why is it misleading? Because it doesn't just apply to traffickers, but also to those who simply possess drugs. More from Drug Policy Alliance:

Even though this bill references drug trafficking in the title, it also criminalizes conspiring to possess and use marijuana or other drugs in other countries if more than one person is involved - even if drug use is decriminalized in that country. Thus, it imposes America’s harsh drug policies on other countries, and further criminalizes a health issue. The bill’s title is very misleading.

Here's the full text of the bill. Why is this bill even coming to a vote? It has It has one cosponsor (Adam Schiff, CA) and was never considered in committee. [More...]