Stop me if you've heard this before: the next issue to go before the legislature is going to start a big, possibly bruising and long-lasting fight. Republicans have floated the possibility of a filibuster, asking for "fair" hearings and representation of the American people. Democrats are trying to avoid saying anything that will muddy the debate, while privately wishing they had any idea of what is going on at the White House.

Sound familiar? Well, the issue changed, much to the chagrin of anyone who had something lined up in Congress (energy, immigration, financial reform, etc.), back to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

On Friday, after much speculation, longtime Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from his seat, effective at the end of this session. He said that he does so in order to give time for a replacement to be appointed before the beginning of the next session.

You could almost feel the focus instantaneously shift from whatever else was going on, to this. Immediately, the appointment of a new justice took precedence. That is not to say that Congress is incapable of accomplishing more than one thing at a time, but we've seen no evidence of that so far.

Justice Stevens is what they call a "liberal lion". He is the far left of the court, though if you asked him, he'd say he hasn't always been. In fact, when he was appointed, Stevens was quite the moderate and he'll tell you that he didn't change, the court did.

This is a man from a different era. David Brooks just told the story about how Stevens was sitting in Wrigley Field when Babe Ruth called his shot. That was a long time ago folks. He turns 90 soon. He is one of the longest serving members in the history of the court, having now taken his seat in five decades.

(Side note about longevity: I heard last night that Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer started his big league career in June 1986. Not only does that make his career one of few in history that have pitched in four decades, it makes his career older than me. Yeah.)

The questions will persist as to whether the president will nominate someone with a progressive background. Or will he look for someone outside of the establishment (the Yale, Harvard fraternity), as many see likely. No matter what, this will be long and drawn out. In the long run it will seriously test Congress. There are no less than three extremely important issues demanding time right now. Will they be brushed to the side by this one-thing-at-a-time legislature?

One thing can probably go without saying, but better be made clear: there will be no replacing John Paul Stevens. He is in remarkable shape for a 90 year old. He was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate. Thinking of the scope of decisions he has been apart of since being seated in 1975, he has had as much of an affect of on law today as anyone.

Now his retirement may, finally, be the thing that shapes the midterm elections in November.

--

Couple of other notess:

- Sadly, on Friday night, search and rescue teams in West Virginia found the bodies of the remaining four miners still missing in that deadly mine blast.

- In a somewhat surreal, and devastating accident (that I haven't really absorbed the scope of yet), the president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, was killed in a plane crash Saturday morning, along with 96 other dignitaries. It really is hard to grasp the enormity of the situation, the death of the president of a country in a plane crash. Seems like the definition of sudden.

- God will no longer be able to watch "His team" through the hole in the roof of Texas Stadium. It was imploded this morning.

Have a great Sunday and God Bless.

Just another reason I cannot watch MSNBC: Upon watching live as Puxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, declaring six more weeks of winter to this country that can't seem to find its way out of the dark (except you, Seattle), the anchors proceeded to joke that the Republicans were blaming Barack Obama.

Yeah, and George W. Bush moved the sun during his presidency, ensuring that Phil would always see the darkness.

What happened to good journalism? Like my favorite columnist, Steve Rushin.

UPDATE: So I actually wrote a really lengthy post about the SCOTUS ruling this morning that somehow was not posted (probably my fault), but also wasn't auto-saved (not my fault). As a result, it's gone. And I'm not re-writing it.

What I will do is post this video, by LCV's General Counsel, who explained the ramifications pretty well.


Then I'll say this: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $123 million on lobbying last year, a number one would use to gauge how much they may now spend on campaigning. What kind of ads should we expect to see? Well, MoveOn.org gave us a good example yesterday. An actually candidate would never endorse that, ever. Which they wouldn't have to now.

I really am not sure how I feel about this. This is a good definition of the "individualism" of a corporation:

"Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter."

Yes, they are allowed to vote. And yes, they earned the money they are using to run these IECs. Whether that money could be used better is irrelevant - so could my paycheck.

The question here really is, is money speech? Well, if it's your money, who's to tell you it isn't? If Benton Strong wanted to run an IEC, he could. So why can't Kraft? Or ExxonMobil? Here's the thing: lobbying already was basically unlimited and that is where the politics happens. Sure, Democrats will probably never win another race where oil and gas is involved. But, maybe you didn't notice, Mary Landrieu was never going to vote for clean energy anyway. If she had ever considered it, there would be 15 lobbyists in her office. They may hold a little more sway, simply because they can protect members better, but let's not forget that labor unions have pretty good lobbyists and lots of money too. I honestly think that the biggest fallout might be the inability to watch television because of these new ads.

That may not be such a bad thing.

One note that is worth mentioning is something I remember reading recently. In David McCullough's biography of John Adams, he makes the statesman's opinion on aristocracy extremely clear - he was strongly against it. I think he'd be against this too, because it gives extremely rich companies, run by extremely rich people, a lot of power. News flash: they had it anyway. When was the last time you sent a personal lobbyist to Washington? Never.

And second, Alan Grayson of Florida called this ruling the, "worst since Dred Scott." That definitely isn't true, at least not in the scope he is using. What it is, however, is judicial activism, a central theme in the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation. That said, it isn't changing. Not right now at least. Corporations are just like people.

Like I said, try turning off the television.