New York Times:

On Thursday, James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed’s current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming “enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.”

[. . .] Mr. Bullard had been viewed as a centrist and associated with the camp that sees inflation, the Fed’s traditional enemy, as a greater threat than deflation. But with inflation now very low, about half of the Fed’s unofficial target of 2 percent, and with the European debt crisis having roiled the markets, even self-described inflation hawks like Mr. Bullard have gotten worried that growth has slowed so much that the economy is at risk of a dangerous cycle of falling prices and wages.

It may be late, but if the Fed is prepared to understand the dire straits of the economy, that is welcome news. Now, if only the Congress and the President could join the battle to save the economy.

Speaking for me only

Here is a winning strategy, calling folks who are disappointed with the Democrats stupid:

The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy

Jonathan Cohn

This seems totally nuts, purely on the merits. Obama and the Democrats passed a major stimulus that cut taxes for the middle class and invested heavily in public works. They saved the auto industry, created a new regulatory framework for the financial industry, and enacted comprehensive health care reform. Compromises watered down each of these initiatives, to say nothing of the ideas (climate change!) that aren’t going to pass. And still this was the most productive liberal presidency in a generation or maybe two. But liberal ambivalence isn't just foolish substantively. It's also foolish strategically.

(Emphasis supplied.) You know what is foolish strategy? Calling people you are trying to persuade foolish. Leave aside for a moment Cohn's thesis that if you do not agree with him about the Dems, you are stupid. Think about the "strategery" of attacking people you are trying to persuade as stupid.

First rule for Dems, do not hire Jon Cohn as a political consultant. That whole "the beatings will continue until morale improves" thing does not work in democracies. See also Kevin Drum.

Speaking for me only

It's a busy day here, so I don't have time to blog about Chelsea Clinton's Saturday wedding (congrats, Chelsea), the no-fly zone over it or Obama not being invited, or tonight's premiere of Season Two of Jersey Shore (no, I won't be watching), whether Ali picked Chris or Roberto or no one (yes, I'm still following the spoilers), or the invitation I received by e-mail to Charlie Rangel's August 11 birthday celebration. (Here's the invite, it's for everyone, and yesterday Rangel tweeted it will be a "go" and there's no deal yet on his ethics charges.)

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Chief Judge from the Northern District of Illinois, removed from a drug case in the middle of trial.

The Judge had excluded fingerprint evidence. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald took an immediate appeal and the 7th Circuit ordered Judge James Holderman removed and directed the Judges to assign someone else and keep the trial going.

The 7th Circuit gave no reason for the extraordinary action and said an opinion will be forthcoming. Here's what the order, called a "Final Order in Original Proceeding" says: [More...]

10:37 am MT: The jury in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert had a question for the judge this morning. They asked for a transcript of closing arguments. The judge told them closing arguments were not evidence and refused.

Rod Blagojevich tweeted an hour ago:

Thanks so much for the messages. I'm reading them and they are very much appreciated. Thanks for your belief in me.

One would hope that FBI agents are familiar with guidelines for conducting surveillance and opening files on people without evidence they have committed a crime. Apparently, that's in doubt. The Inspector General is investigating whether hundreds of FBI agents cheated on a test about the guidelines.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress on Wednesday that he does not know how many of his agents cheated on an important exam on the bureau's policies, an embarrassing revelation that raises questions about whether the FBI knows its own rules for conducting surveillance on Americans.

Even Mueller got tripped up on the rules today. [More...]

The House of Representatives has passed S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. It reduces the disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties from 100:1 to 18:1. It also eliminates the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and provides for higher sentencing guidelines for all drugs in some cases.

The bill, a compromise between Sen. Richard Durbin and Jeff Sessions, has already passed the Senate. It will now go to President Barack Obama for his signature. Here's a copy, as introduced in March, 2010.

What about retroactivity? The bill does not provide retroactive relief for those already serving long crack sentences. But I'm not seeing anything in the text prohibiting it, it seems to be silent on the issue. Does the silence mean the Sentencing Commission can decide to apply it to those already in prison? And would it?

The House Floor website says: [More...]

At page 27 of the decision (PDF), Judge Bolton makes a grievous error that needs to be appealed. It leaves a huge loophole for mischief:

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 also creates A.R.S. § 13-2929, which makes it illegal for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to: (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona. A.R.S. § 13-2929(A)(1)-(3). In order to violate A.R.S. § 13-2929(A), a person must also know or recklessly disregard the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States.Id. The United States asserts that this provision is preempted as an impermissible regulation of immigration and that the provision violates the dormant Commerce Clause. (Pl.’s Mot. at 44- 46.)18

[MORE . . ]

From the decision (PDF):

Finding a state law related to alien registration to be preempted, the Supreme Court in Hines observed that Congress “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system[] and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. [. . .T]he United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74.

[More . . .]

While their names won't be released until after a verdict, the media is turning its attention to the jurors about to decide the case of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert.

There are six men, six women. They include:

....a legal assistant, a public school math teacher, an avid marathon runner, two college students, a retired letter carrier and a man who was born in a California detention camp for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

17 jurors heard the case, but 5 will become alternates. The 12 with the lowest juror numbers will be the deciding jurors. More description below: [More...]

Team Blago today filed another motion for a mistrial (there have been several throughout the trial, all denied.) This one (available on PACER) is based on the limits placed on Sam Adam Jr.'s closing arguments:

Determinations of credibility and findings of fact are the province of the jury. Throughout the closing argument of Attorney Sam Adam, Jr., the government objected approximately three dozen times, with improper objections.

The court, in an apparent endorsement of the government in front of the jury, erroneously ruled on the government‟s improper objections, making findings of credibility and fact. This violated Rod Blagojevich rights to due process, a fair trial, effective assistance of counsel and the right to present a defense case, in contravention of the United States Constitution, Amendments 5 and 6.

[More...]

CNN:

A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

NYTimes:

The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. Judge Bolton put those sections on hold until the issues are resolved by the courts.

When I get the decision (PDF (site is swamped), I'll write a separate analysis. As regular readers know, I thought the preemption argument was a slam dunk. I wonder if the judge agreed.

A decision is expected to be handed down today at 3 EST in the AZ SB 1070 case. I'll write it up when it comes down.

This is an Open Thread.

Matt Yglesias:

[. . .] I wonder if Republican politicians are benefitting from a psychological anchor phenomenon around the fact that the media has adopted the conceit that there’s something called the “tea party movement” that’s distinct from the conservative base of the Republican Party. Voters seem to see themselves as about equidistant between Democrats and Tea Parties, which means they’re closer to Republicans than to Democrats. But it’s hard for me to think of important policy disputes between, say, John Boehner & Paul Ryan and tea party leaders.

Someone told me at Netroots Nation that in her opinion the group she works for had made a mistake in not diverting some funding away from HCAN and toward single-payer groups precisely in order to create this sort of anchor.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's sort of been my argument since 2007. I hoped that the Progressive Blogosphere could have been that Left Flank anchor, pulling the debate to the progressive side. Unfortunately, much of the progressive blogosphere decided that it was more important to denounce an independent Left Flank (Firebaggers anyone?) and to cheerlead the Democratic Party. This was a big mistake. Long story short, Yglesias' post is quite compelling.

The House of Representatives today passed the Crime Commission bill, now known as H.R. 5143, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010 (originally the idea of Sen. Jim Webb.) Despite the praise by progressive groups for the creation of a bi-partisan committee to spend 18 months studying what's wrong with our criminal justice system, I remain unimpressed.

We don't need an 18 month moratorium on the passage of much needed crime bills that have been languishing for months and years, like bills to equalize the penalties for crack and powder cocaine (unlikely to happen at all now that the House is set to vote to make them 18:1 instead of 100:1 with the reduction being prospective only, doing nothing for the thousands already sentenced), bills to reduce or eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, or increase federal good time. Or even a bill to reduce the draconian child p*rn guidelines. It will be just more "hurry up and wait."[More...]