How do you debate people who won't be honest? How is it possible to counter people who twist as much as they need to or even make things up to make their point, and won't stop repeating points they know are debunked but sound too good not to use?

Those of you saying the article is coming on too strong, or not addressing this or that, are completely missing the point. This denier organization claims it's point is backed by studies that in fact say the opposite. It's no different than House Republicans citing a study that says cap and trade will cost $3100/family when the author tells them directly it will cost a tenth of that -- yet they won't stop saying it. There's no other word for it but "lying".

And of course, if they're lying about what's in the studies they cite, then why should they believed at all?

There is however one point I would like to see addressed about costs --- and this is tangential to the article --- namely that pollution is an externalized cost. The costs of pollution, carbon other any other, are usually borne by someone other than the polluter, and seem nonexistent to the polluter. Making polluters pay doesn't create a new cost, but just shifts the cost back on the polluter where it belongs, rather than on the people living with the effects of the pollution.

Those of you getting angry at Obama might be assuming the choice is a commission or nothing. As the release of the senate report on the torture timeline shows, there are congressional investigations already, and there's a reasonable case that a commission would stop congressional efforts. There's also concern that a commission would have issue a watered down report in order to get cross-partisan consensus.

There are many who would prefer to skip non-prosecutorial investigations and get the prosecutors working right away, and legitimate opinion that starting now with prosecutions would stop all releases of evidence and cause those with knowledge of events or the investigation to avoid saying anything until the investigation was over, which could be a long time.

Obama has actually come a long way in stopping and exposing torture. There's more than one legitimate course of action possible from this point. We have to not only speak up about what makes sense, and not question the motives of those who prefer a different course of action (unless of course they advocate doing nothing), but make sure those willing to investigate, whether a commission, congressional investigation, or prosecution, that we support them. They'll need that since the beltway consensus says they should just let it go.

According to this article on Minn Post, the court chose Coleman's schedule instead of splitting the difference as widely predicted: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2009/04/24/8322/coleman-franken_appeal_june_1_is_supreme_court_%E2%80%98expedited%E2%80%99_hearing

I'm seeing this together with the presence of three Pawlenty appointees and the refusal of anyone, even Coleman donors, to recuse themselves. I'm also thinking of how it took them a month to say no to Franken's request for an expedited certificate during the election contest. The guess is a decision by July, and I'm concerned they'll twist themselves in knots to find some way to help Coleman.

Specter should have to do something besides stick a D after his name. He doesn't have to vote for EFCA, but he should at least promise to support cloture.

Frankly, same for other Democrats who won't support EFCA. Fine, vote your conscience or your state, but just allow a vote.

women ... oops, sorry, housewives... still mop the floor in high heels and nice dresses. The boys all have crew cuts. The only non-white people are on TV and named "Charlie Chan" or "Rochester". The white picket fences are perfectly whitewashed.

Has Scalia ever been to a small town? Or a big city? Or Earth?

If Obama had withdrawn opposition to the appeal, it would have been just a policy change instead of a legal precedent. It seems like this is a better result, as much as I want Obama to reverse the Bush position. We'll see if he's really the same as Bush if he obeys the court rulings he doesn't like. Bush just asserted new legal doctrines.

The wording sounds like ACORN could be prohibited from receiving funding for having employed individuals who committed the acts that got them indicted while doing the work they were hired to do. It's not clear to be sure, but I'd hardly want to leave it in there and take a chance.

What I don't understand it was was wrong with the rest of the committee. This was Bachmann: didn't they immediately suspect she was up to something? It's not like she does real legislation. I understand the Republicans letting it slip in. They're probably as delusional as her, just more quiet about it. But what were the Democrats thinking? Can they still not figure out that Republicans aren't acting in good faith?

If we're going to worry about discrimination because white males need not apply, how about age discrimination if no one over 50 need apply? I get the point aboutr long term legacies, but a 55-year-old will probably be on the court 20 years. Maybe htere's something to be said for life experience, especially when we look at these under-50 appointees who turn out to be bubble-bound ideologues.

To those of you complaining the article doesn't mention her qualifications, two points:

The article is clearly about politics and demographics.

The article clearly mentions she's on the court of appeals. That's pretty high up there. That's not an exhaustive list of qualifications certainly, but it's not nothing.