Not so fast. John Boehner is demanding a full ethics investigation – not of Eric Massa, he’s gone – but of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and how they handled the Massa mess.

If Democrats held us responsible for not acting sooner on Mark Foley, they say, then we should hold Democrats responsible for not acting sooner on Eric Massa.

Nonsense! This is pure political posturing.

First, even though he quit Congress, Massa’s not yet been found guilty of anything. Mark Foley admittedly was dating, hitting up on, and sending pornographic emails to House interns.

Second, House Republican leaders had been warned repeatedly and specifically about Foley’s sexually predatory activities, yet did nothing.

Yet, when someone from Massa’s office warned Steny Hoyer that the Congressman may have stepped over the line with male staffers, Hoyer told him immediately: You either report this to the Ethics Committee within 48 hours – or I will do it myself.

Warning received, action taken, problem solved. Just as it should be.

Republicans are wasting their time trying to keep the Eric Massa scandal alive. Democrats did the right thing. He’s dead. He’s gone. Not even Glenn Beck wants to talk about him anymore.

That’s my parting shot for today.

• Republicans are keeping the Eric Massa probe alive…why?
• Health Care: Go for one final push for the public option, or just pass the bill?
• Debunking Karl Rove’s book

Guests

• Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) will talk about the latest on health care reform moving forward
• Media Matters for America President Eric Burns joins Bill in studio to expose the lies in Karl Rove’s new book

Don’t Miss

• This Week’s Column: The Battle Between POTUS and SCROTUS
• Get a Bill Press Show Mug to go with Bill’s Brew!
• Purchase a podcast subscription and listen to the show anytime you want, on your computer, iPod, or .mp3 player!
• Follow the show on Twitter. Bill tweets live from the White House press briefings!
• The Bill Press Show on Facebook

Tribune Media Services

Poor John Roberts. His feelings are hurt. And he wants big bully Barack Obama to stop picking on him.

Poor John Roberts. Apparently, he’s been nursing a grudge ever since Jan. 27 when President Obama used his State of the Union address to single out the Supreme Court for criticism over its decision on corporate financing of political campaigns. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told assembled members of Congress. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

At which point, most members of Congress leapt to their feet in applause, while members of the court sat in stunned silence — except for Samuel Alito, who shook his head while muttering the words “Not true.” Well, at least he didn’t shout out: “You lie!”

At the time, Roberts did not say a word. But he seized the opportunity this week to fire back when speaking to the University of Alabama Law School. Responding to a student’s question, Roberts unloaded on Obama. While acknowledging that criticism of the court is fair game, he insisted that the State of the Union was neither the appropriate time nor place. “The image of having the members of one branch of government stand up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

The chief justice even went so far as to suggest that members of the court might stay home next year and watch the speech on television: “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.”

No sooner had his salvo hit the wires than the Obama White House, knowing a good fight when they see one, fired back. In a statement to reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ridiculed Roberts’ complaint: “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections — drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

And so the battle was joined between the president of the United States (POTUS) and the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) — or, as some have pointed out, between the president and Republican members of the court, also known as SCROTUS. It’s a battle John Roberts should never have started, because it’s a battle he’s sure to lose.

Even though members of the Supreme Court enjoy a lifetime appointment, they are not divine, nor perfect, and are certainly not immune to criticism. Ever since Thomas Jefferson tangled with John Marshall over the power of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, the court and sitting justices have been fair game for complaint. Conservatives never hesitate to condemn the court over Roe v. Wade. Why should liberals hesitate over campaign finance?

As for Roberts’ threat to boycott next year’s speech … who cares? In January 2000, not one member of the court showed up for Bill Clinton’s final State of the Union address — not even Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two members he had appointed. And their absence was scarcely noted by the media. Only the New York Times made note of the fact, under the headline: “Alas, Justices All Absent and No Truant Officers.”

If Roberts didn’t want any criticism of the court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, he should have thought twice before engineering such a dangerous body blow to American politics. As the case originally came before the court, it dealt only with funding for a long-forgotten 2008 campaign documentary. But Roberts insisted that the court, instead, review the entire sweep of campaign financing law. The result was the court’s absurd ruling that giant corporations, even foreign corporations, have the same free speech rights as average citizens — and are therefore free to donate unlimited funds to political candidates.

Citizens United is not only bad law, it’s a classic case of judicial activism for which John Roberts is singularly responsible — and which Congress is certain to overrule. In the meantime, Roberts should just sit down and shut up.

© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

On Monday, the #1 hate talker embraced former Congressman Eric Massa as his new best friend. The next day, he denounced him.

Also on Tuesday, Rush vowed that if Congress passed health care reform legislation, he would move to Costa Rica. The next day, he changed his mind again: saying he would only go to Costa Rica “to get major medical health care.”

Now, Rush is right about one thing. Costa Rica does, in fact, have the best health care available in any Latin American country. In fact, its health care system is rated as better than that of the United States, even though they spend far less per capita than we do.

And why is it so good? Because Costa Rica offers universal, government-run health care. The government owns several major public hospitals and operates small clinics in almost every community. Workers contribute 15% of their salaries to health insurance. And the unemployed obtain public funding for all health services, including prescription drugs.

Will miracles never cease? I’ve long been an advocate of a single-payer health care system. But I never thought Rush Limbaugh would endorse it, too.

That’s my parting shot for today.

• POTUS v. SCOTUS: Chief Justice John Roberts speaks out – is he right to say the State of the Union is nothing but a political pep rally?
• Bill attended yesterday’s Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit, where ending the filibuster was a hot topic
• Health Care: Should we not support the bill because the public option isn’t included?

Guests

• Politico Congressional Reporter Jonathan Allen will discuss the latest on health care from the Capitol
• Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) gives us his take on health care

Don’t Miss

• Bill’s Blog: Eric Massa — From My Hero to My Zero
• Get a Bill Press Show Mug to go with Bill’s Brew!
• Purchase a podcast subscription and listen to the show anytime you want, on your computer, iPod, or .mp3 player!
• Follow the show on Twitter. Bill tweets live from the White House press briefings!
• The Bill Press Show on Facebook

Overnight, he went from the person I believed about everything – to the person I believe about nothing.

Overnight, he went from the hero of liberals – to the darling of right-wingers.

Overnight, he went from the hope of the Democratic Party – to the man who’s trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

And overnight, he went from someone who was fighting to win – that’s why we loved him – to a man too eager to quit and walk away from a fight.

I just don’t get it. And I’ve never before seen a politician self-destruct so far, so fast.

Why did he quit? Who knows? He’s changed his story so many times, it’s hard to keep up with the latest version.

Was it because of the sexual harassment allegations? Maybe. But, if he’s as innocent as he says he is, that’s no reason to leave Congress.

Was it because of health? Again, maybe. But Dick Cheney had four heart attacks and still served eight years as vice-president.

One thing for sure: Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel didn’t force him out. Massa left on his own.

I’m going to miss the old Eric Massa. I hope the new Eric Massa gets the professional help he needs.

That’s my parting shot for today.

• Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) continues to go off the deep end, appearing on the Glenn Beck show
• Has Massa done damage to the Democrats and the health care bill?
• The health care bill as it is now – would you vote for it, or not?

Guests

• Lee Saunders, currently Executive Assistant to AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, will discuss yesterday’s rally against health insurance executives
• Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com will talk about his work against the Supreme Court’s corporate campaign finance decision. Check out his NEW website, democracy.us

Don’t Miss

• Bill’s Blog: The President’s Mistake on Terrorism
• Get a Bill Press Show Mug to go with Bill’s Brew!
• Purchase a podcast subscription and listen to the show anytime you want, on your computer, iPod, or .mp3 player!
• Follow the show on Twitter. Bill tweets live from the White House press briefings!
• The Bill Press Show on Facebook

At first, Attorney General Eric Holder announced they were going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court in lower Manhattan.

Which was absolutely the right thing to do. That’s where the first World Trade Center bombers were tried and convicted. Zacarias Moussaoui was also tried in federal court, in Alexandria. And Richard Reid, in Boston.

In fact, over the last nine years, hundreds of terrorism suspects have been tried in federal criminal court – and 88 percent of them have been convicted and are now in prison.

Over the same period, by contrast, only three suspects have been tried in military tribunals – and only one of them is behind bars.

But, even though he was only following procedures established by George Bush and Dick Cheney, Republicans accused Obama of being soft on terror.

And now, instead of sticking to his guns and doing what’s right, it looks like Obama’s caving in: taking the case out of New York City, out of criminal court, and into some secret military tribunal.

If so, again, he’s making a big mistake. These terrorists are not soldiers in any army. They don’t deserve the honor of a military tribunal.

That’s my parting shot for today.