Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed his intention to end production of the F-22 fighter jet, an expensive weapons system that has not flown a single mission in either the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. The defense contractor Lockheed Martin had been pouring money into a “publicity campaign” and engaging in “congressional lobbying efforts” to maintain funding for the F-22. But, it appears Lockheed is now conceding that the days of the F-22 are numbered:

[Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce] Tanner said Lockheed tried to fight for continuation of the F-22 program, but indicated the company had all but given up.

“We’ve had our chance to lobby this matter, we think we’ve had a full hearing of that discussion and we’re disappointed by the decisions, but we’ll accept those and go on,” he said.

Lockheed anticipates that many of the jobs associated with the F-22 production will now be channeled into the production of the the cargo plane C-130J program. While Lockheed is backing down, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) “said he wasn’t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program’s future doesn’t look bright.”

Yesterday on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe announced that he intended to filibuster Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Inhofe’s announcement comes nearly three weeks after the Republican membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted Hamilton’s hearing claiming that “they had not been given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.” Inhofe’s filibuster is surprising given the fact that Hamilton is generally viewed as representing “some of [Indiana's] traditionally moderate strain.”

Inhofe does not appear to have explained his decision to filibuster in front of his colleagues on the floor of the Senate. But in statements that he entered into the Congressional Record, Inhofe cited a 2005 ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosman in which Hamilton found that the Indiana House of Representatives may open proceedings with “non-sectarian prayers” only. Inhofe called it “insane” that the ruling would allow payers to invoke the name of “Allah” but not “Jesus”:

INHOFE: Further, ruling on a postjudgment motion, Hamilton stated that invoking the name of “Allah” would not advance a particular religion or disparage another. So, praying to Allah would be perfectly acceptable. [...]

I find this line of reasoning to be insane. Who in this body would not identify the name of “Allah” with the religion of Islam any less than they would identify the name of Jesus with Christianity?

But as Overruled notes, Hamilton’s ruling was not particularly novel. Rather, Hamilton was upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, which “held that legislatures can open their session with a non-sectarian prayer, and that such a prayer could invoke ‘God,’” as long as the prayer was not meant to “proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”

Hamilton found that “sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers took the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers.” As Hamilton explained in a post-judgment ruling, “‘Allah’ is used for ‘God’ in Arabic” and as such should be permitted:

The Arabic word “Allah” is used for “God” in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language’s terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others.

If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.

Additionally, Inhofe’s vow to filibuster is surprising given his previous insistence that filibustering judicial nominees is “not only an illegitimate use of a senator’s power, but is also literally unconstitutional.” As Steve Benen notes, in 2003, “Inhofe went so far as to say any senator who would dare filibuster a judicial nominee would necessarily be violating their oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution.’”

In the past week, at least three scientists have come out and objected to their work on sleep deprivation being used by the CIA and Justice Department to justify torture. In one of his 2005 memos, the OLC’s Steven Bradbury said that sleep deprivation causes “at most only relatively moderate decreases in pain tolerance.” But one of the scholars, Dr. Bernd Kundermann from the University of Marburg, pointed out that that he was “working with healthy volunteers and didn’t deprive them of sleep for more than one day without allowing them to recover.” Similarly, from Dr. S. Hakki Onen from the Hôpital Gériatrique A. Charial:

“[The study subjects] were distracted from sleeplessness by playing different games, or watching soccer matches. They could eat, drink, read, and move about as they wished. [From] the American documents we learn that sleep deprivation spanned from 70 to 120 hours — and set maximum limits of 180 hours for the hardest resisters, which is over a full week without sleep,” Onen said. “In other words, they discuss starting the sleep deprivation process at nearly double the maximum we set for ethical reasons.”

Onen compared the CIA’s use of his study results to the overdosing of medication. “In a manner, it’s like giving a drug to a patient: if you administer it in small doses for therapeutic reasons, it helps them. If you give it in huge volumes, it becomes toxic — and can even kill them,” he said.

As Onen notes, the Justice Department determined that “the maximum allowable period of sleep deprivation allowed under the CIA interrogation program was 264 hours, though no detainee was actually deprived of sleep for more than 180 hours, or seven and a half days.”

Building Blocks toward Global Climate Action

In a New York Post interview published yesterday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani sharply criticized the push to legalize same-sex marriage in New York state:

“This will create a grass-roots movement. This is the kind of issue that, in many ways, is somewhat beyond politics,” said Giuliani, a two-term mayor who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination last year. [...]

“Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman,” said Giuliani, who has been married three times.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stood by Paterson’s side when the governor made his announcement about the marriage equality legislation on April 16. Today, ThinkProgress sat down with the mayor and asked him to respond to his predecessor’s comments:

BLOOMBERG: You know, Rudy has a right to his views. I think the polls say that — there’s a new poll out today that says a majority of New Yorkers are in favor of same-sex marriage.

My personal view — and I’ve had this for as long as I’ve thought about the issue — is that it’s not the government’s business who you love and who you marry. And I don’t think that it stands anybody in good interest to have the government involved. … I do think that the more you believe in something, the more important it is to you that the government stay out of these social issues.

Watch it:

A Siena poll released yesterday finds that by a margin of 53 to 39 percent, New Yorkers “believe the Senate should pass marriage-equality legislation introduced last week by Gov. David A. Paterson.” The state Assembly has already gone on record supporting a similar measured introduced by then-governor Eliot Spitzer in 2007, but in the state Senate, several Republicans will have to switch sides in order for the measure to pass.