This afternoon, as the House considers the Defense Authorization Bill of 2010, Republicans took to the floor to condemn a single amendment that would repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. Under the proposal, Congress would repeal the statute this year, but the current military policy would remain in place until President Obama, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal is “consistent with the military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention” and Congress and the public had 60 days to review the study.

In an orchestrated manner, almost every single House Republican took to the floor to condemn the proposal, misrepresenting it as an immediate repeal that does not allow the Defense Department to complete its study. In the midst of considering other amendments, Republicans turned the discussion into an opportunity to condemn gays in the military:

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “If someone has to be overt about their sexuality, whether it’s in a bunker where they’re confined under fire, then it’s a problem. And that’s what repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does. It says, ‘I have to be overt, I don’t care. I want this to be a social experiment.”

REP: TODD AKIN (R-MI): “So are we then going to then protect and condone homosexuality in the military?…Is this the sort of thing that George Washington or our founders would be proud of, that we are doing today in this quick flash before Memorial Day?”

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): “We’re going to say, ‘No. We don’t care what you say. You can die for us on the battlefield, but you have no input into this process.’ That’s a disgrace to this institution and it’s an insult to the men and women who pour out their blood on foreign battlefields for the country that we all love so much.”

Watch it:

In the Senate, Armed Services Republicans threatened to filibuster the defense authorization bill “if it comes to the floor with Democrat-backed language repealing DADT.” “I’ll do everything in my power,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) agreed, promising to support a filibuster “if the repeal language makes it into the version of the bill that goes to the floor, most likely after the Memorial Day recess.”

As Democrats tie up the votes to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Republicans and right-wing conservative organizations are growing increasing unhinged. House Republicans are “preparing to mount a vigorous defense” of the policy, Sen. John McCain is threatening a filibuster, and right-wing Christian groups are pressuring conservative lawmakers to toe the party line.

The American Family Association’s (AFA) homophobic Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, Bryan Fischer, claimed this week that not only was Adolf Hitler gay, but all his “Brownshirts” were too. “And Hitler discovered…that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after,” he said. Similarly, a group called America’s Survival sent out an email titled, “Disease-tainted Gay Blood Threatens Our Troops!,” warning that “A vote to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy would inevitably mean more disease and death for members of our Armed Forces.”

Yesterday, the Family Research Council released a new report claiming that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would lead to more instances of sexual rape and abuse, particularly instances in which “the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim” while he’s intoxicated:

And this atmosphere of political correctness…will give us a situation where victims might be less likely to report homosexual assaults and commanders might be less likely to vigorously punish them for fear of appearing discriminatory or homophobic…If there was ambiguity as to whether the case was consensual or none consensual, as to whether it was a criminal act then they would be less likely to report. As pointed out, in a number of these cases, the victims were sleeping or intoxicated. Under those circumstances, their memory bank may be clouded and…so the evidence may not be strong enough to stand up in a court martial.

On a conference call with reporters, the organization tried to dismiss inquiries about why these problems don’t plague foreign militaries that allow openly gay members to serve and downplayed the significance of the 14,000 troops discharged under DADT:

Listen to highlights:

If these arguments sound familiar, it’s because they are. As Nathaniel Frank writes in the seminal study of the 1993 DADT debate — Unfriendly Fire — conservative groups regularly argued that “forcing the acceptance of gays in the military meant victimizing the nation’s upright and moral sons and daughters,” spread disease among the forces and even force “military base magazine suppliers” to “carry homosexual pornography.” One study even closely mirrored FRC’s release. It concluded “that the sex crime rate of gay service members was higher than the army’s overall crime rate.” “The study was so biased — it never even bothered to look at rates of heterosexual misconduct, giving it no basis to compare sex crimes of gays and straights — that the army launched an investigation into the release of the data,” Frank writes.

Earlier this month, Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin (D-MI) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates clarifying the purpose of the year-long Defense Department review of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. “Is the purpose of this comprehensive review to determine ‘whether’ to repeal the statute or is it to assess the issue related to ‘how’ to implement a repeal of the statute?” Levin asked. Gates responded that there was broad agreement that DADT should be repealed — “The question before us,” Gates said, referring to his February 2nd testimony, “is not whether the military prepares to make this change but how we … best prepare for it.” In his response to Levin, Gates said that in accordance with his testimony, the working group is charged with assessing the impact of ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law and “developing a plan to implement such a repeal in the most informed and effective manner possible.” “The outcome of this review is also intended to fully inform both Presidential and Congressional decision making to ensure a change in this law properly and fully addresses the various and complex considerations involved,” he wrote.

Yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen reiterated his support for ending the policy through the delayed-implementation compromise developed by repeal advocates, Congress, and the White House, but said that repealing DADT was still an open question:

After reviewing results of the study, Mullen, the service chiefs and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide their recommendations to President Barack Obama. “So having that information will inform me and our leaders about what our recommendations will be,” he said.

Mullen called the “certification trigger” provided in the proposed amendment critical.

“The language in there right now preserves my prerogative – and I believe, my responsibility – to give the best military advice,” he said. “That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change, even if the law were to repeal it,” he told a reporter following the session.

Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) amendment, however, suggests that both the study group and the “trigger” already assume that the policy will be repealed. For instance, the amendment states that the study group will “determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion… that may result from the repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts.” The group is tasked with determining “leadership, guidance, and training…appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations….appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

The President, Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs will then review these recommendations (which seek to ensure that a repeal does not undermine military effectiveness) and certify that “the implementation of necessary policies and regulations” pursuant to the repeal are “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”

Mullen himself has publicly and privately assured lawmakers that he believes the policy should be repealed. As Murphy told me yesterday, “I take both Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen at their word and that they both have articulated the need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place,” Murphy told me.

Last year, when Justice Sotomayor was about to begin her confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) took to the Senate floor to warn that, if confirmed, Sotomayor would replace American law with some kind of new world order:

The novel idea that foreign law has a place in the interpretation of American law creates numerous dangers. A number of academics, and even Federal judges, I would say, are seduced by this idea.

Judge Sotomayor clearly shares in that idea. I am somewhat surprised, but it is true, as I will discuss. Her vision seems to be that we should change our laws, or listen to other laws and judges, and sort of merge them with this foreign law.

Sotomayor has been a justice for almost a full Supreme Court term now, and she has somehow resisted the urge to transform America into France.  Nevertheless, the right-wing is already reviving Sessions’ silly conspiracy theory to attack the President’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, for example, the conservative Washington Times, claimed that a curriculum change Kagan presided over while Dean of Harvard Law School somehow reflects contempt for American law.  According to their editorial, “under Ms. Kagan’s leadership . . . Harvard dropped constitutional law as a required course for graduation, while adding a requirement for a course in ‘International/Comparative Law.’”  Such a “de-emphasis on the Constitution itself” the editorial claims, predicts that a Justice Kagan would join with Justice Sotomayor to make all of Sessions’ foreign law nightmares come truly.

There’s only one problem:  the Washington Times got its facts wrong.  As Media Matters points out, Kagan did not “replace con-law with international law.”  Constitutional Law has never been a graduation requirement for Harvard law students in the first place.

Under Kagan’s leadership, Harvard law did add two new courses to its first year curriculum, but these changes were unanimously approved by the Harvard faculty, including conservatives such as former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried.  Moreover, the new course in international and comparative  law was not added as part of some grand conspiracy, but rather in recognition of the fact that many Harvard graduates went on to represent clients with legal issues that cross international borders.   To quote Harvard, a new curriculum was needed to “better prepare our students to enter the current market.”

Right-wing columnist Stuart Taylor also jumps into the conspiracy-mongering about Kagan and foreign law.  Taylor’s evidence that Kagan is somehow outside of the mainstream is a speech she once gave praising former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, the legendary jurist who first held that Israeli courts may strike down an act of Israel’s Knesset when it conflicts with the human rights protected by Israel’s “Basic Laws.” In Taylor’s words, Justice Barak is known for “creativity in advancing liberal causes by overturning elected officials’ policies makes Marshall look almost like a champion of judicial restraint,” and Kagan’s praise of Barak somehow warns that she will try to make America more like Barak’s Israel.

Taylor’s attack, however, might come as a surprise to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.  Scalia recently spoke at an awards ceremony honoring Barak, where he touted his “profound respect for the man, one that trumped their fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements.”  Yet for all his praise of Israel’s most famous progressive jurist, Justice Scalia is hardly known for his “creativity in advancing liberal causes.”

The bottom line is this: conservatives have no case against Elena Kagan, so they’ve resorted to recycling old attacks that didn’t even work the last time around.  Sadly, they can’t even get their facts straight while dig through long-forgotten garbage.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who at one point said that he would re-evaluate his support for the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy if military leaders like Colin Powell called for its repeal — told Roll Call that he would “without a doubt” support a filibuster of the entire defense authorization bill if Democrats successfully attached an amendment repealing the ban on open gay and lesbian military service. “I’ll do everything in my power,” McCain said. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.”

Well now, sources close to the Senate Armed Services Committee are telling me that McCain has asked Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) that the vote on DADT repeal be in “open session.” Levin agreed and has said that the vote will occur sometime after lunch.

While some may interpret this as a ‘nod to transparency’, I expect McCain will use the time to grand stand on the issue and burnish his conservative credentials in light of his tough re-election race against J.D. Hayworth. Expect him to misrepresent the repeal compromise — which actually allows the Defense Department to complete its study before any repeal occurs and now has a 60-day cushion of review — and tout the letters of dissent he received yesterday from several service chiefs.

With the support of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), repeal advocates believe they have enough votes (16) to attach repeal to the defense authorization bill.