Two years after Senate Republicans defeated the bipartisan DREAM Act by claiming that Congress must “secure the borders first,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) floated the idea of introducing a GOP alternative to DREAM. Rubio spent three months talking up the concept on cable news, but failed to offer a bill before President Obama announced an administrative directive to protect DREAM Act-eligible students from deportation.

In unveiling the initiative on Friday, Obama cited Congress’ inability to “fix our broken immigration system” as a reason for issuing the Department of Homeland Security directive. What he didn’t expect, however, is that Republicans would respond to the news by reinforcing his message and abandoning their reform efforts.

Republicans accused Obama of politicizing immigration and the party’s new spokesperson on the issue announced that he is closing shop on any efforts to tackle the immigration question. Rubio told the Wall Street Journal on Monday that he thinks Obama’s announcement “sets back our efforts to arrive at a balanced and responsible approach to this issue. It poisons the well. It leads to mistrust.”

But the truth is that Republicans had never seriously considered comprehensive immigration reform or any new solutions for helping young people stay in the country:

– House Judiciary Committee Chairman Refused To Hold DREAM Act Hearing: Even if Rubio had introduced a bill and if the Senate had approved it, a version of the DREAM Act would have immediately stalled in the House because of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). The congressman chairs the Judiciary Committee and said he would not hold a hearing on the DREAM Act, which he called an “American nightmare.”

– Original Republican Sponsor Of DREAM Act Didn’t Vote For It In 2010: In 2003, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sponsored the DREAM Act when it was first introduced. But when the Senate voted on a more conservative version of the bill in 2010, Hatch skipped the vote and dismissed it as a “cynical exercise in political charades” by Senate Democrats.

– Republican Claimed Democrats Used DREAM Act To Make Republicans ‘Look Bad’: After 41 mostly Republican senators stopped the DREAM Act from passing in 2010, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claimed that Democrats had pushed the DREAM Act to hurt the GOP’s reputation among Latinos. The bill “passed without the ability to amend to try to make Republicans look bad with Hispanics,” he said. But Graham ignored the number of Republican senators from Latino-heavy states who previously supported the DREAM Act and voted against in 2010, and he failed to mention his own floor comments telling young undocumented immigrants who visited his office that they were “wasting their time.”

Republicans can claim that President Obama went around Congress to give protection to undocumented students, but it was the failure of congressional Republicans that forced him to act.

As ThinkProgress previously reported, Abdul Awkal is a severely mentally ill Ohio inmate who believes that he advises the CIA and President Obama on anti-terrorism policy and that he is set to be executed because the “CIA wanted him dead.” Although Awkal was originally scheduled to be executed on June 6, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) granted him a two week reprieve earlier this month so that state courts would have sufficient time to determine whether Awkal could not constitutionally be put to death due to his mental incapacity. On Friday, that court held that executing Awkal would indeed be unconstitutional:

All the experts who testified agree that Abdul Awkal suffers from a severe mental illness: schizoaffective disorder, depressive type–a form of psychosis. This diagnosis was supported by the defendant’s repeated statements, made in various contexts and over more than a decade, claiming that he had provided information to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the White House, and the presidential campaign of John Kerry and John Edwards, offering advice as to the conduct of the fight against Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaeda and the prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he would receive coded replies via news articles in U.S.A. Today and other media sources. All the experts further noted a depressive component to that diagnosis. . . .

Based upon an exhaustive review of all the evidence before it, including the evaluations of five acknowledged expert mental-health professionals, the Court is forced to conclude that, as a result of severe and persistent mental disease (schizoaffective disorder, depressive type), Abdul Awkal presently lacks the capacity to form a rational understanding as to the reason the state intends to execute him on June 20, 2012. Accordingly, . . . Abdul Awkal may not be executed unless and until he has been restored to competency.

Despite this order, Awkal could still be killed should he eventually become more lucid. Indeed, the order suggests that he could possibly be “subjected to forced medication for the purpose of restoring him to competency to be executed.” Moreover, it concludes that Awkal’s execution will not be stayed until after the state supreme court signs off on a stay — although the state is not opposing Awkal’s request for the state supremes to do so.

There’s no good reason why Awkal should be thrust into this kind of limbo. The Constitution forbids executions of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded because diminished mental capacity makes it harder for an offender “to understand and process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses—that also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information.” The same rationale should also apply to people like Abdul Awkal.

Conservative officials are disenfranchising voters across the country through voter ID laws that could prevent up to 3 million voters from casting a ballot and Florida’s voter purge that continues even though Justice Department officials say it is illegal. Now another state is stopping voters by not providing voter registration information.

According to national voting rights and civil rights groups, Alabama agencies are failing to follow a federal law requiring that state offices provide voter registration materials to residents who seek government assistance.The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 states that all applicants for public assistance must be given voter registration applications, but a coalition including Demos, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Project Vote said their investigation and interviews found that state Department of Human Resources (DHR) and Medicaid offices are not complying with this law.

A DHR spokeswoman said it was the department’s policy to provide voter registration, but in a letter to Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman (R), the coalition outlines how this policy is not being followed:

“According to U.S. Election Assistance Commission data, the number of voter registration applications submitted at Alabama public assistance offices decreased by more than 75 percent from its peak in 1995-1996 to the most recent reporting period of 2009-2010,” the group wrote in its letter to Chapman.

“This drop in voter registrations is particularly significant given that the number of initial food stamp applications in Alabama during the same time frame increased by 60 percent.”

The letter also describes visits to DHR offices in 20 counties by investigators who found half the offices did not have applications available and could not provide them when requested. Three-quarters of the offices provided information only when clients asked. In one case an investigator was told to go to the courthouse to register and another office told an investigator it hadn’t done voter registration in seven to 10 years.

The groups asked Chapman to explain how the state would fix this problem and comply with federal law. If a plan has not been developed in 90 days, they say they will sue the state.

When President Obama announced on Friday relief from deportation for undocumented people who came to the country as children, he noted, “They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants, and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license or a college scholarship.”

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) disagrees. During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point this morning, Farenthold told Soledad O’Brien that he believes that 16-year-old kids can make their own decisions about immigrating to the United States, claiming that his own 16-year-old daughter argues about “pretty much everything the family wants to do”:

FARENTHOLD: Well, you are also talking about people that came over at 16 years of age. At that point, you had a say in it, and that looks kind of more like amnesty. [...]

OBRIEN: You think a 16 year old whose parents are coming across the border has a say in whether or not they’re just going to stay behind in their country?

FARENTHOLD: They’re certainly in a position to have a conversation with their parents about it.

OBRIEN: A sixteen year old is in a position to have a conversation with their parents about coming across the border, you think?

FARENTHOLD: Believe me, my sixteen year old daughter has given me some input on pretty much everything the family wants to do.

Watch it:

Most 16-year-old children are, of course, reliant on their parents for financial support, and do not actually get a say in where their families move. And the President is right that many children don’t know their immigration status until much later — when they apply for a job or a drivers’ license.

WASHINGTON, DC — Uber-wealthy Republican donor Foster Friess isn’t content just giving his own money to support Mitt Romney; he’s now lobbying his rich friends to open their checkbooks as well.

Friess, an investment manager worth upwards of $500 million, gained notoriety earlier this year as the moneyman funding Rick Santorum’s super PAC. After Santorum dropped out, Friess (along with other wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson) switched to supporting Romney’s presidential campaign.

ThinkProgress and TPM’s Benjy Sarlin ran into Friess at the Faith & Freedom Conference over the weekend and asked what his plans were going forward. After bemoaning the fact that big Republican donors hadn’t done more to coordinate resources and message before, Friess said he had now “reached out to a number of potential donors” about supporting Romney’s super PAC. He declined to name names, leaving it at the fact that they’re “big donors.”

SARLIN: Now that the general election is underway, do you keep in touch with the other big donors, Sheldon Adelson, Bob Perry, and the people who are now doing the general election? Do you guys have a friendly, encouraging society?

FRIESS: There should be more of that. I find when I’ve done certain projects like I put up a little video and I found four other people putting up the same message. Well we could’ve pooled our resources and done a much better, more professional than our somewhat-amateurish video. I wish that would happen more but it doesn’t and it should.

SARLIN: Have you reached out to any of the other big donors about trying to work together a little more?

FRIESS: I’ve reached out to a number of potential donors who aren’t involved so much before to help Gov. Romney with his Restore Our Future PAC and to try to encourage some of the same things for Gov. Romney as I did for Rick Santorum.

Watch it:

Thanks in large part to extremely wealthy conservatives like Friess, Republican-aligned groups are far outpacing those supporting Democrats. In fact, a single casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson, just gave $10 million to Romney’s super PAC and has said he’s willing to spend a “limitless” amount of money to defeat President Obama in the fall.

Following President Obama’s announcement on Friday that immigration officials would stop deporting DREAM Act-eligible students, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Obama for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but has repeatedly refused to say if he would repeal the measure.

On Monday morning, Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty tried to create additional breathing room for the former Massachusetts governor. During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point, Pawlenty sought to dismiss Romney’s promise to veto DREAM, suggesting that he may ultimately sign the measure if elected president:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN (HOST): As I’m sure you know, Mitt Romney said that if he were elected he would veto the DREAM Act, right?

PAWLENTY: There are a lot of things labeled the DREAM Act, Soledad, so we have to be careful. What Governor Romney has said is when it comes to Senator Rubio’s ideas about the DREAM Act that he would be open to that. That legislation hasn’t been put in final form yet but he said he would consider it or at least look at it. He has said in other settings and times he would be willing to allow a pathway to legal status for children no are in this situation. For example, if they serve in the military and are honorably discharged. As it relates to the issue of children and through no fault of their own are under that circumstance, he said I’m open to try to explore or consider a permanent solution and I think these a reasonable gesture on his part.

Watch it:

In reality, Romney was far more dismissive of efforts to help undocumented students during the GOP presidential primary. “For those who come here illegally, the idea of giving them in-state tuition credits or other special benefits I find to be contrary to the idea of a nation of law,” Romney told a crowd in Iowa in December and flatly promised to veto DREAM.

His views shifted in April, however, when he expressed support for the DREAM Act, saying the Republicans need to propose a GOP version of the bill and other initiatives to win support from Hispanic voters.

But given Obama’s announcement last week, that GOP alternative — which is supposedly being drafted by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and is remarkably similar to the White House policy — may fail to materialize, leaving Romney floundering for a position on the issue.

For the second time in three years, the American Constitution Society’s national convention — an annual gathering of many of the top progressive attorneys in the country — opened with filibustered luminaries urging their fellow progressives not to shrink into their shells. Two years ago, that luminary was Dawn Johnsen, a former top constitutional advisor to the Clinton Administration denied the same job under President Obama because of her work defending reproductive rights and proclaiming the illegality of torture. This year, Johnsen’s role was played by California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, the eminent legal scholar denied a federal judgeship:

As you know, I had an unsuccessful journey through the Senate confirmation process. My paper trail as a law professor was, shall we say, a target rich environment . . . .

So what’s the lesson here? Is it that law students and young lawyers should be careful — careful about what you write, careful about what you say, careful about taking a position for fear of losing a future opporunity? Well, let me tell you, I have certainly said things, written things, that I later regretted. I have made mistakes I wish I could erase. We all have. But it would be wrong to conclude that the best way to go about life is to just play it safe.

You know, as my friend Dawn Johnsen, who is here tonight, said — in fact at this very convention two years ago — “no one goes to his grave seeking an eptataph that reads ‘he kept his options open.’”

Watch it:

Liu is right, but he is also one of the lucky ones. Thanks to California Gov. Jerry Brown, Justice Liu will not spend his career on the sidelines shouting advice to the players on the field. Yet expecting fairy godgovernors to rescue the progressive movement’s brightest lights is neither a viable option for people like Dawn Johnsen nor a recipe for achieving justice at on a national scale. If progressive governance is to succeed, we have to be able to play our first string.

This is especially true because the American right has worked hard for decades to recruit and train its most talented members to play in the big game. Antonin Scalia, Janice Rogers Brown, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas all want to do bad things to this country, but they are among the brightest and most dedicated conservatives in the country (and to those who question my decision to include the Supreme Court’s silent justice on this list: Don’t. We underestimate Justice Thomas at our gravest peril). Progressives can only hope to defeat them with champions of similar skill and dedication.

It is demeaning to spend a career looking upward at a glass ceiling, and many progressives will simply abandon public service if they believe the top jobs are unobtainable. Worse, denying the top jobs to top progressive thinkers does not simply force us to match second-string players against the right’s offensive line, it often enables the other side to raid our top talent. Liu and Johnsen both returned to the legal academy after they crashed headlong into a filibuster, but it is both frightfully easy and frightfully common for top progressives to cash in at corporate law firms, K Street lobbying shops or other places that strive to sell courts and Congress to the highest bidder.

Achieving progressive goals depends on grassroots enthusiasm. It depends on the hard work of organizing. And it depends on our shared sense that the wealthiest, most powerful nation that has ever existed is up to the task of ensuring that the daughter of a gas station attendant can aspire to the same dreams as the son of a CEO. But it also depends on progressives having exceptionally gifted policy makers who are willing to trade in a lucrative career in the private sector or a comfortable career in the academy for a much more difficult job in government.

The price of recruiting such individuals is often the promise of future advancement. Restoring that promise, through filibuster reform if necessary, needs to be a top priority of the progressive movement if we expect to meet the right’s smartest, hardest working ideologues with equal force.