UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi is appearing today at the Portsmouth, NH Library at 4:30 pm at press conference for Carol Shea Porter. Seriously – anyone in Portsmouth, Durham, Exeter, get over there and ask Nancy what gives. She also might be appearing some where else in NH tonight. (hat tip ladybug).
Pelosi will also be in Rye, NH tonight from 5-7pm at a fundraiser for Porter.
Further to Matt Stoller’s post on OpenLeft regarding what happened with the FISA bill, I entered into an email exchange with Kagro X of DailyKos who thought that the Hoyer/Clyburn screwup story regarding the “good bill” was somewhat incomplete:
Might have been a screwup. But they knew the bill they put on the suspension calendar would require a conference with the Senate, because the Senate was passing the bad one.
So you put the “good” one on the suspensions calendar (which limits debate to 40 minutes and allows no amendments and no motions to recommit), get 218 votes for it, but it “fails” anyway, because you need 2/3.
Who misses a vote count by 70+ votes?
Now, though, Dems who voted for the “good” bill get to say they support that one (and therefore “tough” new authority), but oppose the “bad” one, without actually facing the danger of PASSING the good one, and so requiring a conference with the Senate and another vote before they can get out of town.
There’s no reason to have this on the suspension calendar at all. If you want to preclude amendments, preclude them in the rule. If you want to shorten debate, shorten it in the rule. If you want to preclude wedge issues from popping up in motions to recommit, then DISCIPLE YOUR FUCKING CAUCUS and make motions to recommit leadership votes where you get your ass kicked if you vote with Republicans, the way it used to be and I’ve been saying it should be again.
But the upshot of this is that there was no reason to put this on the suspensions calendar unless you really didn’t want it to pass. Which is perfectly reasonable in that the good bill sucked too. But if your alternative is the bad bill, then you’re screwed.
The upshot seems to be that while they didn’t necessarily want to pass Bush’s bad bill, they didn’t want to pass their own good bill either. It existed mainly so House members could vote for it as political cover with progressives without ever really having a chance of passing.
Selise put together a timeline of what happened in the Senate here.
Powwow put together a timeline of what happened in the House here.
We’re still looking for public appearances by Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, Clyburn and Hoyer for the month of August so constituents can go and ask them what exactly happened. So far:
August 9 — Nancy Pelosi will be in Stamford, CT at a fundraiser for Chris Murphy at Il Falco Restaurant, 59 Broad Street, from 12:00 – 1:30 pm.
August 10 — Jim Clyburn will be at the “Grand Clyburn” golf tournament in Tunica, Mississippi.
August 12-14 — Nancy Pelosi will be touring New Orleans and Mississippi
August 15 — Harry Reid will be in Pahrump, NV at a town hall meeting at the Bob Ruud Community Center, Highway 160 and Basin Street from 11:30 am until 1pm.
August 21 — Steny Hoyer will conduct a town hall meeting in Syracuse, NY on the war in Iraq, time and place to be determined.
Occam’s razor may in fact apply here and it may just be that many members of Congress think that these are the kinds of powers that the government should have. That makes it doubly important that people show up and let the leadership know how they feel, because pressure from constituents is probably the only thing that will shake them into action.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Jane!!!!
zed
Jane:
Are you going to the fundraiser where Pelosi will be?
Hi JKC.
Nancy Pelosi is appearing in a half hour at the Portsmouth NH Library (4:30)pm at press conference for Carol Shea Porter. Seriously – anyone in Portsmouth, Durham, Exeter, get over there and ask Nancy what gives. She also might be appearing some where else in NH tonight.
Big Mitch!!
Knowing the above schedule makes me wish I still lived in CT.
Sneeking a peek while I can.
or so we fervently hope, despite quite a track record demonstrating that they listen only to money and The Lobby on trial for Espionage.
Oooh, can I get in single digits?
“…pressure from constituents is probably the only thing that will shake them into action.”
Or, maybe they were just in a hurry to get out of town…
Regardless of whether it was mismanagement, or members just did not like the alternatives, or they just wanted to leave, I have worked in places where someone would get fired for such inattention. Maybe it is time to fire them all!
You know, I’m an attorney and I thought I knew this stuff pretty well but the above quote and the discussion generally, suspension calendar, etc., shows me I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW CONGRESS WORKS AT ALL.
I mean the real nuts and bolts of these votes. The above quote is meaningless to me not because of the writer but I just don’t understand what much of this means. And it’s scary cuz if someone like me who follows it closer than 99.9 percent of the population doesn’t understand it, then most people don’t understand it and neither do most members of the MSM.
Can someone explicate? Like a romance poem?
Ahhh the old “I was for it, before I was against it” trick. It worked so well last time.
And, any idea where “Rahmbo” is gonna pop up in August? I’d like to ask him a question or two if I can w/out getting arrested.
They’re debating weather or not to trash the 4th and 5th amendments and think a valid excuse for this fuckery is they were in a hurry to leave. Jeezus…..
Mike Luckovich explains what happened to the Dems in this great cartoon!
Each and every one of us is a constituent of the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate. There are only two things that today’s politicians seem to be interested in. Money and pressure. We in this house are going to step up the pressure on our party. The Democratic Party.
The links for Selise and Powwow are a little wonky.
Selise wrote about the House in two parts
One
Two
Powwow wrote about the Senate here
I found this on Friday, for Clyburn:
Clyburn has played or will play in seven outings over a two-month span, from the July 9 pro-am at the AT&T Championship Presented by Tiger Woods in Bethesda, Md., to the “Grand Clyburn” in Tunica, Miss., on Friday – a Congressional Black Caucus fundraiser named for him – to a competition Sept. 10 pitting Republicans against Democrats, with The First Tee as beneficiary.
mauimom @ 9
Congrats, MM. I’m late to the thread. On FDL in the afternoons, single digits may not be huge, but it’s big.
what kills me about this whole mess is that Reid, Pelosi, and Emmanuel couldn’t show up for the “Leadership Forum” at Ykos because they had to “manage” this disaster….
Leaving work…
p_lukasiak @ 20
A twofer!
It is obvious to us there is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic party. This struggle is between folks like Lahoma and me (traditional Democrats) and the Center to right ‘third way’ DLC, neo Democrats. We intend to win this battle.
Aw, gosh. I feel so much better now that Bush is here to comfort me…
Bush Confident of Market Recovery
Does he know something we don’t? Maybe he found out about those sell orders coming in over the “wires”…
Real Estate Trade Group Lowers Housing Sales Forecast Amid Market’s Slump
Et tu, MBA?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.
dumbya @12
…….And it’s scary cuz if someone like me who follows it closer than 99.9 percent of the population doesn’t understand it, then most people don’t understand it and neither do most members of the MSM.
Silly me I thought that 99.9% of the population were lawyers.
I just telephoned Steney Hoyer’s office and asked if there were any “town meetings” in the district during the recess. Their answer: nope.
So much for “listening to constituents.” Thankfully I’m not one of his; I’ve got Chris VanHollen.
However, I suspect Hoyer might turn up at the Montgomery County Fair. I’ll keep checking, and also try the MD Dems’ office.
OT-
OK Kiddo (and, for that matter, everyone else)- have you see that Andrew Rice is running for Inhofe’s Senate seat?
Still no response from Emmanuel’s press team on my request for a calendar of appearances.
hmmmm
Has anyone discussed Pelosi’s letter to Conyers & Reyes about correcting this legislation? Is this a smokescreen we can callout?
MayDaze @ 27
Man, am I having a day. I read that as “Andrew Dice,” thinking “Clay” was the next word.
OKK — please indicate on the list below, which of the following is TradDem and which is DLC?
Hillary ……………… DLC
OBama ……………..
Edwards ……………..
Dodd ……………..
Biden …………….
Richardson…………….
Kucinich ……………… Trad.
Bush had Lyme Disease last year?
JF @ 32
Man, am I having a day. I heard Dice and Clay and thought you were talking about that Japanese pitcher for the Red Sox, Daisuke. (Pronounced Dice-Kay)
OT, but some great Kids for Lamont photos from MyLeftNutmeg (via dKos)
JF @ 34
Too many Gin and Tonics?
This was no screwup. Kagro X is exactly right, the “good bill” was nothing but a false cover face for this disingenuous Kabuki dance. The Dem leadership met with the White House and their DNI pitchmen, along with GOP leaders, and they cut a deal to handle the matter precisely this way. The ONLY question at this point is what did Dem “leaders” Pelosi and Reid get out of the deal, if anything? The best evidence so far is nothing unless you consider getting to leave for their unearned precious vacation to be a “win” out of the negotiation.
I’d like to know why Peolsi let it go to the floor in the first place. Couldn’t she stop it?
MayDaze @ 29
We in this house are determined to make our native state, Oklahoma, very blue. We of course support Mr. Rice. We now have a Democratic Governor and Democratic Lt. Guv. ;0)
Hey, Jane, glad to see ya. Hope you’re feeling well.
I have a question regarding the newly passed bill: Why wouldn’t it be unconstitutional, because on it’s face it goes against the fourth amendment? If it is considered unconstitutional, why wouldn’t they have to repeal the fourth amendment to make it constitutional? Any legal types out here can clue me in on this?
Ann in AZ @ 40
Oh sure!
Good luck getting it past the (packed) Supreme Court, though.
Siun @ 30
See my comment @28 above. Seems like the Democratic leaders CAN coordinate something: a “hide from the constituents during recess” plan.
nomolos @ 27
Silly me I thought that 99.9% of the population were lawyers.
I’m one too and I didn’t either. Actually, I don’t think the workings of Congress have much to do with law, at all. It’s more like the ancient traditions of some flesh-eating primitive tribe.
Ann in AZ @ 39
My guess (IANAL) is that you have to find someone with standing, which is – to put it mildly – difficult since the targets of the wiretaps are secret.
OKK, I seriously wanted to hear your answer to #33 above, to better understand your #24 above.
If you didn’t catch GSD’s link on the last thread, I highly recommend it. Buffaloes take care of their own.
BigMitch @ 26
I’m not sure a DINO president is good in the long-run. Sure in the short run it’s gotta be better than ANY of those R-candidates would be during their term.
But look at Bill Clinton. While those 8 years were certainly better than the 12 years before or the 7 since, but I still feel like he laid the groundwork for the disaster we’re now enduring.
If we have another 4 or 8 years of Republican-Lite with Clinton, what the hell will the next Bush Administration be able to get away with?
Bill Clinton did some good things while in office, but not much of that is still with us. But ALL of the bad things are still with us.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 39
What’s happening in OK to turn it Purple? Is it like KS, where the Rs have turned too nutty on things like science in schools, or is there something else going on?
OK, less facetiously. There’s some enormous problems regarding standing and jurisdiction, now. Typically, to determine that something is unconstitutional, it has to wend its way through the courts. You don’t just ring up the Court and ask them to invalidate it. OK. But, who gets to sue? It’s secret. If you are being eavesdropped on, you are first tasked with the issue of establishing your standing. And then there are the aforementioned packed courts, not just SCOTUS (which would be your last stop anyway), but also much of the federal Appeals and some of the trial courts.
In this case, it is probably easier to put pressure on the same legislative body that created it to take it down.
Not sure though (and I am not a lawyer).
Ann in AZ @ 41
It definitely appears to be unconstitutional.
There is an old baseball umpires line: “It ain’t a ball or a strike, until I say it is.”
As you may recall Chief Justice Roberts said he would be like a baseball umpire if appointed to the SCOTUS.
SufiLizard @ 47
The Supreme Court is worth it.
SufiLizard @ 48
3 words. Supreme Court Appointments.
I’m a constituent of Rahm’s, so when you hear of public appearances by him in the 5th District of Illinois, I’d be happy to go and ask questions :)
oddmommy @ 44
The damnable thing is that the powers that be rely on the fact that most of us have not a clue about the obscure parliamentary methods employed. Of course most of us would lose at three card monte as well.
I share the anger and frustration in this piece. It seems to me now that we need to be–first and foremost–voting in those candidates who have a strong commitment to the constitution.
Minimum wage raises, greatly improved health-care, and clean-environment policies don’t matter to me when my phone, email, browsing, and economic activities are all being monitored by my government without judicial oversight.
The majority of our legislators–of both parties–do not believe this is important to us. They have very clearly demonstrated that it’s not important to them.
The democratic wing of the democratic party needs to draw a line around the constitution, and say–”this far, and no farther”.
Occam’s razor may in fact apply here and it may just be that many members of Congress think that these are the kinds of powers that the government should have.
That’s apparently what the Dem leadership thinks most voters think. It was fear of appearing weak and hearing a month of the MSM noise machine grinding on about Dems’ “enabling terrorists” as opposed to pissing off the much smaller base who actually follow these things.
Most voters are not even aware of the issue.
PB @ 50
you are exactly correct.
shoot – i keep getting epu’ed with this info:
hoyer in Syracuse on aug 21 for a town hall meeting on iraq.
maybe you want to play it safe because it’s an event for maffei who is challenging walsh?
Millineryman @ 52
I tend to agree. Plus which, if we progressives can get our act together to exert much more political pressure than we have been doing in the last 30-40 years that would help enormously.
Somehow, I have a feeling we’ve got another Great Depression around the corner that’s going to make the last one look like a Sunday picnic…
JF @ 45
It seems to me that if someone had a credible claim that they’d been spied up they would have standing. Admittedly that’s a difficult hurdle; but if I were a constitutional lawyer I would argue that you don’t have to prove your case on the merits in order to have standing.
Then you would take your case to a federal district court, whose decision — whatever it was — would likely be appealed to the relevant circuit court, and only after that would it reach the supremes. That’s gonna take some time……meanwhile there is the potential for the lower courts to do the right thing, and a lot of media attention being given to this abomination of a law.
So I think it absolutely should be challenged in court.
BigMitch @ 53
Okay, you’ve got a good point there.
Although if we don’t also get a filibuster proof majority I wouldn’t put it past Republicans to block ALL nominations indefinitely — even through the 2012 elections. (Maybe the Mayans are right and the world will end in 2012 anyway)
BigMitch @ 33
Perhaps a more appropriate approach is to list what a “traditional Democrat” might be and then let each voter decide. Maybe start with FDR and work from there. As far as those that have a history of DLC connections, Google or whatever may tell us.
oddmommy sez: “It seems to me that if someone had a credible claim that they’d been spied up they would have standing.”
I believe that is insufficient. As I recall the last time the FISA law or Bush’s wholesale violation thereof was challenged, the folks who brought the challenge had a VERY credible claim. They were lawyers talking to terrorist clients, and news reporters, talking to terrorists. Court said “tough shit” or words to that effect. (All from recollection.)
The RNC called me this morning to talk about the candidates and before the caller could add any more detail I told him that the GOP only supported the constitution when it suited them. With the recent passage of the warrant less wiretaps they could now spy on any American who happened to speak to relatives working overseas. I told him to call me back when the candidates spoke out in support of the 4th amendment.
PB @ 59_ I say the same thing about applying pressure. I refuse to give up, my rights and freedom are worth fighting for. I know that got complacent for a long time, and I can assure you that won’t happen again.
Oddmommy @ 60_Thanks for your kind words in the earlier thread.
BigMitch @ 33
Here’s my take:
Hillary ……………… DLC
OBama ……………. “Third Way” ?.
Edwards …………….Lapsed DLC.
Dodd …………….not sure.
Biden …………… not sure.
Richardson……………DLC-lite.
Kucinich ……………… Trad.
JPL @ 65
Didn’t the RNC outsource their fundraising calls to India? Doesn’t that make all of their fundraising subject to warrentless wiretaps?
and please, let’s tone down this “packed courts” hysteria. Yes, there are a lot of Republican appointees, but many of them — like certain repub-appointed US attorneys I could name — are decent and conscionable and actually BELIEVE in the rule of law. See discussion earlier today about the 4th circuit, for example……and recall how ALL of the federal judges involved did the right thing in the Terri Schiavo case.
The Supreme Court, however…..yes, that IS a problem.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 63
First, glad you were not ignoring me. I thought maybe you felt that I was challenging you, when in fact, I value your opinion, and was seeking it. My thought is that any of the above should be fully supported in every way possible in the General election. And the primary campaign should not hobble our candidate. Further, we should not be over-confident about the upcoming election.
That last point is very important. Someone said here (a day or so agol) that we could run Al Sharpton and win. Whoever said that was not even wrong.
eCAHNomics @ 49
As near as we can gather, George W. Bush has had the greatest effect on turning our fellow Oklahomans bluer. Oklahomans may take a while to change their minds, but when they do, look out. ;0)
eCAHNomics @ 49
What’s happening in OK to turn it Purple? Is it like KS, where the Rs have turned too nutty on things like science in schools, or is there something else going on?
I think Kansas was even (at least slightly)worse off than we are. Some of us just keep hoping for sanity and a Senator we don’t have to be ashamed of.
JF. This was not outsourced and I unloaded and the caller gasped and had an obviously nervous giggle. GA has an open primary system which I have voted in before in opposition of my rep and senators. I have no idea why they were calling but I’m sure they wish they hadn’t.
BigMitch @ 26
As Dean said, Mitch, the Dems stand for country above party. And the reason we are in this f’ing war in the first place (and got it recently ’surged’) is that the Dems were thinking of 08 (can’t be shown as weak on terrrrorrrr, no) and both misjudged the will of the people (heavily anti-war) and ripped up the constitution – to say nothing of costing us nearly a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives —and that is just the dead, not counting here the vast numbers who are maimed, the suffering of U.S. militry families, or the millions forced to flee Iraq because of our “success” there.
oddmommy @ 69
i move
we begin the process to get Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito impeached and removed.
JPL @ 73
Hopefully, it was a giggle of agreement. Doubtful. I’m in GA, too. I’ve done the same.
Jane, this is the money quote
I give you Jeralyn Merritt
The Democratic Leadership has wanted these powers for the last 11 years.
They got the bill they wanted.
They got the bill they coveted.
They didn’t get worked.
They didn’t get played.
I’m going to make time to go to Barbara Boxer’s local office and have a sit down with someone
Haven’t caught up with the last several threads so don’t know if this has been noted: (O/t)
http://www.miamiherald.com/new…..96527.html
Fla state senate president’s (R) son dies (supposedly from overdose). Are Florida republics imploding these days? Every time I turn around, seems another one is connected to illegal activities.
BigMitch @ 64
FWIW that’s my recollection, too. And a pretty recent decision, too, iirc.
FunnyDiva
BigMitch @ 64
yeah, I need to research this some more. Standing law is so convoluted (well, so is most law).
But it just seems to me that in this particular case there is a conundrum here that even the most obstinate judge can’t fail to acknowledge…….that having to “prove” your rights were violated by a SECRET gov’t program in order to even have standing to make the claim would mean NO ONE COULD EVER have standing to challenge a secret gov’t program that trampled on people’s rights. Can this be what the Framers of Article III intended???
Ann in AZ @ 41
You have to do more than say you were subjected to the invasive mechanics of “the program”, you have to establish it legally. The Administration will not declassify who was and who was not, therefore you cannot legally establish that you were subjected to it; ergo no standing. And their ability to hide behind exactly this dodge has been upheld on a Constitutional challenge already; see ACLU v. NSA out of the 6th Circuit court of Appeals. Also, due to the short stated shelf life of the new statutes, an argument on them may well be moot by the time it could be determined with finality by the Supreme Court. This crap was specifically engineered (and your fine Dem leaders knew this) to be effectively immune from court challenge for the above reasons.
oddmommy @ 69
Speaking of bridges and infrastructure, they’re re-paving the road to hell. It used to be good intentions–now under construction with a smooth layer of 5/4 decisions.
jeralyn’s description of what clinton, schumer and conyers did in 1996 supports this hypothesis.
oddmommy @ 44
I’m with you guys! Why Congress does anything is beyond me anymore. Admittedly, I cannot fathom the whole FISA changes thing at all. All I know is that when I first heard of Bush’ demands, I basically laughed, thinking this Congress would laugh at him and walk away like Harriet Miers and Karl Rove and Josh Bolten laughed off their subpoenas. Next thing I know, Congress lost in a bluff game of p*k*r with the likes of George W. This, to me, was a vile, almost obscene demonstration of lack of leadership and lack of courage I’ve seen for a long time. I feel like I’ve been hit in the stomach. All I can think now is “No wonder they say ‘there will be no impeachment,’ and ‘We don’t have the votes!’ has become such a staple chorus.” It turned out that Karl Rove did have “the Math” after all, didn’t he? As long as there are Democrats of this stripe hanging around pretending to be for the Constitution while giving our Civil Rights to a President who would-be-king, all wrapped up with a bow, there will be no doubt who will be the winners in any contest. I don’t know how much more foolish we could be. They told us just last week that one of their goals is that the Democrats have no wins in their column at election time. At the rate we’re going, looks like they’ll meet those goals.
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
yellowdog jim @ 75
Grounds? By the way, unlike the President they can only be impeached for breaching the duty of “good behavior while in office.”
Let me say again. We in this house will support the nominee of our party. And that would certainly include Senator Clinton should the Senator be the nominee.
We want Gore.
Riffing off of Big Mitch and SufiLizard:
Here’s my take:
Hillary ……………… DLC
OBama ……………. Stealth DLC
Edwards …………….Reformed DLC.
Dodd …………….not sure.
Biden ……………
not sure. DLC!Richardson……………DLC-lite.
Kucinich ……………… Trad.
Biden is From Delaware, where the corporations are headquartered. Think Bankruptcy bill.
bmaz @ 81
yes, that 6th circuit case is discussed on the ACLU website….but it is NOT binding on the courts in any other circuit. Now that we’ve got some good DFH’s on the bench in Richmond, for example……let’s go there.
JPL @ 73
Hey, JPL
How come Georgia gets to keep its open primary system, and Washington has been ordered by some court(s) or other to change theirs? S’not fair, y’all!
Can’t remember if it was the state- or national-level R party that insisted that they shouldn’t have to be guided by your open primary. They basically want a “true believers only” primary system. So now our primary system is even MORE meaningless than before because nobody can implement anything even remotely work-able.
My tax dollars at work.
Feh!
FunnyDiva
casual observer @ 82
Glad it’s between coffee and coctail time,
’cause that would have made a mess of my desk.
BigMitch @ 33
Edwards is a Traditional Democrat, i.e. the real thing.
BigMitch @ 84
whoa!
No “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?
CRAP.
okay, what grounds can we get?
we have to find then guilty of non-”good behavior”?
malfeasance maybe?
i am looking for any help here.
Haven’t found anything for Rahm yet, but I did discover that Senator Webb is “a member of the board of directors of the Bossov Ballet Theatre in Pittsfield, Maine, which was founded by a retired Marine colonel.”
Big Mitch – there are many more options. So, for example, Obama’s Hope Pac during his first year in office raised funds for a lits of DLC folks including Clinton, Lieberman, the Nelsons, etc though he is not listed himself as a DLC member.
bacground on DLC
How is congress, the Admin or even the Supreme Court *able* to mess with the Fourth Amendment? isnt a 2/3s ratification by all the States required for this kind of thing?
Jane,
Thanks for this update. I think the Leadership thought they could pull another fast one on us, and cover their tracks. Thanks to you, Matt Stoller, Christy, Selise, and some of the bloggers over on DailyKos, we need to show them that we are not sheep who are easily led astray.
I think a Pelosi-Bush equivalent to “The Kiss” is needed. Something like a picture of a grinning Pelosi and Bush shaking hands over a bare table top (hinting at what has been taken “off the table”) might do the trick.
Bob in HI
tweety has Steve Skvara on.
Steve’s the guy screwed out of his pension by LTV Steel and spoke out at the Dem Debate.
matthews is doing some good despite being an idiot. he is pumping up Health Care as an issue.
OKK & MayDaze
Thanks for your answers.
JF @ 45
There is such a case in the courts now. I just read an article about it a couple days ago. The defendants are members or employees of an Islamic charity. The Treasury Dept. accidentally gave their attorneys a log of their phone calls which had been tapped/monitored. When the Government realized its mistake, they forced the lawyers to give the log and all copies of the log back. The case is proceeding, but the lawyers are not allowed to look at the log again; they have to rely on their memory. When the judge needs to look at the log, a Government courier has to fly it from DC to the west coast, and fly it back. This is an important case because it seems to be the only case thus far in which parties who actually have standing in relation to the wiretapping law, are in court.
MayDaze @ 86
I’m glad BigMitch put this up. Kucinich is the only one we agree is a solid TradDem. Kucinich should be the choice of progressives. He is the only one touting real Health Care change (Single Payer is the keyword) by cutting out the greedy insurance companies. All the rest want to help pad the insurer’s pockets.
fahrender @ 91
A quick search found this re Obama
Oklahoma kiddo @ 85
Gore should be drafted at the convention. The benefits would be multifold. First, Gore as president would close down the many executive over-reaches from the inside. Look/listen to his speeches in the past few years on civil liberties. With a democratic congress, I am confident that Gore would wipe out all these threats to civil liberties.
Second, imagine the message sent to the kingmakers in the democratic party when, after directing hundreds of millions to their candidates, Gore got in without spending a dime.
Draft Gore, from the Floor.
Sounds to me like deliberate sabotage by someone on the inside. The question is who on the outside would was putting pressure on that person on the inside. So, what is the most militaristic lobbying force that has influence on the with the Democratic leadership, and whom do they represent? Who pushed the idea of putting the less-bad bill onto the consent calendar: Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, Clyburn or Hoyer?
This makes us feel mighty good. And patriotic.
AP – Flashing a big smile, teacher-astronaut Barbara Morgan climbed aboard space shuttle Endeavour on Wednesday for liftoff on a mission she hopes will realize the unfulfilled dreams of her predecessor, Christa McAuliffe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..ce_shuttle
Bob Schacht @ 94
Locally we came up with cocktail napkins with the word “IMPEACH” in bold with text below – “Put it back on the table”
What do you think?
OT:
Does anyone else have reservations about the Minneapolis bridge collapse? I noted this comment from a CNN article:
The police chief encouraged anyone who witnessed the collapse and hasn’t talked to authorities to call a toll-free hot line set up by the National Transportation Safety Board: 1-866-328-6347.
He particularly asked for anyone who could talk about reports of someone in a kayak near the bridge to come forward.
It is starting to not pass the sniff test for me.
Link to full article
GA is a non declare state. You can vote in either the repub or the democratic primary but not both. Most politicians here use the primary that you last voted in to assume that you support that party.
I was over at Wiki, looking at the opasth of office. Federal judges apparently have two of them, one about being fair in their judgements, and one about upholding the Constitution and the laws.
Maybe it’s time to remind all of them what they’ve sworn to do, even those who are foresworn.
hackworth @ 99
I’m glad BigMitch put this up. Kucinich is the only one we agree is a solid TradDem. Kucinich should be the choice of progressives. He is the only one touting real Health Care change (Single Payer is the keyword) by cutting out the greedy insurance companies. All the rest want to help pad the insurer’s pockets.
Actually, by “reformed DLC” I was trying to include Edwards as a TradDem (IMHO).
IrishJim @ 104
Looking around for tinfoil hat.
However, if I remember the pics, it wasn’t the supports that collapsed, but rather the deck?
dumbya @ 12
Normally, every bill that comes to the floor of the House (and only the House) is preceded by a “special rule” which governs the terms of the debate for that bill (the “underlying bill”) and that bill only. These are different from the general, standing Rules of the House. They’re resolutions, adopted case-by-case for the specific purpose of setting time limits for debate, determining which amendments will be in order, etc.
Other bills (usually non-controversial ones) are brought under a procedure called suspension of the rules, which is just what it sounds like. With a 2/3 vote, you suspend the normal operating rules of the House, debate a bill for 40 minutes max. (versus the default norm of one hour), and forbid all amendments and motions to recommit (which I’ll get to later). Because it requires deviation from the standard operating rules, it requires a 2/3 vote to get it done, but that vote both agrees to suspend the rules AND deems the bill to have passed. This is the way you’d normally handle a bill renaming a Post Office or a federal building, or declare National Spaghetti Squash Month.
If the leadership had brought the “good” bill under normal procedure, they would have had the opportunity to have the Rules Committee (which writes every one of the “special rules” and is considered an arm of the leadership for that reason) craft one that disallowed amendments and limited debate, if they so desired. The one thing they can’t preclude (because it’s in the standing Rules) is the right of the minority to offer a “motion to recommit.” That’s a last minute motion they can make, just before the final vote on whether or not to pass the bill, in which they can ask the House to vote to send the bill back to the committee it came from, and either instruct them to make some changes to it and send it back, or instruct them to stick it up their ass and squeeze. That effectively gives the minority a chance to force uncomfortable wedge-issue votes right before the big vote on passing the bill, and lately Democrats have been very susceptible to the pressure those votes create. The leadership in this case feared what Republicans would come up with — probably instructions that would have changed the “good” bill into something much more like the “bad” one, which apparently would have passed, since the actual “bad” one certainly did. So they say they were going with the suspensions process in order to preclude that.
That’s indicative to me of a loss of control over the Caucus. Others may disagree, but this didn’t seem to be such a huge problem the last time the Democrats held the House. At that time, votes on motions to recommit were automatic: no. Always. And the Republicans knew it. It had to be a pretty damned special motion to have any hope in hell of passing, and as a result, considerably fewer such motions were made.
OT – dear mods and firepups:
am i the only one who’s been having problems with the site the last few days? preview is almost unusable, refresh is unbearably slow and even the page itself can take a minute or more to load. i’m not having trouble with anyother website and my dsl line speed is good.
Evidently it’s not just impeachment that is of the table, so is the constitution.
It’s felt here that ‘progressive’ is another word for ‘traditional Democrat’.
Here’s the ACLU message on the FISA fiasco:
Note that they lay responsibility for this fiasco at the feet of the Democratic leadership. They’re collecting signatures for a petition, and the petition is adressed to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid.
Bob in HI
Some kind of calendar for James Clyburn.
Steny Hoyer at Syracuse. Think someone else caught that.
Other than that, I found you could sometimes google search site:house.gov or senate.gov and find schedules like this one for Arlen Spector. Grassley seems to be embarking on some tour of Iowa. Sounds like sten Hoyer will be spending most of his time out of state. I cannot find anything on Rahm Emmanuel, but I am determined to do so.
Thanks so much to selise for sorting out these rules with the Rules Committee staffer.
I misread the meaning of H.Res. 614. The interpretation that selise was given for it is a much more damning read (for the leadership) than the one I ended up with – which was just that further Rules Committee action over the weekend could be considered the same day, but that a final 2/3rds vote would still be required for any underlying FISA bill.
This means that two hours after the Friday evening (H.Res. 600) suspension of rules vote in the House (to require a 2/3rds majority to pass the Democratic H.R. 3356 FISA bill), and in the midst of House debate on passage of H.R. 3356, a pre-scheduled House Rules Committee meeting took place and voted out a resolution (H.Res. 614) allowing a simple majority to pass another (unspecified) FISA bill on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. At that time (8:05 p.m. Friday evening, 8/3) the Senate had not yet reconvened (which it did at 8:08 p.m.), nor passed a FISA bill, nor adjourned for the month.
So: What were they thinking in the House leadership about action over the weekend at 8:05 p.m. Friday (knowing full well, as they did, that the Democratic FISA bill H.R. 3356 was going down to defeat in an hour or two in the House)? What was Harry Reid told by Nancy Pelosi in the remaining hours before he adjourned the Senate for the month? What did Harry Reid tell Nancy Pelosi about the status of the Senate’s unanimous consent request, introducted at 8:08 p.m., that would doom the Rockefeller/Levin FISA bill by requiring 60 Senate votes for passage? Etc., etc.
And why didn’t one single member of the House of Representatives say a word in defense of our Constitution on Saturday evening by objecting to Hoyer’s unanimous consent request, if only to force the House leadership to use H.Res. 614 to force the Senate FISA bill into and through the House…? And why didn’t one single member of the Senate object to Reid’s unanimous consent request on Friday evening, to force a cloture vote and therefore a delay in the adjournment of the Senate to force more than one single hour of debate to explain to the American people how the Senate was about to violate the Constitution…?
Are orders from political party bosses really more important than the United States Constitution, Members of Congress? Do you actually “trust” the people in your “leadership” instead of the rule of law? Do you prefer Soviet-style top-down totalitarian party discipline to using your own conscience and accepting responsibility for your own actions as a public servant and representative of we, the people?
Regardless of the reason, top-down, Soviet-style secret police power under party control is exactly the form of government our corporate-funded Executive and Legislative Branches are managing to impose on this nation, their meaningless covering rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
It’s time to take back our liberty that has been stolen from us in violation of the Constitution. Don’t let anyone stand in our way, no matter their political party.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 99
I would love to see a discussion from one of the legal eagles here on how the laws around standing could be appropriately reformed. Clearly it is an important principle. Clearly, it is being misused. What would a good fix look like? Can we get anyone working of crafting a new improved version? Also, could it be done in a blanket manner or would it have to be done piecemeal?
casual observer @ 102
;0)
Bob Schacht @ 114
signed.
Think Progress is laying out Michael Gordon (NYT neo-con “reporter”-read propagandist) something wicked. He is the new Judy Miller rolled out just in time to press the Suurrrrrggggggggeeeeeeeeeeeee).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 114
Thank you, I was wondering. I *think* Dodd goes into this category, at least he’s presenting this way. Dunno about actual voting record.
Kagro X, pow wow, selise, and all the others who have done such tremendous work and explanation of this, now you really have me frightened. Are they all so desperate for a vacation that they willingly trample on the Constitution? Or, as others have suggested, do the Democrats also believe that warrants for spying on US citizens are quaint? Is this what Nancy Pelosi, and other Dems, are saying is the stuff that’s so important to accomplish that they can’t take time for impeachment?
Richmond @ 120
Here’s the email I sent to public@nytimes.com this morning:
Good one econ- I hope they reprint it.
Kagro X @ 110 –
isn’t it also possible that the caucus would have held together through a motion to recommit? and that would have thrown the whole thing to a reconciliation conference? maybe something the leadership was trying to avoid?
not saying this is so – just trying to consider all possibilities.
also – if you have a chance to take a look, a couple threads ago i outlined what i think happened in the house (here and here). did i get it right? would love your feedback… these last few days have been “on the job training” trying to figure it all out.
Richmond @ 124
The Public Editor is the ombudsman. I didn’t send it as a letter to the editor because they’d never print it, but had to vent.
tweety has Steve Skvara on.
Steve’s the guy screwed out of his pension by LTV Steel and spoke out at the Dem Debate.
matthews is doing some good despite being an idiot. he is pumping up Health Care as an issue.BigMitch @ 85
wouldn’t willful violation of your oath of office be like not “good behavior”?
how about Scalia’s failure to recuse himself for his personal involvement with cheneybu$hco?
duck hunting with dick?
Thomas has the same problem for failure to recuse himself.
something?
anything?
oops.
didn’t know i had a round in the chamber when i reloaded.
sorry.
Grayslady @ 121
did you see John in Sacramento’s post at 75?
Their loyalty is not to the Constitution. How many lobbyists does the Constitution have?
The Democratic Leadership has wanted these powers for the last 11 years.
selise @ 112
Well – I ain’t no techie, but my Mac slowed down a lot yesterday – so I did what a real techie told me – that I needed to shut down everything , wait 20 seconds and then reboot. I did so, and it is whizzing along just fine. I hadn’t shut down the computer completely for weeks . . . but when it was up tp speed yesterday, I realize it may have been slowing down gradually for some time.
Now – I will leave it to some expert here to give you real advice (-: but you might give this a try.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 119
sweet.
beautiful.
bmaz @ 38
well, Pelosi did get to have dinner with teh President.
oaths of office, accordign to Wiki (’so help me God’ is not actually part of them):
Presidential oath:
Congressional oath (also VP, Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees except the President):
Federal judicial oaths:
We are teachers and there is a teacher going into space very soon. Like in about a few minutes. We are proud.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnb…..m/&fg=
Sporkovat@130–
Yes, I did see that post. Unfortunately, it made sense to me, too.
OT – Bush did in fact call Barry Bonds to congratulate him.
Birds of a feather – both are dishonest & cheaters, roundly dislike by a majority of sane people, ruined the integrity of their respective institutions, and simply don’t give a flying f*ck what anybody else thinks about them.
GWB – “Barry – My Man!!!”
re: “Trad Democrat” versus DLC
traditional democrat = democrat.
DLC = corporatist w/ some dem social issues,
which equals
NOT a Democrat.
remember to buckle up.
pow wow @ 115 –
great! i was hoping you would see my comments – trying to build off of the work you had done.
now if we’re really lucky kagro x will stick around for a conversation.
BigMitch @ 26
No, I fear that OK is right, because if Hillary wins, she just may want to keep some of those unconstitutional executive powers. You remember how cozy Bill Clinton and Bush I are? I fear nascent Democratic fascism almost as much as the full-blown Republican version. The Clintons and DLC are the Big Business branch of the Democratic party. Big businesses have no use for balance of powers, legislatures, and courts. They want all power in the Executive wing.
Gandhi and MLK did not do what they did in order to win the next election for the highest office in the land; they did what they did because it was right. Give me more like MLK and Gandhi, please.
Bob in HI
Back to my original OT –
OK State Senator Andrew Rice – “I am proud of my positions and principles. I’m not going to be somebody I am not. And I am finding people are hungry for that all over the state.”
This guy is looking better all the time! (Rice is running against Inhofe (R-OK) in 2008.)
Pelosi is in CT. That ought to tell you something. She’s afraid to go home. Teddy in San Fran might have a little insight into that, although I can sure make a pretty good guess. First thing she should have done is go home and face a bunch of people like me, who would already have called ahead for appointments, and being denied those, would have shown up on her steps in San Francisco with signs….”Nancy, you sold the Constitution out cheap. We wanna know why?” ‘course I don’t live in California anymore, and New Jersey seems to have a couple of pretty good Dems in there, but I gotta look at their voting record before I say that.
What a disaster!
they did what they did because it was right.
Feingold!!
BigMitch @ 64
That’s my recollection as well. In fact my recollection was that the lawyers found out when info related to the witetaps was mistakenly included in some other discovery documents turned over to them.
So they had, ya know, like, PROOF, an’ all, form the Gov’t itslef no less.
Court said nope you shouldn’t even know about it even to this day, you have no standing and you should forget what you do know.
Kinda like that red light thingy from Men in Black
Rerutled’s diary at DKos: Reid Struck a Deal with GOP seems relevant to the conversation about the FISA bill.
He/she makes a solid case for some kind of deal having been made before the FISA vote, based on the number of “not voting” Senators. (You have to go back to 2004 and further to begin to find such puzzling statistics.)
Even if you don’t agree with the author’s conclusions as to strategy, the implications of the evidence seem too unusual to be a coincidence.
JML @ 31
It may be a CYA letter.
However, maybe we can learn from the Cuban Missile crisis on this. The story goes that in the middle of the Crisis, Kennedy got two messages from Kruschev: One was all fire, brimstone, and threats. The other was conciliatory. Kennedy decided to ignore the fire and brimstone, and respond to the conciliatory message. That may have been the most important decision of the whole incident.
So, at this point, rather than poking Pelosi in the eye for that letter, can we use it to immediately set to work to fix a bad call?
Bob in HI
looseheadprop @ 133
I stand corrected. Also, I guess when the GOP mental midgets go on TV and blather about the “do nothing Congress” Pelosi and Reid can smartly retort “We gutted the Constitution, thats an accomplishment!”
Just have to say:
selise!
pow wow!
you guys are nailing this jello to the wall.
that stuff about the House knowing on Friday night about what the Senate would be doing before they did it … CSI, no shit. we are in trouble.
amazing.
thank you.
casual observer @ 56
AMEN!
Bob in HI
looseheadprop @ 143
See: Sparkles the Iguana says
August 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I *think* that that is the case you are referring to – and that it is still live. I certainly hope so anyway, because this might be the best case out there for any hope of clearing the “standing” hurdle.
Don’t know how a Court can deny standing, unless there’s a hearsay or best evidence objection by the govt upheld as to the plaintiffs not having the actual documents – which they previously seized.
yellowdog jim @ 92
Roberts and Alito may have committed fraud by misrepresenting their positions to congress, huh?
Should be like annulling a marriage for fraud, imo.
Bob Schacht @ 140
Neither Ghandi nor MLK ran for office. You fight for the best, but you take the ‘less bad’. “Render unto Caesar…” was a very perceptive comment.
Let me just step back for a second to say that it is wonderful to see so many powerful intellects coming together at FDL to determine what went wrong with FISA and how to remedy the situation to the extent possible.
Every time our community goes through an exercise like this, our collective understanding of how our government really functions is improved and our ability to effect change is strengthened.
Our gains in knowledge are ratcheting upward steadily and there will be no backtracking. This is a beautiful thing, and it happens so often at FDL that I just wanted to make a note of it.
Two other examples of our gains in collective understanding: (1) the education we received in how the Democratic party operates during the Lamont/Lieberman race and (2) our insights into the media gained through the Libby scandal.
I don’t recall having seen this story about the FISA thingy:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/n…..ment_N.htm
jayt @ 137
Please don’t compare Bush to Bonds. bonds seems like a much finer human being, and steroids or no, he has always had huge amounts of game. Bush has had only huge amounts of lame.
How long are we going to take this “you have no standing,” before we stop supporting both sides. They don’t represent us, and when the gloves are off, they have no intention of representing us….so we need people who do. Pelosi and Reid think it’s a good idea for the Govt to be able to spy on people. History is going to treat them in the same breath as Bush, and that’s not going to be kindly. Nor should it be.
A government that sets itself against its people is not going to last very long. And one of the posters above is exactly right. Hillary is as much of a facist as King George. We’re screwed folks, and the only balls we can bust are the ones connected with money and votes. Those are some pretty powerful balls.
CNN’s screen right now
Iran Killing Our Troops
New thread.
yellowdog jim @ 132
Did anyone see C-Span late last night? They had a forum with Thom Hartmann moderating in Seattle. It was taped a few weeks ago. Anyway, Thom asked those in attendance(anywhere from 500 to 1,000 who they supported. Hillary got a muted response. Biden and Dodd not at all. Richardson got a little better response than Hillary. Edwards and Gore got the best response by far, with Obama trailing those two. Interesting stuff.
Re My 144 above
Did I conflate two different cases?
Just so everybody is clear about how the “lay of the land” looks when the recess is over and Democrats “rush” back to “fix” FISA, here’s the deal:
1. Assume the Dem leadership corrals their own herd of cats and passes their own “fix” to FISA. No Repugs of course ’cause Repugs ain’t voting fer no Dimmicrat “surrender to a FISA Court Approval”, and anywho, ’cause while they jest loves them some “Order”, the heck with that “Law” stuff. Repugs don’t need no steekin’ laws!
2. Junya, like usual, does exactly what Deadeye tells him to do and vetos the Dimmicrat’s FISA Fix Bill.
3. Wait for it…the Democrats, who don’t have the votes to override a Preznit
witveto, shake and quiver in fear as the Repugs accuse them again of being soft on terrorists.4. The Democrats do the following – Multiple Choice exam time and you only gets one choice:
a. Stand Firm – Refuse to be cowed by Junya and Deadeye. Tell those nitwits to go bark up a tree.
b. Surrender Again – Sell us all out again by doing exactly and only what Junya and Deadeye want.
Now podners, which Democratic choice are you betting on?
Eureka Springs @ 157
CNN – the pentagon is saying that iranian backed ‘insurgents’ are trying to make iraq situation look as bad as possible before the september report.
ummmmm… yeah… everything was just great over there until that darn september report was announced. Now where am I to buy cheap rugs?
Bob Schacht @ 145
i don’t see how – so long as president bush is in office. he can veto it. can pelosi and reid get the votes to override – when they claim they can’t the votes to block?
i can’t see this as anything more than bad theater in a vain attempt to placate a furious base.
hope someone can show me another way to look at it.
Can anyone parse Sen. Casey’s statement on his FISA vote?
It doesn’t sound like he’s particularly happy with his vote, but what on earth was his reasoning? How long until “cooler heads can prevail”? Maybe he thinks impeachment is much more likely than war with Iran?
selise @ 126
Excellent Job, Selise!
These two points:
3. Enough House Democrats preferred their own party’s negotiated bill – so that H.R. 3356 would pass, throwing it into a House / Senate reconciliation committee. Did the House leadership want to avoid this possible outcome?
4. A process which included the option to amend would take far longer (more votes, more debate) – and time was of the essense. The August recess was to begin soon and people had other plans.
I think this the crux of the problem! The two tie into one another!
Come on upstairs!
MayDaze @ 87
While Obama might be stealth DLC, I think he knows better than to embrace their whole platform. He’s probably using them as much as they are using him.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 63
Let me toss in some guesses:
*Obama potentially has huge grassroots support among the young, and his average donation size shows it. However, he apparently does have a few big donors in his pocket. He’s not as DLC as Hillary is, but is still considering his options.
*Edwards has been called the richest man in the race. But his campaign is populist, and he’s running against the folks who run the DLC.
*Dodd is probably Trad, being more a child of Camelot (JFK, Peace Corps, etc.) who began serving in the Senate before Bill Clinton emerged on the scene.
*Biden is probably aligned with DLC, but he’s not their favorite (Hillary’s got a lock on that).
*Richardson I’m not sure of, either. May be a closet DLC type. His party service started in pre-Clinton years.
What do others think?
Bob in HI
Hmmmmmm @ 145
Yeah: 6 D’s and 6 R’s (now there’s some symmetry, yes … got to hide their cards so they cannot be criticized either way for their vote on this. Pain-free campaigning.
Disgusting.
LS @ 154
That’s the case PSarkles was referring to and which I mistakenly conflated with the ACLU case
MayDaze @ 87
Dodd is DLC-ish(though I don’t know if he’s a card carrying member like Hillary or Biden). CT is the insurance state. Hartford being called the Insurance Capital and all. If it was a choice between Dodd and Biden, I’d take Dodd. He’s a tiny bit more trustworthy than Biden.
British “melting” away from Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..79,00.html
Bob Schacht @ 168
Edwards used to be DLC, but he’s reformed, like Gore. Dodd is traditional on some issues, but not others.
Here is a link to a new post
looseheadprop @ 144
I think you’re both talking about two different cases; Mitch is talking about the Ninth Circuit’s decision of two or so years ago, and LHP, aren’t you talking about the current case whereby they were forced to give the logs back and had they computer’s hard drive scrubbed? I may be wrong!
looseheadprop @ 170
I see. Thanks.
selise @ 163
you are absolutely right: the same reasons that got us into this problem are the same reasons it cannot be fixed.
it’s shocking that Pelosi would suggest it can be fixed & sad that we are desperate to believe they can do anything.
and, finally, there is no leverage left for congress to investigate bush’s use of wiretapping to date.
it’s over.
oddmommy @ 69
I know we’re in EPU territory, but I’ve gotta agree with the first paragraph, and I am not as worried about the SCOTUS as most here seem to be. Kennedy is the swing vote, and I don’t think he’ll desert the Constitution.
Bob in HI
Biden is so out of touch to be fluffing self-proclaimed bipartisan reach across the aisle congress cred. He is pretending that he can negotiate with rethugs when it has been proven that a) you can’t negotiate with rethugs. b) see a.
The only thing that will push a Democratic agenda is an overwhelming majority. It is expected that that will be the case. Ergo, Biden is selling something that turns off progressive voters (bipartisanship with creepy thugs) and something that will be unnecessary.
It seems that the days of handjobs across the aisle went out with Reagan. And anything bipartisan is usually a giant turd for the Merkin people.
Uncle Toby @ 164
“cooler heads” was a phrase that Webb (I think) used too!
so this is a Dem talking point.
john in sacramento @ 77
Thanks for this! All the more reason to elect someone who hasn’t been drinking the DC Kool-Aid for too long.
Bob in HI
64/144
The case that has been knocked down in the 6thh cir so far, on standing, is one that makes general allegations that people think they have been spied upon, but they don’t produce the proof and since none of them are currently the subject of a crminal prosecution, apparently the 6th thinks laws like the FOIA (where no responses to requests re: status of being spied up on are being generated) and the specific civil monetary damages provisions mean nada.
However, the Oregon case, where there is tangible proof of having been spied upon with no warrants (NSA logs apparently – the ultra super duper classified doc that shows criminal violations by the President, the NSA staffers, Hayden, the then AG and possibly others, is still classified and defense lawyers had to turn it back over to gov – where is it flown out from DC and hand delivered and supervised everytime the Judge in the case needs to reference it.
That case is proceeding independently of the class action type suit that was deep Sixthed.
katymine @ 105
Where can I order some?
Bob in HI
Mary @ 182
I’ve still got my fingers crossed that the Judge will allow the plaintiffs to jump that impossibly high and sleazy “State Secrets Privilege” hurdle that Junya and Deadeye constantly roll-out like a bottomless pit.
I ain’t holdin’ my breath mind ya’, but I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 114
I think that’s an oversimplification.
*”Scoop” Jackson was a DLC prototype.
*DLC claims Kennedy as one of their own (remember “The Missile Gap”?)
*50 years ago, many Democratic stalwarts were from the South. You wanna call them “progressive”? Think LBJ and the “Yellow Dog” Democrats.
Bob in HI
selise @ 139
selise @ 139
I’ll stick around for a conversation if you send someone over to warm up these chicken nuggets for my kids and get them in the bath.
anne @ 18
thank you. i think you are correct.
CLYBURN TO LEAD BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO GULF August 12-14
Pelosi to lead visit to N.O.
Kagro X @ 186 –
kids’ baths and chicken nuggets trumps all else *g*. catch you some other time.
When I think of Joe Hill and miners protected underground with labour rights.
When I think of Martin Luther King and racial minorities protected with civil rights.
I realize they are gone. But I am inspired by one name and one name only knowing he will keep the flame of hope alive: Steny Hoyer.
Steny keep the good fight baby!!! keep the dream alive!!!
cynic @ 142
And apparently Steney Hoyer is in Syracuse NY. Same chicken-ness re “going home.” So show him some nice signs while he’s there.
PS – I LOVE the cocktail napkin/”put it back on the table” idea!!
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 190
Is this snark??? ‘Cause Steney’s no hero!!
However, in memory of Joe Hill: “Don’t mourn; organize!”
My husband went to the Pelosi/Shea-Porter event in Rye NH. He just phoned me. He wasn’t able to get anywhere close to Pelosi, which is a shame. I did not go because, as I explained to him, if she were standing in my bathroom, I wouldn’t go to see her. Frankly, I didn’t want to be within 30 feet of her because – if given the opportunity – I would have said or done something extremely embarrassing to myself and those around me (like start screaming at her) and I wanted to spare my friends that experience.
The democratic capitulation (again) just sickens me to my core. Disgusting.
MayDaze @ 29
Cool! Except it’s not Inhofe’s seat, it’s Oklahoma’s.
eCAHNomics @ 120
Me, too!
Fozzetti @ 95
Law which goes unchallenged is simply enforced, however corrupting or unconstitutional.
Perhaps even the worst kind of law is one which is never utilized. It just sits there having an effect on society and can’t be challenged because nobody is charged with it and it never gets to a court where it can be overturned!
But, new laws can be challenged by (I think) a senator who takes it to SCOTUS for immediate review.
Remember the Clinton era Telecommunications bill with the Communications Decency Act embedded by Sensenbrenner? It was challenged by Sen. Byrd IIRC and overturned.
Cocktail napkins saying “Impeach” are a cool idea.
Something gentle yet disruptive and a good visual would be to collect a number of tables of different sorts and sizes from Goodwill, paint IMPEACH on the tops, and leave them outside Nancy’s office. One a day, or all at once.
Anybody who happens to run into Pelosi, ask her: “Does she understand having reservations about this bill, and passing this law is an issue that could be an oath of office question?”
Legislative immunity isn’t absolute. Clearly illegal bills aren’t immune from review. Ask her what her views are on getting prosecuted for not fully asserting her oath. Would be helpful if she commented on 5 USC 3331; and her reasons for admitting there were Constitutional problems with the bill. Sounds like she’s not fully doing her job, asserting her oath; but the opposite: She’s got some mental reservations.
If you do get a response, it would be helpful to post it; and if the Grand Jury asks for it, to be able to provide a transcript and a recording of her response. Thanks.
MarkH @ 196
The CDA was indeed struck down in significant part by the Supreme Court, but not as you suggest. The case was Reno v. ACLU and emanated out of the EDPA to the SC in the normal way, not by direct challenge by Senator Byrd.
One thing I’m wondering: If the DNC Members of Congress are really upset by this FISA bill and the waytheDNC-Congressional leadershiphandled things — again — what’s their plan? Perhaps they could be asked directly: Ever through of working with the GOP-disaffected and both Memberships breaking ranks?
Would like to have the DNC leadership asked: What’s their plan to keep the DNC disaffected Members of Congress under the DNC; and not create a third party? Pelosi seems to believe that her Speakership will be a permanent one. Enough DNC and GOP disaffected could upset things. Is this what she’d prefer? Not really interested in excuses now why this couldn’t happen; more interested in what we might see down the road as the DNC Members of Congress get more reminders that the Congressional leadership in both parties isn’t serious about doing their jobs. The DNC Membership can whine about what “should” be happening; I’d like to see their reaction if they are challenged: “Ever thought of leaving the DNC Party as a Member of Congress and creating an independent caucus in 2007?”
bmaz @ 199
I’ll ask the question — maybe I’m missing teh point and this has been answered, forgive me.
What’s stopping any of the Senators from doing just that, and challenging this FISA bill; and why wasn’t this done before the Bill was passed by the Senate: Aren’t the anonymous holds possible; or is that only possible in other situations.
Overall, I fail to undrstand how any bill that effectively ignores the 4th Amendment is enforceable.
Wondering @ 200
I’d like some kind of tutorial regarding the various components of Democratic leadership.
It’s my understanding that the DNC has relatively little influence on congressional matters and that the DSCC and the DCCC are the organizations that really count, along with various lobbying consortiums like the DLC on domestic policy and A*P*C on security and foreign affairs, especially wrt the mideast and terrorism.
I’m not really sure what the DNC does except plan some aspects of election strategy.
bmaz @ 199
I’m going to split some hairs with you on this. An illegal law cannot be lawfully enforced. These issues arise during UCMJ and 42 USC 1983 claims in re military and law enforcement: And they relate to immunity. Something that is clearly illegal, such as an order to violate the Constitution is on its face not enforceable. It’s void. The Congress has no power to pass a bill, nor enact law that targets specific, ongoing litigation. That’s an exercise of judicial power.
This bill incorrectly ignores the 4th Amendment, and illegally deprives the court of judicial review on that very bypass. That violates the Separation of Powers. Even though an act or law may be illegal and unconstitutional, it does not mean that invoking that illegal act is sufficient to justify enforcing it. Rather, a clearly illegal bill, order, act, or rule which does clearly violate the law is one that is not a legal foundation for any defense.
Suppose Congress were to pass an Act that directed the President to violate Geneva, and commit war crimes. The President cannot rely on that act as legal defense; he also cannot invoke his power as Commander in Chief to violate Geneva. Back to your point: To suggest that an unconstitutional act is enforced misses the point: The enforcement of that illegal act is a subsequent offense. The Supreme Law is Supreme, and a clearly illegal act cannot defy the Supreme Law; and is not lawfully enforceable. Rather, the opposite occurs: Personnel who attempt to enforce this illegal act could be prosecuted for refusing to disobey illegal orders.
The bigger problem arises on issues of war crimes: If this act is used as the basis to illegally gather information; and that information is used to support war crimes, the defense of “superior orders” fails when military personnel know, or should know, that the original surveillance was illegal; and the subsequent use of that illegally captured information was used to justify war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, or other violations of Geneva. I get concerned when, despite a clearly illegal act, there is this blind deference that the law — until challenged — is enforced; or that illegal act/law is the law of the land. No, it cannot legally defy the Constitution; and that illegal law, however corrupting and unconstitutional, is not a legal foundation to justify ignoring one’s oath of office, Constitutional obligations, and the requirement to fully assert without any mental reservation the duty to defend the Constitution.
A law which is passed does not mean that the law is lawful. Some laws are clearly illegal, contrary to the Supreme law, and cannot be enforced: This is one of those laws. DoJ Staff personnel are on fair notice that any effort to enforce this illegal act, and by pass the warrant requirement, could be the basis to bring war crimes indictments if it is shown that the use of that illegally captured information was illegally used to engage in Geneva violations. I am open to being persuaded that illegal acts of Congress must be enforced; and that illegal acts which order war crimes cannot be challenged; and that illegal acts of Congress which order and direct unlawful activity related to war crimes is a defense. However, I will be hard pressed to embrace that view, or any legal foundation that they can be enforced lawfully. Thank you for considering my views.
Wondering @ 198
We already have a version of a response to those points, with regard to Majority Leader Reid. From his prepared statement delivered during the 30 minutes he agreed to for Democratic floor debate on the Senate FISA bills Friday evening:
The only way to read the italicized portion of this statement, in my opinion, is that Harry Reid knows full well how unConstitutional the Bond/McConnell bill is that he arranged to have pass in the Senate (while trying to keep his fingerprints off it), and that Harry Reid fully expects the Supreme Court to eventually overturn this legislation as unConstitutional somewhere down the road (should anyone manage to achieve standing and avoid a state secrets dismissal of their case).
That’s what you might call passing the Constitutional buck to the Judicial Branch, in open and obvious contravention of one’s oath of office as a member of the Legislative Branch of government. Members of Congress are so politicized anymore, they seem to have decided that “politicians” are exempt from oaths of office and Constitutional restraints. Their only purpose in life has been reduced to winning elections, and only actions that further and obviously serve that purpose are considered their “duty,” to the exclusion of all else, including the oaths they took upon being seated in public office and the fate of the nation’s system of governance itself.
Siun @ 30
Siun and Melissa @ 54 and all, in case you missed this comment from some threads back:
And to Ninbus @ 193 – THANKS for the report, and to your husband for wading into the fray! Maybe a lesson learned from his experience is to bring a sign, in case one can’t get to the front of the room and into actual contact with the ‘powers that be.’ Something like: RESTORE THE FOURTH! or Sell Not Liberty To Purchase Power, Pelosi.
Impeachment is on the table for Pelosi in Stamford today, according to this press release:
Protesters to Pelosi: Reset the Table
Stamford, Connecticut, Aug.6-More than thirty picketers will rally outside a local restaurant this Thursday, Aug. 9, when Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi meets with high-ranking state Democrats.
The topic: the Congressional effort to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Last November Pelosi said: “Impeachment is off the table.”
Now, the Connecticut Impeachment Movement demands that Pelosi reset the table by supporting Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich’s House Resolution 333. (See http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf).
By rallying outside of Il Falco, 65 Broad Street, Stamford, from noon to 1:30 pm this Thursday, those backing the impeachment effort hope to impress upon Pelosi and other Democrats that mainstream Democrats and independents support the effort. The demonstrators are members and supporters of the Connecticut Impeachment Movement, a grassroots movement which chapters in several towns, including Stamford, Westport and West Hartford.
Pelosi is expected to attend a fundraiser for Rep. Chris Murphy of Chesire at the restaurant this Thursday. Other Democrats expected to be in attendance: Mayor Dan Malloy, Ellen Camhi, George Jepsen, State Rep. Gerry Fox, State Rep. Carlo Leone, State Senator Andrew McDonald, Steve & Sue Mandel, Chip & Jan Raymond, Jean Rexford, Gene Rostov, State Rep. Jim Shapiro, Ann Sheffer & Bill Sheffler, Edward Spilka, Charlotte Suhler, State Rep. William Tong and State Rep. Christel Truglia.
The impeachment effort is gaining momentum.
· Conservative Republican constitutional scholar Bruce Fein has endorsed the campaign.
· A public opinion poll from the American Research Group reported that more than four in ten Americans – 45% – favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half – 54% – favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
· The Democratic State Central Committee plans to vote on impeachment September 26.
For further information contact: Richard Duffee at richard@ctimpeach.org
or 203-588-0161.
Elko County Dems’ Roosevelt/Kennedy Dinner is on August 20 at the Western Folklife Center. Special guest will be Senator Harry Reid. Dinner is $250/plate or a table of eight is $2000. Attend the VIP reception for an additional
Elko County Roosevelt/Kennedy Dinner (Progressive Organization)
Roosevelt/Kennedy Fundraising Dinner
with Harry Reid
The Elko County Democratic Party is proud to announce a their Roosevelt/Kennedy dinner with keynote speaker, Democratic Senatorial Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
The dinner is to be held on the evening of August 20th ,2007 (VIP reception at 6PM Dinner at 7PM) at the Western Folk Life Center (501 Railroad Street, Elko Nevada).
Dinner – $250/plate
Table of eight – $2000
Dinner and VIP reception – $300/Plate
Table of eight & VIP Reception – $2400
Local Contact:
For more information or to purchase tickets, please contact Kristian Forland: kforland@elkocountydemocrats.org
Time: Monday, August 20 at 6:00 PM
Duration: 4 hours
Host: Kristian Forland
Location: Western Folk Life Center (Elko, NV) 501 Railroad Street
An Ellsworth fundraiser is planned in Indianapolis this month, and House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Rep. Julia Carson, D-Indianapolis; Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson; and Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel are slated to attend.
Also Clyburn has announced in a press release on his congressite that he will be doing the NOLA/Miss. tour.
Nevada Clean Energy Summit
Date: 8/18/2007
Location: Reno, NV
Peppermill Resort and Casino, Tahoe Ballroom.
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
The inaugural Nevada Clean Energy Summit will emphasize the importance of clean energy development to Nevada and U.S. energy independence and will illustrate that Nevada is an ideal location for performing renewable energy research, manufacturing renewable energy systems, and generating renewable energy for the western United States. The event will feature U.S. Senator Harry Reid, federal, state and local officials, and other special guests. This event is FREE to attend thanks to the support of our sponsors. RSVP required by August 15, 2007. Space is limited.