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.

because pressure from constituents is probably the only thing that will shake them into action.

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!

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

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

Oooh, can I get in single digits?

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

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….

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

“I’m not an economist, but my hope is that the market, if it functions normally, will be able to yield a soft landing,” Bush said. “That’s kind of what it looks like so far.”

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

That market could remain “frozen” for up to a month, said Doug Duncan, chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Et tu, MBA?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 24

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.

Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.

dumbya @12

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.

…….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

OT-

OK Kiddo (and, for that matter, everyone else)- have you see that Andrew Rice is running for Inhofe’s Senate seat?

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

MayDaze @ 27

OT-

OK Kiddo (and, for that matter, everyone else)- have you see that Andrew Rice is running for Inhofe’s Senate seat?

Man, am I having a day. I read that as “Andrew Dice,” thinking “Clay” was the next word.

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

Bush had Lyme Disease last year?

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

OT-

OK Kiddo (and, for that matter, everyone else)- have you see that Andrew Rice is running for Inhofe’s Senate seat?

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

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?

Oh sure!

Good luck getting it past the (packed) Supreme Court, though.

Siun @ 30

Still no response from Emmanuel’s press team on my request for a calendar of appearances.

hmmmm

See my comment @28 above. Seems like the Democratic leaders CAN coordinate something: a “hide from the constituents during recess” plan.

nomolos @ 27

dumbya @12

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.

…….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’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

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?

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

Oklahoma kiddo @ 24

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.

Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.

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

MayDaze @ 29

OT-

OK Kiddo (and, for that matter, everyone else)- have you see that Andrew Rice is running for Inhofe’s Senate seat?

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)

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

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?

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

BigMitch @ 26

Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.

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.

The Supreme Court is worth it.

SufiLizard @ 48

BigMitch @ 26

Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

The Supreme Court is worth it.

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

Ann in AZ @ 39

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?

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.

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

SufiLizard @ 48

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.

3 words. Supreme Court Appointments.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

BigMitch @ 33

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.

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.

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

Oklahoma kiddo @ 39

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)

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?

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

Oklahoma kiddo @ 24

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.

Please make sure we win the election for POTUS first.

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

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.

i move
we begin the process to get Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito impeached and removed.

JPL @ 73

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.

Hopefully, it was a giggle of agreement. Doubtful. I’m in GA, too. I’ve done the same.

Jane, this is the money quote

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.

I give you Jeralyn Merritt

Congress has once again placed itself on a collision course with the Bill of Rights. With the presidential and congressional elections just two months away, our politicians are once more trying to demonstrate their tough stance on crime and concern for our security by introducing and promising swift passage of legislation that diminishes our privacy rights and provides even greater powers to federal law enforcement agencies.

Using the tragedies of TWA Flight 800 and the Olympic bombing in Atlanta to instill fear of terrorism in the heart of every American, our politicians are promising to make us safe and secure by giving the FBI the power to wiretap more of us with less judicial scrutiny, to access our personal and financial records with no judicial oversight, and to seize our assets by classifying us as “terrorists” based upon our personal and political beliefs.

President Clinton and the Democrats are behind this latest assault on our privacy rights. On the eve of the first anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing in April, 1996, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Democrats were very disappointed, however, because the bill passed without proposed expansions of wiretapping authority. In May 1996, Reps. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 3409 “to combat domestic terrorism.” The bill, titled the “Effective Anti-Terrorism Tools for Law Enforcement Act of 1996,” would expand the powers granted to the FBI to engage in multi- point (roving) wiretaps and emergency wiretaps without court orders, and to access an individual’s hotel and vehicle and storage facility rental records. It also relaxed the requirements for obtaining pen register and trap and trace orders in foreign intelligence investigations. …

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

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.)

FWIW that’s my recollection, too. And a pretty recent decision, too, iirc.

FunnyDiva

BigMitch @ 64

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.)

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

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?

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

The Supreme Court, however…..yes, that IS a problem.

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.

…it may just be that many members of Congress think that these are the kinds of powers that the government should have.

jeralyn’s description of what clinton, schumer and conyers did in 1996 supports this hypothesis.

oddmommy @ 44

nomolos @ 27

dumbya @12

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.

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

oddmommy @ 69

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.

i move
we begin the process to get Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito impeached and removed.

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

Ann in AZ @ 41

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?

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.

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

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.

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

oddmommy @ 69

The Supreme Court, however…..yes, that IS a problem.

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.

Glad it’s between coffee and coctail time,
’cause that would have made a mess of my desk.

BigMitch @ 33

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.

Edwards is a Traditional Democrat, i.e. the real thing.

BigMitch @ 84

yellowdog jim @ 75

i move
we begin the process to get Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito impeached and removed.

Grounds? By the way, unlike the President they can only be impeached for breaching the duty of “good behavior while in office.”

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 f