Labels: Bernie Sanders, elites, filibuster, super-rich, tax cuts, US Senate
Submit To Propeller
posted by profmarcus at
12/10/2010
“One of the Greatest Intrusions, Potentially, on the Rights of Americans Protected Under the 4th Amendment”–Sen. Feingold Blasts Telecom Spy Bill
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, this is a great blow to the rights of the American people. And much of the publicity has been about a very important aspect: giving these telephone companies immunity that cooperated with the President’s illegal program. We think that should be decided based on current law, not some kind of a retroactive immunity. But that’s essentially what this bill does.But you know what? Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it’s an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who’s in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.
And unfortunately, it’s going to go through with the help of some Democrats. So this is a very, very sad day for our Constitution and for our rights, and it’s not justified by the terrorism issue, because we do not have any problem at all with going after anybody that we have reasonable suspicions about. It has to do with sucking all this information into a huge database in a way that is very intrusive on the privacy of all Americans.
[...]
The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that’s absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is.
[...]
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, explain exactly what you think is an impeachable offense.
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, you know, this is one of the things that’s been debated over the centuries, but I believe that when—it has to do with the rule of law and the very structure of our system of government, in other words, not just the issue that many have been concerned about, misleading the country into war, the Iraq war. That was a terrible thing, and, you know, some say that’s an impeachable offense. But to me, when the law is clear, when it’s absolutely clear that there is a clear statute and the President creates his own idea of a law and says he doesn’t have to follow the duly elected laws of the land, to me, that’s right at the core of what the founders of this country meant when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.
[...]
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.
Labels: 4th Amendment, Chris Dodd, Congress, filibuster, FISA, Impeachment, Russ Feingold, Telecom Immunity, US Senate, warrantless domestic wiretapping
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
6/24/2008
Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.
How, then, can this be explained?
The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.
Labels: Attorney General, criminal Democrats, Department of Justice, filibuster, George Bush, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Mukasey, Republicans, Salon, torture, US Senate, waterboarding
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/09/2007
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd may be polling below the margin of error, but his presidential bid has provided a podium for his moves in the Senate to curtail President Bush's power grab.
Selling himself as a dark horse alternative to the frontrunners, Dodd has used his presence on the campaign trail to raise the visibility of his attempts to block administration proposals are restore what he says have been crumbling Constitutional rights in the last seven years. The Connecticut Senator's recent promise to filibuster a foreign surveillance law that would grant legal immunity to phone and internet companies that helped the NSA spy on Americans without warrants has helped raise his profile, especially among progressive bloggers and liberal activists.
Labels: 2008 candidates, 2008 Election, Chris Dodd, constitutional crisis, filibuster, FISA, NSA, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, U.S. Constitution, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/02/2007
Senator Dodd's campaign communications director Hari Sevugan tells me that $150,000 in small contributions have poured into Dodd's campaign in the past 24 hours, since his announcement that he will put a hold on--and may even filibuster--a foreign intelligence surveillance bill approved yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Dodd objects to a provision that would grant immunity to the telecommunications companies that turned over their customers' phone and e-mail records to the government's warrantless surveillance program. The companies have been hit with 40 pending lawsuits charging them with privacy violation.
Dodd has raised more small-dollar contributions in the last 24 hours than he did in the previous month. Sevugan also says the number of visits to his website is up tenfold, as is the number of people registering their e-mail addresses there.
Labels: 2008 candidates, Chris Dodd, constitutional crisis, domestic surveillance, filibuster, FISA, Harry Reid, retroactive immunity, Swampland, telecommunications companies, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
i have been waiting for a confrontation to blow the constitutional crisis out into the open... i had hoped the dems would summon the cojones to proceed with inherent contempt charges in light of the white house flipping off congressional subpoenas, but, for the congressional dem leadership, who have evidently submitted to voluntary neutering and spaying, that is not to be... too bad it has to come in the form of in intra-party battle, but so be it... one way or another, we are way, WAY overdue in facing up to the most serious crisis that has ever faced our democratic republic...
Labels: 2008 candidates, Booman Tribune, Chris Dodd, domestic surveillance, filibuster, FISA, Harry Reid, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
I am ... a strong supporter of privacy rights. As you may know, on August 3, 2007, the Senate passed, and on August 5th, the President signed the Protect America Act of 2007, or Public Law 110-55 (P.L.110-55), providing temporary six-month changes to FISA in light of the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI) expressed concerns about a recently-emerged gap in foreign counterterrorism intelligence collection.
While I believe it is important to provide our intelligence community the tools it needs to ensure the safety of our nation, I also believe we can do so in a manner that does not compromise the privacy rights of innocent Americans. Although I opposed the Protect America Act because it did not meet this important standard, it passed by a vote of 60-28. As the sunset date of the Protect America Act approaches and Congress considers its replacement, I will fight for legislation that will keep our nation safe, but that will not compromise our core values as Americans.
[...]
My best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Labels: 2008 candidates, Chris Dodd, domestic surveillance, filibuster, FISA, Harry Reid, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
Labels: 2008 candidates, Chris Dodd, domestic surveillance, filibuster, FISA, Harry Reid, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
Just last night, we heard there are plans to disregard Senator Dodd's intention to place a hold on a FISA bill that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies.
That would be a pretty extraordinary move, but Chris Dodd has pledged to stop this horrible bill any way he can.
So if the hold is not honored, he is prepared to go to the Senate floor and filibuster.
Rolling back the Bush Administration assault on the rule of law has been a major focus of Chris Dodd's work in the Senate -- and it's also a centerpiece in his campaign for President.
Labels: 2008 candidates, Chris Dodd, domestic surveillance, filibuster, FISA, retroactive immunity, telecommunications companies, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
10/19/2007
The most remarkable thing about the debate on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week was what didn’t happen. Barely a word was said in praise him or his management of the Justice Department. The message was clear even though the Republicans prevented a no-confidence vote through the threat of a filibuster — a tactic that until recently they claimed to abhor. The sound of Mr. Gonzales not being defended was deafening.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Congress, Department of Justice, filibuster, George Bush, no confidence vote, U.S. Constitution, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
6/13/2007
"Once the Democrats figure out how they want to waste time on this, Senator McConnell will decide how to respond," Jon Henke, a spokesman for McConnell, told RAW STORY in an e-mail. "If the Democrats want to waste some time in a pointless personal fight about the Ambassador to Belgium, I’d only note that recess appointments are very common and we don’t recall Democrats citing this law when President Clinton made similar recess appointments."
Labels: balance of powers, Belgium, Bill Clinton, constitutional crisis, filibuster, George Bush, Mitch McConnell, recess appointment, Sam Fox, U.S. Constitution
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
4/09/2007
"We could have had a civilized, well-structured debate," McConnell lamented, "but that appears to be not possible at the moment."
McConnell responded by mounting a Republican filibuster Democrats couldn't overcome. And the Senate was prevented from proceeding with its planned week of debate on the Iraq war.
That Republicans won this encounter should have been clear to everyone. A poisonous debate on Iraq, attracting massive press coverage that was bound to be unfavorable to Bush and his war plans, was averted.
After four years of fighting in Iraq, and two weeks of trying to force senators to debate the conflict, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday wheeled out the ultimate weapon. He ordered his colleagues to work on Saturday. To the average American, this would be an inconvenience. To a senator, a Saturday vote is a hardship reserved for national crises such as impeachment or Terri Schiavo. Votes have been held on Saturday only five times in the past 10 years.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): "We're calling their bluff. We're staying here. Now vote yes or no."
"I don't think that is a fair or appropriate process for this body to follow," he said. Particularly because he had plans to attend the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Florida on Saturday.
[H]e was asked how his colleagues felt about surrendering their Saturday. "You'll have to ask all of them," he said tightly.
The candidate's "Conversation with Granite Staters," which was to have been held at 2:30 Saturday in the Dover High School cafeteria, had been scrapped.
"Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist. You decide you are going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever?"
Labels: Chuck Schumer, filibuster, George Bush, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Impeachment, Iraq resolution, Mitch McConnell, Ric Keller, Sam Brownback, Terry Schiavo, US Senate
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
2/16/2007
An alternative look at NEWS THAT MATTERS: current events, politics, opinion, perspective, discussion, analysis, issues, debate, and insight - national and global.
Reno |
London |
 |
 |
