Comments on: Roll Call–Then and Now

By: phred

phred — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:42:04 +0000

I cannot fathom what rationale Whitehouse could offer that would in any way mitigate the fact the he voted to throw out the 4th amendment.

By: klynn

klynn — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:34:40 +0000

Would love to have Whitehouse on here or the Lake to explain his vote…

By: cboldt

cboldt — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:45:03 +0000

Of course she voted against DOdd’s immunity. That’s because she had her own immunity provision that was not horrible (much better than Specter/Whitehouse’s amendment, for example).

I agree with your point about DiFi, but I rank the anti-immunity provisions in different order.

Leave the cases “as is.” That preserves the rule of law, the autonomy of the judicial branch, and still permits the government to play the state secrets card.

My second choice would be Specter/Whitehouse, because, while it substituted the defendant (who isn’t at much financial risk either way), it left the action in the same (public) courts, etc.

My last choice if Feinstein’s. FISC is a secret court. It’s bound to follow classification orders from the executive.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:21:16 +0000

I hope that part of that was me quoting you on this bill.

We shouldn’t have to be screaming at them to get them to do the right thing, though, or even to hear what people are saying.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:19:42 +0000

That’s the same line the city of LA used to get people to vote for their expanded (but slightly smaller) utility tax: they needed to ‘modernize’ it because it was missing DSL and Blackberries.

All you really need to know here is that it applied to landline and cell phones already. The ‘lowering’ is from 10 percent to 9 percent. They kept saying they weren’t going to be taxing the Intertubes (no, just all the accesses to it), and that the money would be used for the police dept (I’ve heard that one at least twice before and it was a lie both those times, too).

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:44:36 +0000

I honestly think you’re snatching defeat out of victory here. Of course she voted against DOdd’s immunity. That’s because she had her own immunity provision that was not horrible (much better than Specter/Whitehouse’s amendment, for example).

She expressed reservation about immunity and exclusivity–and actually acted on the latter. I think CA would be much better off celebrating DiFi for voting no when her attempt to craft a moderate compromise failed than to beat her up for the interim votes. You guys made A LOT of progress with DiFi on this bill–and if you can keep that momentum up, she might someday look like CA’s Senator.

By: cboldt

cboldt — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:36:04 +0000

April 2000 …

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00059.html

Lt. Gen. Hayden: The result today at NSA is an intelligence gathering system that operates within detailed, constitutionally-based, substantive, and procedural limits under the watchful eyes of Congress, numerous institutions within the Executive Branch, and - - through the FISA — the judiciary. The privacy framework is technology neutral and does not require amendment to accommodate new communications technologies.

By: cando

cando — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:43:54 +0000

He had been my hero on the Judiciary Committee. Would like to hear his justification for the vote. Generally I have thought Whitehouse, Webb and McCaskill were thinking democrats who support the constitution. What was going on in their heads today?

By: peterboy

peterboy — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:20:04 +0000

what was up with sheldon RI?

By: dday

dday — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:39:43 +0000

Of course, DiFi voted for cloture on the bill, voted against final passage, and then put out a press release touting her vote against. This, by the way, is called “pulling a Lieberman.”

She also voted against stripping out immunity.