home

FISA Passes Senate, Vote 69 to 28

Update: Hillary voted against the motion to invoke cloture and the bill, Obama voted for both. It passed 72 to 26. The cloture roll call vote is here. The votes on the final bill will be available here shortly. All votes this session are here.

Via the ACLU (no link yet but check here soon):

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69-28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

On the bill:

[T]he Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance.

“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

More...

The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.


“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

p. The ACLU will challenge the bill in court.

< Watch Your Butt in Flint, MI | Hillary's Statement on FISA >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How did Hillary vote? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    I hear she voted NO on cloture and NO on the bill.

    Correct. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yup, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Obama even split with Durbin on this. Perhaps BTD is right that Obama is lying now.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama even split (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    with Kerry on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Not surprising. (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    Since losing in '04, Kerry has generally taken the correct (which is to say, the progressive) side of most major issues, especially those to do with Iraq and the abuses of the Bush admin. I hope he's happy that he has now played a major role in saddling his party with a nominee who shows signs of being more accomaodationist than he ever was, even before '04. CDS, anyone?

    [ Parent ]
    So Kerry was for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    before Kerry was against him.  At least today.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (and hoping my stomach (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Rhouse on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    wound doesn't re-open).

    [ Parent ]
    What's funny is (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    I'm sure the usual suspects will excoriate Hillary for "showing Obama up," when in reality, if his purpose was to move to the center then she actually did him a favor.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't care why she did it. (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    I'm glad she did.

    [ Parent ]
    Crying wolf issue (5.00 / 12) (#25)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    Yes, I'm sure she will be blamed for something, sounds like FDL was already blaming her for whatever before the final vote was finished.

    But, if they're going to criticize no matter what you do, you might as well do what you believe in and to h*ll with them.

    Isn't there some other wolf-y saying, something about might as well be hung for a wolf than a lamb?

    [ Parent ]

    I have been very, very disappointed in.... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    ...FDL lately.

    [ Parent ]
    If this is based on my comment (none / 0) (#54)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    in the last thread, that was taken from one FDL comment on the cloture vote and not representative of what FDL itself - or other commenters - were saying.  FDL has Clinton's votes right.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    I misunderstood (although there were other comments about FDL besides yours).  I should have checked FDL myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Good, I'm glad of that. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    ...though I have been been disappointed in them lately, but at least they didn't do that.

    [ Parent ]
    Valhalla....Hillary's detractors may try to (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    paint her as evil again, but I DO NOT think it is going to stick.  obama is going to take a hit this time around....no free passes.

    [ Parent ]
    I sure hope so... (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    Because that'd be one the most ridiculous stances. Supporting the Constitution to "show up" the presumptive nominee.

    I emailed her urging her to vote against this legislation.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure who "the usual suspects" are, (4.73 / 15) (#9)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    but speaking as a longtime Obama supporter and sometime Obama apologist, I'm pleased with the way she, and everybody else who voted against this atrocity, voted.  I only wish the candidate would have gone with them.

    She didn't "show him up" today.  He showed himself up.

    [ Parent ]

    Steve is (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    You Gotta Love (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    how even when she votes the way she said she would in January, she's just doing it to show Obama up.  She keeps her position, he changes his and it's still her fault.

    Not for all Obama supporters, of course, and that's appreciated.

    [ Parent ]

    I pay no more mind (3.66 / 3) (#22)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    to the CDS-afflicted yahoos over there than I do to the ODS-afflicted yahoos elsewhere.  

    There sure are a lot of them over there, though, and they get away with a lot of BS.

    [ Parent ]

    Although actually... (3.66 / 3) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    reading the comment you linked, isn't that person (inarticulately) praising Clinton for rubbing it in Obama's face?

    No matter, though -- I'm sure many will indeed find an excuse to blame her for a good vote.

    [ Parent ]

    as a long time Obama supporter (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    Hillary voted for my principles today and Obama failed miserably.  I was hoping Hillary would vote this way and am sad for our country and proud of every democrat that stood up and voted for the preservation of our consitution.  As for Obama, he lost me to Nader weeks ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I was not suggesting (4.90 / 10) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    that all of the Obama supporters would find an excuse for anger at Clinton, by any means.  But the true haters are always able to identify her sinister motive.

    [ Parent ]
    and even more besides (3.66 / 3) (#189)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    but it's not hate: it's a tell.

    They have a nagging feeling that Obama will lose this one.

    [ Parent ]

    Pegasus...it is good to be in agreement (none / 0) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    with you today...

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure I share the sentiment... (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    ...since us agreeing means the party's nominee did something so bad that we're both critical of it.  :/

    But point taken.

    [ Parent ]

    But the debate would still remain (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    Then?

    Or now?

    [ Parent ]

    From IL (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    Durbin answered my letter and stated that he would vote no. Obama didn't respond at all. But I knew when all the Chicago area Dem's in the House voted yes that Obama would too.

    [ Parent ]
    he split with durbin (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    on kyl Lieberman too.

    [ Parent ]
    Way to go, Hillary. (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How they voted (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Dorgan - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

    Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Leahy - Levin - Lautenberg - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.

    [ Parent ]

    Whitehouse voted aye? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    Boy oh boy. You can't trust anyone these days. He's been pretty liberal on ther issues IIRC.

    [ Parent ]
    Whitehouse. Who'd have guessed? Lately, (none / 0) (#212)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    our legislators have been really disappointing.

    [ Parent ]
    That is an interesting list (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    Very happy with Hillary today, as well as the rest of the white hats. I might even say something nice about Kerry if I was asked to.

    [ Parent ]
    I take it the republicants (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    were marching in lockstep again?

    [ Parent ]
    But, Of Course (5.00 / 12) (#57)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    Bipartisanship = Democrats Caving.  Republicans never have to cross the aisle (and never do).

    [ Parent ]
    So if that is bipartisanship (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    then what is leadership?

    :(

    [ Parent ]

    I'll let you know when I see some! (4.50 / 2) (#192)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:43:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just like lemmings (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    that's not a very big tent (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    if you ask me.

    [ Parent ]
    good job to all who voted against (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    Cantwell/Murray (and Clinton)  make me proud. shakes fist at Adam Smith
     

    [ Parent ]
    You took the words (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    right out of my mouth.

    Kudos to Patty, Maria and Hillary...no on cloture, no on the bill.

    Time to send thank yous!

    And DOLLARS to Hillary to pay off the remaining half of her primary debt.  Can't think of a better way to say thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    Adam Smith? (none / 0) (#144)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    Could you expand on that?

    [ Parent ]
    Rep. Adam Smith, D-WA (none / 0) (#157)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    Ah! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    I thought we had a pro-mercantilist, for a second! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. I needed a laff today.:-) (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    he's my congressman (none / 0) (#164)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    And he voted for the bill when it was in the house. I'm bitter about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for clarification and respectfully suggest (none / 0) (#196)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    that in the future you refer to him as Rep. Adam Smith.

    [ Parent ]
    Whitehouse voted for this atrocity (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    I'm surprised. Well, there goes my admiration for him.

    So glad that Clinton voted no. Makes me glad that I cast my vote for her. Hope this makes the OFB head spin.

    Also, glad to see Tester voted against. Contributed money to him in 06 based on his statement that he didn't want to modify the Patriot Act, he wanted to appeal it. While his record on Iraq is not good, I'm pleased that he has keep his word on issues relating to restoring Constitutional rights.

    Memo to McCaskill: I'm ashamed that you are my Senator and that I helped get you that seat.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm SO surprised (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    at Whitehouse.  He's one of the last people I would have expected to vote for it.

    [ Parent ]
    I know. (none / 0) (#202)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    That is a huge surprise.

    [ Parent ]
    Hilary and Chuck (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Happy with both my senators today.

    This goes a long way to ensuring my votes for them in the future (like either one really needs it in this state) when I get unhappy with other votes of theirs.

    [ Parent ]

    How did Dorgan vote? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    His name is on both lists.


    [ Parent ]
    I noticed that after I (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    posted it.  I don't remember and it's too depressing to look it up again.  Sorry  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    FDL lists him as voting AYE n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Also, your list missed (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    Byrd, Klobuchar and Menendez who also voted NO.

    [ Parent ]
    Mty bad. Dorgan voted No on bill. (none / 0) (#79)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Yes on cloture.

    [ Parent ]
    Preview is your friend. (none / 0) (#100)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    I wish I would remember that. That was "My bad." My apologies for getting Dorgan's votes wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad I didn't do preview (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    I might have noticed the missing and the duplicate Dorgan.  Oh well, maybe next time  :-)


    [ Parent ]
    Dorgan voted Aye on cloture (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    and Nay on final passage.  Duh...

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, that's better. (none / 0) (#191)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    incomplete list (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    I haven't seen final posted yet. Anyone?

    [ Parent ]
    Here (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    a link to both cloture and passage.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    I was going there, but had failed to click a second time on the bill.

    MN Klobachar....no on cloture and on the bill. Yes on the F/D amendment. She's an earlier Sen. Obama endoser. I'm happy with this vote. Maybe it's because I called her office this morning!

    [ Parent ]

    Not An Early Endorser (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    She held off her endorsement at the request of Emily's List and the Clinton campaign.  

    From my understanding, she was under enormous pressure to endorse Obama.  In part, this is because Minnesota has a caucus system which is dominated by Obama activists.  It's not enough to be popular in the state, you have to be popular in the caucuses since there can always be challengers and you won't get a primary vote with broad participation.

    Another reason to hate the anti-democratic institution of the caucus.  It locks people out because it's designed to.  The elite always want the power for themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    As a fellow Minnesotan (none / 0) (#132)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    and Klobuchar doubter, I am shocked she did the right thing here.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too (none / 0) (#147)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    I stand corrected re the K-timeline on endorsement....not "early" but nonetheless, some time before Hillary ended her campaign. She also made many MSM appearances in support...ya know, as a female senator in support of Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton.

    MN - a caucus system fer shure, but this year with a binding (previously straw vote) written secret ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Whitehouse (none / 0) (#188)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    voted yes  :-(  

    Reed voted no.  Interesting.

    Both MI senators voted no, so that's something.

    Both NY senators voted no.

    I assume Kennedy would have voted no along with Kerry.

    Dorgan is on both lists.  Neat trick.

    [ Parent ]

    Woo hoo!!! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    I'm singing and dancing around the room.

    This has me bummed and very angry though:

    69-28

    And this:

    "With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This bill - soon to be law - is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed."

    What are those 69 morons thinking?  Good grief.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes she did (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    Thus opening the 2012 primary season :-)

    You heard it here first.

    [ Parent ]

    Kos gets owned (1.66 / 6) (#102)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    While I have no doubt that Hillary would have voted for the bill if she'd been the nominee, this was a good move to embarrass the Kossacks. I can't say they don't deserve it.

    [ Parent ]
    If "ifs and buts were candy and nuts" (5.00 / 14) (#118)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    During the primary Hillary said she would vote against it, and she did. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that she would have flipped on this issue as Obama did. Your premise that you are "sure she would have voted yes if she was the nominee" is based on nothing more than your wishful thinking in an attempt to make Obama's vote not look like the travesty that it is.

    [ Parent ]
    When It Comes to the Clintons (5.00 / 15) (#129)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    Everyone's a mind reader.  So much easier to impart nefarious motives that way than, say, by actually listening to what they say and watching what they do.

    BTW, I'm sure Clinton was under some pressure to vote with Obama because of the potential for her "no" vote to make him look bad.  That's why BTD predicted she'd vote with him.  So it's not like she had no pressure to change her mind.  She most likely did and she resisted it.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#180)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    In your second paragraph, you did exactly the same thing you were complaining about in your first paragraph - mind reading and imparting nefarious motives.

    I guess it's "Do as I say, not as I do" for you, eh?

    [ Parent ]

    No he didn't. (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    There is nothing in the second paragraph about her motives or her mental processes - only about the pressure she may have been under. Which is kind if obvious, since it's been discussed at this blog for the past, oh, seven days or so.

    [ Parent ]
    That's just tacky (5.00 / 10) (#124)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has better things to do than concern herself about Cheeto Nation looking or feeling bad. I doubt she cares whether they feel embarrassed or not. Don't project that kind of pettiness onto her.


    [ Parent ]
    Gee, where'd you copy and paste this (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    from?  Is this the newest CDS talking point?  Excuse Obama and excoriate Clinton because of exactly the opposite of what each of them did?

    I'm not surprised.  It's absolutely in line with believing Obama has a secret plan to become SuperProgressiveMan once in office.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    I'm not excoriating Hillary. She voted the right way on this. Good for her.

    [ Parent ]
    You stated (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    that you had no doubt she would have voted differently had she been the nominee. There is not a shread of evidence to support that. In fact, most signs point to the exact opposite.

    [ Parent ]
    This (4.25 / 4) (#197)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    I have no doubt that Hillary would have voted for the bill if she'd been the nominee

    IS excoriating her - saying she'd be as two-faced as Obama on this issue if she were the nominee.

    That is a serious insult.

    [ Parent ]

    You are way too sensitive (none / 0) (#201)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    There was no insult there except the one you imagined.

    [ Parent ]
    I have no doubt (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Hillary would have voted the same way on this bill if she was the nominee or not. She did not need to tack right to prove her national security creds or to prove she was strong.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    we'll never know.

    She sure did the right thing today.

    Too bad for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh well (5.00 / 17) (#5)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    I've seen this movie before.  On to the next sellout.

    I hope they at least let us keep the Third Amendment, because we don't have a spare bedroom.

    But think of all the new people (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    you can meet. Those brave soldiers from the heartland have to stay somewhere to protect your heathen city!

    [ Parent ]
    The only amendment that matters (none / 0) (#95)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    Is the second! The rest are part of a quaint bit of our history.

    [ Parent ]
    Recourse to SCOTUS? Is it Constitutional? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    What can we do?????

    Resign en masse from the Democratic Party, demand that they support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

    They'll get their big telecommm contributions and no care about us little lib/prog/leftish gnats.

    I am depressed. I have no idea where we can turn.

    For some reason, thought of Mrs. Robinson... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST

    And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
    Jesus loves you more than you will know.
    God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson.
    Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
    Hey, hey, hey

    We'd like to know a little bit about your for our files
    We'd like to help you learn to help yourself.
    Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes,
    Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.

    Hide in the hiding place where no one ever goes.
    Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
    It's a little secret just the Robinsons' affair.
    Most of all you've got to hide it from the kids.

    Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson,
    Jesus loves you more than you will know.
    God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson.
    Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
    Hey, hey, hey

    Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
    Going to the candidate's debate.
    Laugh about it, shout about it
    When you've got to choose
    Every way you look at this you lose.

    Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,
    Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.
    What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson.
    Jotting Joe has left and gone away,
    Hey hey hey.

    [ Parent ]

    Constitutionality (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    The ACLU says it is unconstitutional.  The strange thing is that everyone seems to just accept that this bill will somehow change rights we have under the Fourth Amendment.  It can't.  No law can ever change the Constitution.  But, it seems as though everyone is just sort of conceding the point.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, always look on the bright side... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    We still have the option of 5-10 years of court cases and appeals, hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees, to get a Supreme Court decision that may overturn this. All the while the spying gets ramped up even further. These guys never stand in one place, you know.

    Yup, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, time for a song! (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    YAY, love that song. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Getcher coat (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:47:16 PM EST
    and getcher hat...

    leave your worries on the doorstep...

    [ Parent ]

    When signed into law, it can be used against the (4.66 / 3) (#67)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST
    citizens until it is declared unconstitutional or until some judge issues an order stating it cannot go into effect.

    This is not a good situation.

    And, of course, looking at formerly strong libs and supporters of civil liberties voting for this thing, have the actions it permits been used already to blackmail sitting members of Congress??

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it depends (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    The ACLU could always ask for an injunction preventing enactment.

    I don't have high hopes it would be granted, though.

    [ Parent ]

    You are naive (none / 0) (#145)
    by PamFl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    It is better to delay or prevent bad legislation that hope the SC will overturn it. It will take years of legal wrangling and millions of dollars to fight this-that is, IF the SC will even hear it.
    The Judiciary Committees in the House & Senate, plus the US Attny General let it go to Congress for a vote. These are the very people who are supposed to vet legislation as to it's Constitutionality. They got exactly what they wanted.
    There is an old saying-It's easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.
     

    [ Parent ]
    Some of us have already en masse'd (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    out of the Democratic Party.

    I'm tempted to rejoin so I can quit again, but that would just make work for my town's voter registration staff.  And they've always been polite and lovely, so I don't want to do that.

    [ Parent ]

    Any buyer's remorse today (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    out there in Obamaland?

    Some (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    in the FDL comments there definitely was some.  There was also some CDS, but most of the people kept the focus on the folks who voted for this abomination instead of trying to wank a way to blame those who didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    sigh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by mwb on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    Not surprised by the vote or even Senator Obama's vote - but I am disappointed.  

    I made a donation to the ACLU today in anticipation of this travesty by our elected officials and in particular Democrats who claim to be so much "better" than their Republican peers on such things.

    At least they work to protect our Rights while too many of our elected officials disgustingly forget their oaths of office for transient political gain.


    They'll still get re-elected (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    We the voters will still re-elect these idiots to their phony-balony jobs.  They have nothing to worry about.  We all worship at the alter of "experience" and "ranking".  We are the ones to blame.  THROW THE BUMS OUT, I TELL YOU!

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#165)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    the best we can do is find and support primary challengers.  For better or worse, that's our system.

    But look at what happened to Ned Lamont.  The greatest number of people will say either "No unknown will beat the Republican" or "Look at all the seniority OurGuy has; you want to give that up?"

    And don't give me any 'come the revolution' crap.  Any revolution in this country will go against us, because the corporate media will make sure that the revolution will be televised.

    [ Parent ]

    TPM is saying she voted (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    against the filibuster and aye n cloture. they need to get their information straight. she changed that vote.

    look... they are liars (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    go to a netroots blog two years from now and you'll see half of those idiots claiming Clinton voted YES on FISA.  Mark my words and give it a try.

    I'm serious.  Half of them think she voted yes on the 2005 bankruptcy bill.   So it's a pattern.  Its substantiated.

    Because I know some people know better and either remain or remained silent or even encouraged it, that is why I level that charge on the netroots.

    [ Parent ]

    Right on Edgar (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
    and no matter how many times the lie gets corrected, it comes right back.  That's not a mistake, that's a strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    Please will someone go to TPM (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    and post the correction to Sen. Clinton's vote on cloture? I would but don't have a log-in there.

    There are several comments calling her a coward for voting "against the filibuster" and then conveniently against the bill.

    [ Parent ]

    OK...(braces herself) (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    I'm goin' in!

    [ Parent ]
    This really just makes me want to cry. (5.00 / 14) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    And what makes it worse is that the man who aspires to be the chief defender of the Constitution voted for it.  Voted FOR it.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around how I am supposed to reconcile that.

    We already have someone in the Oval Office who has no regard for the Constitution - do we really need another?  I don't care how many times he "explains" that his monitoring and review will be any better than Bush's - at this stage, it's already nearly impossible to believe anything he says, so how I can trust him to protect my rights and privileges any better than Bush has?

    He just doesn't get it.  And I can't entrust my vote to someone who has no idea what that vote means.


    no regard for the Constitution (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by noholib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    RE: Anne: "We already have someone in the Oval Office who has no regard for the Constitution - do we really need another?"

    I also want to cry.  So, this is the choice now: between two candidates who have no regard for the Constitution. And I think it's even more egregious from someone who studied and taught constitutional law! I do not want to vote for such a candidate.  

    However, I cannot in any way vote for continued Republican economic policies and so much else.  Senator McCain doesn't have a clue what to do about economics and much of what he says about foreign policy is downright scary.

    So ... take a deep breath ...
    I have always believed firmly that in a two-party system, it is a zero-sum gain.  If you vote for one, you deny the other a vote.  I believe that if I don't vote for the Democrat, then I am de facto handing a vote to the Republican.

    I am truly worried by where we are right now with the so-called Democratic nominee for the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, look at it this way. (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    I believe that if I don't vote for the Democrat, then I am de facto handing a vote to the Republican.

    If that's true, then by not voting for a Republican, then you are de facto handing a vote to the Democrat. Two votes for the price of none, and its still a zero-sum game.

    [ Parent ]

    I LOVE this! (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    by not voting for a Republican, then you are de facto handing a vote to the Democrat
    .

    Now I have an answer to all the morons who tell me not voting = voting for McCain!

    [ Parent ]

    I believe a "Present" (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    vote is the way to go this year. I have it on authority that a "Present" vote is equivalent to a NO vote. "No" to both. When people ask you who you are voting for, you can correct them and tell them who you are voting against.

    [ Parent ]
    Presents? I love Presents! Lots of (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    Presents, peeps.  Gimme Presents in November. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    You know, (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    I didn't even hold out the tiniest bit of hope that they'd reconsider, surprise us, and vote no.

    What a freaking disappointment these people are.

    I want my country back.  

    [ Parent ]

    There is still the convention court of last resort (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST


    Anyone else find it (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    interesting that MCain wasn't there for the vote. I know he's been in favor of telcom immunity and I'm 100% sure he would have voted for the bill if he was there, but he wasn't. Politically, what does that say? Did Obama just p*ss away the Constitution and get skunked at the same time?

    Could it be . . . (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    that Ol' Man Strangelove isn't as stupid or crazy as many of us thought?

    [ Parent ]
    McCain has not cast a vote (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    since April 8, 2008.

    He just doesn't vote.

    [ Parent ]

    He's the Lily Von Schtupp (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    of politics.

    He's...tired.

    Tired of playing ze game...

    [h/t Blazing Saddles]

    [ Parent ]

    He doesn't need to vote! (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    With the Dems so willing to vote an all-Republican agenda.

    [ Parent ]
    i plan (5.00 / 20) (#52)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    on thanking hillary for standing up for the consitution with a contribution to help her retire her debt; encourage y'all to do the same.  and then i really have to think about changing my user name, not so proud to be a dem these days. . .sigh.

    GREAT idea! (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    Here's the link

    We really need to reward them when they do the right thing.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for putting the link up! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    I donated earlier. Hopefully more will too :). I'm going to call my senators and thank them as well.  

    [ Parent ]
    I Did Too (5.00 / 10) (#101)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    I've recently decided to direct my contributions to parts of the Democratic Party that have their own power base and will not be assimilated into the Obamanation like the DNC appears to have been.  With her vote today, Clinton remains one of those independent bases.  

    [ Parent ]