FISA Fight: What's in a filibuster?

As lordradish has diaried, Sen. Patrick Leahy has announced that he will join with Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, and others in opposing the SSCI version of the FISA bill. This is signficant, in that one committee chairman, Leahy for the Judiciary Committee, is stating his clear opposition to the work of another chairman, Jay Rockefeller at Intelligence.

Tuesday, February 12 is a critical day in our fight to stand up for American values and preserve our freedoms while protecting our national security.  The Senate is voting on amendments to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing the use of wiretaps and other means to conduct surveillance of foreign threats.

Unfortunately, the new FISA bill we'll be voting on still has many problems.  I will do everything in my power -- including joining my colleague Chris Dodd in a filibuster against this legislation -- to fix it.

The procedure for tomorrow is that votes on the outstanding amendments will begin at 10:00. After these votes happen, they'll have the cloture vote. When Leahy and Dodd say they will filibuster, it means that they will vote against the cloture vote on the bill to continue debate. If they are successful in preventing 60 votes for cloture, the debate can continue for as long as 30 hours. If they fail to prevent cloture, Dodd has four hours reserved for him and his colleagues like Leahy to convince enough fellow Dems to vote against final passage.

Use Sen. Leahy's contact tool or call your Senators (toll free number for the switchboard: 1-800-965-4701) to urge them to vote against providing retroactive immunity to the telcos, and to vote YES on S 3907, the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip immunity from the bill.

•  Keep up the pressure on Reid, too.

  In a fight between two committee chairs, his position will be key.

  by GOTV on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM PDT

  •  too late.

    he will vote against the bad bill.  but because he CHOSE to make it the base bill, he ensured its passage.  easy way to not lead and give the administration what it wants while getting to personally say he voted the right way.  

    by wearewatching on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM PDT

    •  It's Voting For Cloture

      All over again. Vote for cloture. Vote against the final bill. Claim you were against it because the media are too stupid to spot that you did everything possible to pass the bill and only voted against when your vote didn't matter.

      by Rob M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:38:22 AM PDT

•  YOU GO GO GO SENATOR LEAHY!!!!!!!!!

  by BoyBlue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM PDT

  •  Send Him A letter!

    And sign his petition!

    I support Senator Patrick Leahy's efforts to improve the new FISA bill.  I strongly support surveillance targeting foreign threats and terrorists who wish to do us harm -- but we must take care to protect Americans' liberties in the process.  

    In addition, I oppose the Bush-Cheney Administration's efforts to grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecom companies who supported the Administration's warrantless wiretap program, in violation of FISA.  No one -- no citizen, no company, no Senator, and no President -- is above the law.  By offering blanket immunity to telecom companies, the Administration is trying to avoid accountability -- and that is unacceptable.

    by Kdoug on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM PDT

•  the candidates.....?

  Did we ever get a commitment on the filibuster from our candidate-senators? I seem to recall they said they "support" Chris Dodd, but I don't remember if either commented one way or another on the filibuster. Kennedy and Kerry are on board, no?
  Seems to me if Obama especially committed to it, that would put pressure on some of his very public, purplish allies, like McCaskill and Johnson. At least I hope so.

  by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM PDT

  •  both support removing the retro-active clause

    however, only Obama has stated he would support Dodd filibuster.  Now the question is, how do you define "support?"  Action or lip service?  He's got to be there to take action.

    I'm betting that neither candidate will make a showing.

    by Cheney on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:20:32 PM PDT

    •  Obama's scheduled in WI. Playing Hookie.

      by ben masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM PDT

•  I called Senator Isaakson today

  (lost cause, I know) about the FISA vote and was told (not surprisingly) that he supports telcom immunity. I have to say, of all the calls I place to legislators, though, Isaakson's office staff always impresses me the most. They are unfailingly polite and responsive, and always willing to do their best to explain his fucked-up position on the issue at hand. I can't help liking the people that work there. I wish they would sit down with Johnny and talk some sense into him.

  Off topic, I know.

  by dead letter office on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM PDT

  •  and I spelled his name wrong twice above

    Sorry. Kind of. Maybe I'll finally learn to spell his name when he finally starts voting to uphold the Constitution.

    by dead letter office on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

  •  That is so funny -

    "always willing to do their best to explain his fucked-up position".

    by madgranny on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM PDT

    •  i know. they try so hard!

      i want them to be happy!

      if i ever change sides on gay rights or corporate lawbreaking, it will be so i can make his staffers feel like they are doing a good job over there handling the phones.

      by dead letter office on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:03 PM PDT

  •  I e-mailed Stabenow...

    It took her about 1,000 words to basically say:  "no comment" .

    by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM PDT

    •  try isakson. 202 224 3643.

      they'll tell you no 9 ways in 2 minutes, and you'll want to hug them at the end!

      by dead letter office on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM PDT

    •  Is she going to STABmeinthEbackNOW

      again on this one?

      by jeffwtux on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM PDT

      •  TeeHee

        Stab en now or stab en later.  Usually later, after they get elected.

        by dkmich on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:11:15 AM PDT

  •  Not Off Topic At All—We Need To Know This

    by JG in MD on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:53:06 PM PDT

•  Sooooooooo

  lemmegethistraight.

  There's a thirty hour limit on the filibuster, or am I missing something?

  by OrdinaryGal on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    and there will only be the 30 hours if they can keep cloture from passing. It's far more likely that this cloture vote will pass, but then Dodd/Leahy et al. have four hours to try to get their colleagues to join with them against final passage.

    by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM PDT

    •  What???

      I thought 30 hours is the limit of post-cloture debate.  The whole point of a filibuster is that it can go on indefinitely.

      Have the Senate rules secretly changed on me?

      by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM PDT

      •  Which constitution are you reading? n/t

        by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM PDT

        •  filibusters are part of senate rules

          The part in the Constitution which applies is the part that says each house may set its own rules.

          by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM PDT

          •  So if we now have a majority,

            these must be the Dems rules.  Boy, they sure are getting their butts kicked for owning the bat and the ball.  

            by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM PDT

        •  Article 1 Section 5 Paragraph 2

          Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

          by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM PDT

    •  From the Senate site:

      The cloture rule–Rule 22–is the only formal procedure that Senate rules provide for breaking a filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter. Under cloture, the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours of debate.

      http://www.senate.gov/...

      I read that as 30 hours if cloture passes.  And that's the way I've always understood it.

      by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM PDT

    •  I'm confused

      I thought it worked like this:  If someone moves for cloture there is a vote in thirty hours.  If the cloture vote succeeds, the filibuster is over.  If it fails, they can keep talking forever, or until cloture finally succeeds.

      Where does the 4 hours come from.  There is unlimited debate in the Senate unless there is unanimous consent, and I was given to understand that Dodd had not consented.

      Is this wrong?

      by RenMin on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

      •  It sounds like he did consent

        I'm way over my head in trying to explain details here, i've spread enough bad info at this site on this, but check out some of the comments from eparrot and mcjoan here, or check out Greenwald's explanations, too.

        by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:39:13 PM PDT

      •  No I don't think you're wrong

        Either mcjoan has it wrong or else Reid is trying to pull another fast one.

        by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM PDT

        •  No, Reid got the best possible deal

          for the Cloture vote.  The Republicans have to get 60 votes for cloture, the Democrats need only 41 votes to stop cloture.  The problem is that There aren't 41 Dems who will vote against cloture, either because they support immunity, or because they are out of town.

          The four hours are the time they have to get reconsideration of the Cloture motion if Cloture is approved.  30 hours are available for filibuster under the unanimous consent decree if cloture fails.  The 30 hours is the usual amount in such decrees. Despite the tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate, it is nowadays mostly limited to thirty hours due to the press of business.  30 hours is either a whole week under their usual schedule of Main business in the afternoon, or it is three days under their lengthened Main business hours, and the Senate is running on a tight time clock and 30 hours may be enough to snarl all business and force some change in positions.

          by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM PDT

          •  But how is that better

            Than just filibustering the original cloture motion? (from our perspective of wanting to deny telco immunity, not Reid's logistic concerns)

            by bren on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM PDT

            •  There's not "unlimited" time on a motion

              only on a bill itself.

              by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:29:49 PM PDT

              •  Tx /nt

                by bren on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            30 hours are available for filibuster under the unanimous consent decree if cloture fails.  The 30 hours is the usual amount in such decrees. Despite the tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate, it is nowadays mostly limited to thirty hours due to the press of business.  30 hours is either a whole week under their usual schedule of Main business in the afternoon, or it is three days under their lengthened Main business hours, and the Senate is running on a tight time clock and 30 hours may be enough to snarl all business and force some change in positions.

            This is tantamount to saying there's no such thing as a filibuster any more.  I can't believe that's right.

            "Cloture" is a vote to limit debate.  That's the definition.  If debate is limited to 30 hours by unanimous consent even when cloture fails - then the concept of filibuster is pure fiction.  It's limited debate no matter how the vote goes - but we'll call it "filibuster" and "cloture" to appease the ignorant rubes.

            What a crock of shit.  If Dodd agreed to this - I take back all the admiration I've been showering on him for months.

            by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:29:12 PM PDT

  •  I must be getting old . . .

    I remember when a filibuster was actually a filibuster, not a failure to vote for cloture.

    by dizneeland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM PDT

•  I signed the e-mail alert from Sen. Leahy earlier

  today.  Thank you, Democratic Senators.  You are all patriotic heroes of these United States for standing up for our Bill of Rights and the Constitution!

  Let's return this country to the Rule of Law, shall we?  This means you, Rethuglicans, before the end of your heinous term!  Do your sworn duty and join the honorable Dodd, Feingold, Leahy, et al!!!

  Thank you!!

  by Little Lulu on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:04:27 PM PDT

•  Hate to rain on this parade......

  but telco immunity is a done deal. Zero chance of removing it.

  by heywho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:04:39 PM PDT

  •  What will the House do, then,

    in Committee?

    by madgranny on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM PDT

    •  Bless it and move it along. NEXT! n.t

      by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM PDT

    •  Probably some good

      Then comes the conference committee.

      Then comes the signing statement.

      Jesus, these people mean nothing with their words, oral or written, the only solution is to keep as many Republicans out of power as possible.

      by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM PDT

      •  And elect progressive "spineful" Dems

        by madgranny on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:12:48 PM PDT

  •  Please see Glenn Greenwald

    there isn't going to be any actual filibuster tomorrow. Under the Unanimous Consent framework agreed to by all Senators (including Dodd), there will be a 60-vote requirement to invoke cloture on the FISA bill and for ultimate passage, followed by an allotted 4 hours of post-cloture "debate," but there will not be any real filibuster to prevent cloture. When Leahy says that he will "join" Dodd's filibuster, what he means is that he will merely cast a vote against cloture.

    Dodd's efforts against this bill have been quite commendable, and the UC Agreement isn't completely worthless. It means that Democrats do not need 60 votes, or even 50 votes, to stop this bill. Rather, they only need 41 Senators willing to oppose cloture (which everyone knows they're not going to get).

    I simply despair.  This is our country, right here, but because principles aren't rocks people don't see them.

    So deplorable I do not know how to write it.  This is why I say we'll never see a functional Congress in my lifetime again, look how far we have to go.  [sigh]

    by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:38:26 PM PDT

    •  Oh shit!

      Dodd agreed to give up his right to filibuster?

      WTF????

      I'm removing my tagline.

      by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM PDT

      •  Dodd has done quite a bit

        We have leadership positions in our party to prevent this, not just lone patriots like Dodd and Feingold.  There is the real failure.

        Dodd is a good man who did what he could.

        by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM PDT

        •  Not if he gave up his right to filibuster

          I see no sense and no value in that.

          But this is all very confusing.  They're calling it a cloture vote tomorrow.  If that's really what it is, then mcjoan's account is wrong.  Cloture failing means unlimited debate - not 30 hours.  30 hours is what happens if cloture passes.

          So is this a phony cloture vote?  I'm really confused and really, really pissed off.

          You know who else ought to be really pissed off if this is a phony: Senator Byrd.  His passion has been the Senate rules.  If they're calling this "cloture" but saying that debate is limited even if it fails, that's a travesty of the rules.

          by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM PDT

          •  I'm afraid I'm pretty confused too

            I hate to be too declarative, it's so hard to see what's happening.  I do trust Greenwald, though.

            I don't know why Dodd gave up.  I don't know a lot about why our Senators act the way they do.

            by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM PDT

          •  The real problem is that they can't get

            41 votes to oppose cloture.  Reid and Dodd managed wonders getting the best deal that requires only 41 votes to stop cloture.  The bad part is that there won't be 41 to vote against it.  It isn't Reid or Dodd that's at fault here, it's that there are Dem Senators who either won't support the effort against Immunity, or who won't be present.

            by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM PDT

            •  I actually think they can

              get 41 votes to oppose cloture, i suspect that some of the dems that have been against some individual amendments will still hang in against cloture. What gets me is that opposing cloture in this case will likely mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

              by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:26:00 PM PDT

              •  If cloture fails

                then it's 30 hours of debate tying up the Senate.

                If cloture wins then it's 4 hours of urging the Senate to reconsider the cloture motion.

                by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:54 PM PDT

                •  Right

                  i just despair that the 30 hours of tying up the senate will actually lead to anything. 30 hours, while significant, is not the unlimited threat it used to be.

                  by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:51:45 PM PDT

                  •  Adding

                    that's not to say i'm giving up. I'm still calling/emailing.

                    by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:53:30 PM PDT

                  •  Public Awareness

                    How many people even have a clue about this? If anything, a true filibuster would at least elevate the issue.  

                    by bren on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:19:56 PM PDT

                    •  That's true

                      the filibuster in this pat 30-hour limit form is not very high profile. Which, i'm guessing, exactly why it exists...

                      by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

            •  Isn't It The Other Way Around?

              To invoke cloture you need 60 votes. Full stop. It doesn't matter how many senators are absent, if Immunity Jay and the Republicans can't get 60 votes, it doesn't pass. So Dodd and his handful of Rule-Of-Law-ers just need to prevent the 60 votes. Unfortunately, with circa 48 Republicans present (is McCain there), plus Turncoat Joe, plus Immunity Jay, they only need another 10 Democrats to succeed.

              And we can count on another 10 Democrats to roll over to the scent of telecomms money can't we?

              by Rob M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:47:39 AM PDT

          •  Again, he didn't give up the right to filibuster

            the four hours is if cloture wins.  

            by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM PDT

          •  you are right. there is a mistake in the diary

            without a consent agreement, the default rule is that IF cloture passes, 30 hours.  

            however, leahy, dodd and everyone else gave consent to limit the debate to 4 hours dodd, and some change for other members, for maybe a total or five or six hours of debate AFTER cloture and BEFORE final passage.

            if, however, cloture didn't pass (the Rs didn't get their 60 - which happened just a short couple of weeks ago) it would be back to the drawing board.  "unlimited" debate until 60 votes could be garnered for something.

            there are two parts to a filibuster - the 60 vote threshhold and the 30 hours of debate AFTER the cloture vote.  the Ds got the 60 vote threshhold, but compromised on the 30 hours of debate.  if they would have used the full 30 hours, there wouldn't even be the two days they are going to have to ping pong with the house (not that i would have minded - i think the whole piece of crap should sunset).

            there is a misconception that filibuster = unlimited debate/ no votes.  it does not.  filibuster = making the other side get 60 votes to continue with debate, which is a minimum of 30 hours unless there is unanimous consent to cut it short.  

            by wearewatching on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:36:24 PM PDT

            •  I hope you're right

              lots of people in the comments appear certain that even if cloture fails we've got a limit of 30 hours debate.  If there truly is a UC that says that, then I'll be pissed off as all hell because that would mean the "cloture" vote is a phony.

              by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:41:07 PM PDT

      •  It was the only way

        to get a 50 vote rule on his amendment to strip amnesty.

        by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

        •  50 votes he knows he can't get

          so he gave up something tangible (unlimited debate) for something illusory.

          Bad, bad deal.  I'm beyond pissed.

          by jrooth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM PDT

      •  No. That's if Cloture wins

        he gets four hours then.  If Cloture fails then he gets 30 hours under the Unanimous Consent decree--several days worth of time.

        The four hours is time to get senators to reconsider their votes on the cloture motion.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM PDT

  •  And this will change with a different

    president?  Once done, it will be as hard to get rid of as the Patriot Act - beyond change (this election catch phrase).

    These candidates better get themselves off the campaign trail and back to Washington and put their votes where their mouths are because we've been watching this stuff continue to get passed for 7 years and a no show from either candidate says it will be more of the same after January 21.  

    by liberty76 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM PDT

    •  Don't hold your breath

      what you want ithe right thing - I just don't think we're gonna see it. The sad truth is that the only reason HRC is even in the Senate is to run for the White House, and Barrack......well.....he's having too damn much fun being the new hero of the masses.
      Sad, but true.

      by heywho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:46:16 AM PDT

      •  Never did hold my breath; if I had

        I'd be dead by now.  We're in the 8th year of trying to get our politicians to do the right thing.  Even withholding our votes hasn't worked.  I just get annoyed with voters idealizing candidates who won't even report for duty, let alone perform it!  Imagine where we'd be if our Founding Fathers hadn't demanded more from their English government. And like John Paul Jones, We have not yet begun to fight.

        by liberty76 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM PDT

•  ....

  Mr. President, since 9-11, I’ve heard it said many times that what separates us from our enemies is respect for the rule of law. Unfortunately, the rule of law has taken it on the chin from this administration. Over and over, the President and his advisers have claimed the right to ignore the will of Congress if and when they see fit. And now they are claiming the same right for any entity that assists them in that effort. It is time for Congress to state clearly and unequivocally: "When we pass a law, we mean what we say and we expect the law to be followed." That goes for the President, it goes for the Attorney General, and it goes for the telephone companies. The rule of law is not less important after 9-11, Mr. President. We can – and we must -- defeat al Qaeda without breaking the law or sacrificing Americans’ basic rights.

  We have a choice. The Senate can stand up for the rule of law and let these cases go forward in the courts. Or, we can decide to give our blessing to an administration that broke the law, and the companies that allegedly helped it, and we can signal that we stand ready to bail them out the next time they decide to ignore the law. I urge my colleagues not to take that step. Support the rule of law by voting in favor of the Dodd-Feingold amendment 3907.

  -Senator Russ Feingold

  Thank you, Russ.

  by blueyedace2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM PDT

•  i thought the point of a filibuster was unlimited

  debate?  You cannot have a vote on the bill without cloture.  It's not limited to 30 hours.  Otherwise, the ability of a filibuster to accomplish anything would be   eliminated except in the case of a tight time frame like in Dec.

  I could be wrong, but are you sure you aren't confusing that 30 hours with the standard amount of debate on a bill without a unanimous consent?  That's what Dodd took advantage of in Dec.

  by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

  •  thanks for your answer on another diary

    again, I can't conclude anything other than that Dodd caved on the filibuster - otherwise it would not be a UC.

    Now, I can understand his reasoning to some extent - maybe the Repubs only agreed to allow an up or down vote on the amendment if he agreed not to filibuster.  So he must have concluded that he has a better chance getting 50 votes on the amendment than avoiding having 60 for cloture.  I can't say he's wrong but I just don't see where the votes will come from.  He's going to have to peel off several repubs and I'm not sure that any of them will lose reelection votes by defying their caucus.

    We're pretty much hosed here.

    by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:19:37 PM PDT

    •  We are

      So, starting tomorrow (or maybe tonight if I have time to write it up) we start in on the House.

      by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM PDT

      •  yep, good point

        House-Senate conference is our best bet.  And while I am not incredibly optimistic, one thing occurs to me - if the House were to agree to the Senate bill minus immunity (yes i know it has other problems), it would almost certainly get a majority vote in the Senate.  Possibly the repubs would filibuster it without immunity, but if (I'm not hopeful here) the dems made them do it publicly, it would look awfully bad for them.  So the dynamic is slightly more favorable in the House-Senate conference.

        All the more reason to get as many votes as possible for the amendment.

        by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM PDT

        •  My head hurts anymore

          thinking about this issue, but i disagree with your salient point. If the house does manage to stand firm and agree to the senate bill minus immunity, i don't think it would then pass the senate. If it could pass in the senate then getting a majority to add Dodd's amendment would happen in the first place, no? maybe if one of other lesser immunity amendments is agreed upon then the senate could pass it, but even that is iffy. only way i could see things happening the way you posit is that the extra time involved with all that gives us and the relevant senators time to convince more folks to stand up.

          by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM PDT

          •  no, there's a difference

            voting against the amendment is seen as voting for telecom immunity.  For the swing senators, they may oppose immunity but are afraid that they will be seen as opposing the while bill (and therefore weak on terror) if they vote yes.

            However, voting against what emerges from the House-Senate conference is a lot more than voting against telecom immunity, it is voting against the whole bill.  That is what most of the swing senators do not want to be seen as doing.

            In terms of immunity, if the conference bill comes out without it, it is in effect the same thing as if Reid had brought the judiciary to the floor.  Again I am talking about for purposes of immunity - the both the Judiciary bill and the house bill had other advantages besides immunity.

            So there is a big difference here.  The intelligence committee bill minus immunity would pass the Senate if it was the final vote on the bill, because almost none of the dems would vote against it and they'd pick up Specter and a couple other repubs.  However, I think the repubs could muster 40 votes to oppose any house-senate compromise that doesn't include immunity.  The question is whether that dynamic will play out publicly in such a way that the repubs back down.  I kind of doubt it, but you never know.

            by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

            •  Heh, i can't decide if i'm more pessimistic

              or optimistic than you. First off, i'll say that i hope you are right and i'm wrong. I think i'm more optimistic in thinking that if a senator would vote for  a bill that slapped down immunity, they would also have the balls to vote for an amendment to add such a provision (i concede that you are probably right on this one). I think i'm more pessimistic in thinking that we'd pick up enough votes for the reconciled bill if there is not some sort of immunity (although it becomes a little grey to me if it is one of the alternate immunity provisions). I'm hoping you are right, but i fear I am, i am doubtful the Judiciary version would have passed, although i wish it had been given the chance.

              But this has all made feel unhappy and confused, so i'll reserve judgement.

              by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM PDT

              •  i agree wth you about where the questions are

                who knows what will really happen.  bottom line is that the individual senators are weak enough that avoiding immunity is going to require leadership standing up in some fashion related to the house-senate compromise bill.  Whether they do that and whether even doing that is enough to avoid immunity is an open question :)

                by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM PDT

          •  I don't wonder at your head hurting

            People are confused and they are just dumping out of thinking and wanting to blame Reid and Dodd.  And that's not what's happening.  It's the other Senators like Rockefeller, Inoye and possibly Feinstein and Lincoln and Nelson and Nelson and Carper and Salazar and.... Oh hell, here's the contact list:

            # Bayh [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Byrd [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Carper [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Feinstein [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Inouye [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Johnson [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Kohl [phone] [phone] # Landrieu [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Lincoln [phone] phone, [phone] fax # McCaskill [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Mikulski [phone] phone,  [phone] fax # Nelson (FL) [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Nelson (NE) [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Pryor [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Rockefeller, [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Salazar [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Stabenow [phone] phone, [phone] fax

            by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM PDT

        •  I want the RESTORE Act

          the House version all the way. Probably can't happen, but what we need to push.

          by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM PDT

    •  No, what he got was the Senate considering one

      bundle of amendments by only majority vote, and most of those went down as there weren't fifty votes for them.  They got other things too, their problem is that they don't have the votes and can't get many of the amendments passed.  

      The same is likely true on the cloture vote. It's not that Dodd and Reid are caving, it's that Inoye and Nelso9n and Nelson and Lincoln, etc are caving or were never on board.  We don't seem to have the votes--are the candidates coming back for the votes?

      I've phoned Feinstein's office and said what I had to say.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM PDT

  •  Yes, I'm sure

    The new filibuster rules in the Senate make the Mr. Smith goes to Washington filibuster a thing of the past.

    The unfortunate likelihood is that we fail on cloture anyway.

    by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM PDT

    •  New? Do they just get to make them up? n.t

      by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM PDT

      •  Sort of

        With a majority like they have had, Republicans can force changes, or "new rules" just like they pass "new laws".  The section of the Constitution that covers the  obligations and limitations of the two Legislative branches of our government are posted a few replies above so I won't repost them.  

        They tend to count on our ignorance of the Constitution and our tendency to believe they know more than we do.    Unfortunately, after what happened in 2000, we seem to be better informed than the candidates we vote for.  Perhaps we should make them pass a test on the duties and responsibilities of their elected office in order to become a candidate.  

        by liberty76 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM PDT

    •  This can't be right

      Dodd must have consented.

      He must have been subject to great pressure from Reid.

      Or maybe Reid was right -- maybe it was just grandstanding while he was running for President.

      If so, I am very disappointed.  The people we elected, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, are selling us out -- for NOTHING.  They don't even get a political benefit out of it.

      by RenMin on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM PDT

      •  I'm feeling disappointed, too

        I'd been pushing all this time to get support for a filibuster, when apparently all that has really meant this time around is a push against cloture. I'll push for a no against cloture, but this makes me feel tired, confused, stupid and pessimistic.

        by eco d on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM PDT

      •  He did consent

        he agreed to the UC (thus it being unanimous). I don't think it was grandstanding, ever, but a calculation that persuasion might work more effectively than obstruction. Rockefeller and his Intel committee Dems are a big barrier.

        by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM PDT

        •  I think that calculation is folly

          I want this Congress passing no more legislation.  None.

          by Simplify on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:04:31 PM PDT

          •  Wouldn't bother me a bit if all they did was take

            up impeachment proceeding, order pizza and not come out till official history was a matter of record.

            by geez53 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:14:01 PM PDT

          •  I'm pretty much there, too

            just the funding bills for the most important gov't functions and nothing else. From here on out, they should just be trying to stop shit from happening.

            I wish they had done that with FISA. I really wish they had.

            by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM PDT

      •  Here's that contact list again

        Start phoning:

        # Bayh [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Byrd [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Carper [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Feinstein [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Inouye [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Johnson [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Kohl [phone] [phone] # Landrieu [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Lincoln [phone] phone, [phone] fax # McCaskill [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Mikulski [phone] phone,  [phone] fax # Nelson (FL) [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Nelson (NE) [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Pryor [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Rockefeller, [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Salazar [phone] phone, [phone] fax # Stabenow [phone] phone, [phone] fax

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM PDT

      •  Dodd and Feingold

        would not be making impassioned speeches on the floor if they were just 'grandstanding', whatever that means.  Both are burning whatever bridges they have left with the right-wing there, without any possibility of a significant PR return - who would watch C-SPAN excerpts or read the text of speeches if they didn't already have an interest/opinion on the issue?

        by rhutcheson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:57:02 PM PDT

•  Good For Leahy

  Do you think members of the Judiciary Committe are finally getting fed up with Mukasey, the White House, and the fear mongering Rethuglics?  The Justice Department--(including State prosecuting attorneys and extremist right wing judges) is so corrupt, at this point, Senators like Leahy, Dodd, and Feingold are more courageous than we may know.  People are getting thrown in jail and losing their jobs and businesses simply by being Democrats or not playing Rovian ball.

  by rlharry on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of Mukasey, I heard that

    Durbin is releasing his hold on some Bushshitty nominee.  Durbin admits that Mukasey didn't answer his questions but that he will honor his promise - although the deal was Mukasey had to answer the question. Weak. Weak. Weak.

    by madgranny on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM PDT

•  Here's a question

  One of the reasons I heard was that the republicans were stalling on this bill in order to force the House to vote on the Senate bill as is, rather than go through conference. If that holds, than doesn't the extra 30 hours just put it back to the point where the House has to either vote on the Senate bill or let it expire? Am I missing something?

  by corwin on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM PDT

•  Leahy--thank you. Glenn

  Greenwald's "WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws" today presents the issue so clearly while pointing out how the WSJ editorial today misrepresents--make that lies--about why some on the left oppose immunity.

  The assertion that Congress has failed "to ban such wiretaps directly" is an absolute lie and there is no other way to phrase that. The reason there are lawsuits brought against telecoms isn't because of some cliched liberal-judicial-activist effort to impose on telecoms obligations which don't exist in law. The opposite is true: the lawsuits were brought precisely because telecoms violated multiple clear, long-standing laws that make it illegal to do exactly what they did: namely, allow government spying on Americans and access to their customer data without judicial warrants.

  snip

  To claim, as the WSJ does today, that "the left" is using lawsuits as a "backdoor" because it "failed to get Congress to ban such wiretaps directly" literally could not be more false and misleading. And, as always, the falsehoods are bolstered by Bush-following lawyers who are single-mindedly devoted to the authoritarian goal of increasing unchecked government power, such as former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who hails the WSJ Editorial as "superb" despite what he must know are its undebatable falsehoods about the law.

  I love the way he clarifies issues that are seemingly complicated

  by Gorette on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM PDT

  •  Excellent, Gorette. Greenwald has it nailed.

    As usual.

    by beemerr90s on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:50 PM PDT

•  Called both my Tx senators

  I'm sure I was wasting my breath, but I did my duty. Hutchison's staff says she is in favor of immunity; Cornyn's staff claims he is collecting input on this issue and hasn't decided (yeah, right!).

  I hope that Texas will soon have at least one senator who doesn't stay unquestioningly, unfailingly in lock-step with Republican talking points. Go Noriega!

  by margeauxtex on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM PDT

•  So correct me if I'm wrong...

  ...but it's not a true "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" filibuster. Just a temporary delaying of the vote. It's more of a "Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid Go to the Bathroom Hand-in-Hand with Telco Executives to Take a Dump on the Bill of Rights" filibuster. Which is too long to fit on the marquee, and Jimmy Stewart is too much of a gentleman to star in a film with "Take a Dump" in the title.

  Oh well, tra la la, just be sure to wave at the ideals our country was founded on, as they fade away, fade away, f a  d  e   a  w   a   y ...  

  by My Name on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:11:41 PM PDT

  •  you're not wrong

    here's the situation - Dodd must have agreed to the 30 hours because it can only happen with unanimous consent.  That may have been the price of getting the repubs to agree on an up or down vote on the amendment.    I don't know if this is a good move or not, but I can't say it was way off base - maybe he figured he had no chance of sustaining a filibuster but a small chance of getting the votes for the amendment.

    by eparrot on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM PDT

    •  He did agree

      I think your speculation on why is probably correct.

      by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM PDT

    •  And

      he also agreed to the UC so that his amendment stripping amnesty would get a 50 vote rule. The only way, I imagine, that that could happen was through this agreement.

      by mcjoan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM PDT

•  It's like I've done this before.

  Several times in fact.  All the information was neatly filled in by my browser.

  by Dr Colossus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

  •  Recent history keeps repeating itself

    I can't believe how badly Bush, the Repubs and many Dems want to protect these mega-corporations at the expense of protecting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I would have thought Dems would have a field day with this one, calling for impeachment hearings, etc. but many (too many) have sat back idly or even supported this insanity.

    by sloopydrew on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM PDT

    •  because this is all about war crimes

      and treason. lot's of these folks in the judiciary , congress, press, etc know they will go down if bush goes down.

      by MantisOahu on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

  •  Wets finger, puts on you shoulder

    sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

    by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:41:09 PM PDT

  •  The emails practically type themselves.

    Dear [INSERT SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME],

    Please vote against [insert S.# of HR.# here] as it serves only to provide legal cover for criminal acts by [SELECT ONE OR MORE:members of the administration/cronies of the administration/corporate lobbyists/corporate donors/known felons/the president's mother/father/brother/dog/cat/fish/segway].

    The future of the nation depends on it. Please don't let them shred the last bit of the Constitution.

    Thank you for your time.

    Respectfully,
    hyperstation

    by hyperstation on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM PDT

•  OT, but breaking: CBS News journalists missing

  in Iraq.

  Two journalists missing; they have not been identified yet.

  Here's a link to the story:

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  Sorry, but there is no Open Thread and it's not enough for a diary.

  by Brooke In Seattle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:08 PM PDT

  •  I Say Put Breaking on Any Strong Issue Diary n/t

    by JG in MD on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM PDT

•  done, done and will

  be done again in the morning.

  by labwitchy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM PDT

•  I care about this issue and support this

  filibuster.

  by LandSurveyor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM PDT

•  Faster, Judiciary! Kill! Kill!

  That abomination of a bill needs to die, and Congress needs to prove that they can stand up to Bush on legislation he's adamant about passing and beat him.

  by oldjohnbrown on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM PDT

•  Why would ANY Dem be unwilling to filibuster?

  This one seems easy. Are they that scared they won't continue receiving contributions from the telecom industry? The majority of American people would certainly back them in their decision. Who would side with protecting the telecos from facing the consequences of breaking the law and spying on citizens of the country that made them filthy stinking rich? I'm definitely going to contact my congressmen about this and will be very curious to watch the votes/statements of both Hillary and Barack tomorrow.

  by sloopydrew on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM PDT

•  Thank you Senators

  Both of you are standing up for Democracy, and for civil rights.

  You are fighting the good fight, and we appreciate it.

  by wrights on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:50 PM PDT

  •  Seconded

    This is another message we should send out to the Senators taking a stand. I'm sure they'd appreciate a break from all the complaints they receive from me and so many others.

    by sloopydrew on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM PDT

•  Done. Again. Though I admit I am getting tired...

  of writing letters that in a non-Orwellian country I would never, ever have to write.

  I wonder if the email I submitted on Leahy's web site will be delivered via our favorite AT&T closet in California?

  Of maybe this DKos submission will?

  If so, then...HEY CIA: FECK YOU.

  ~Doc~

  by EquationDoc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM PDT

  •  You should see my stack of letters from

    the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, all telling me why my opinions were wrong and they were right going all the way back to the beginning of the Bush regime.  It is a never ending battle and, like the Iraq vets that keep being redeployed, we're in it for the duration.  

    And I'm sure that we're all on a data base somewhere.  Just hope they learn something from reading our mail.

    by liberty76 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM PDT

•  Demand Obama and Clinton *Join the Filibuster*

  All you people slaving away for endless hours over keyboards at DKos chanting your incantations to get your favorite candidate, Obama or Clinton, elected - you can do something practical and worthwhile. Call your candidate, fax, write and email them, asking them (nicely but firmly) to join Dodd and Leahy (and Feingold and the rest) in actually filibustering the defective FISA bill offered in place of the Senate Judiciary bill.

  Those two should be racing each other to show their defense of the Constitution. It's not enough that they just vote the right way. They've got plenty of time on their hands to fly around campaigning - they can spare some of that time doing their Senate jobs. Or else we can expect them not to care about the Constitution when president, at least not enough to take time off from fundraising and campaigning then.

  They're senators. They claim they oppose the broken FISA, and support Dodd. So let's see them put their time where their mouths are.

  And let's see you who support each of them get out there and make them do something for a change, not just talk about change on the campaign trail.

  Pick up the phone, write an email/fax/letter. NOW. Before it's too late.

  by DocGonzo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    Clinton and Obama could have led on this.  They have chosen not too.

    by paradox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM PDT

    •  Not only do I agree with what you say

      I did a wholediary on this just yesterday.

      by liberty76 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:25:59 PM PDT

  •  I'll be picketing Obama tomorrow

    for "Playing Hooky on FISA"

    Just finished my sign.

    by ben masel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:16:37 PM PDT

•  Writing to My Pen Pals