I seriously had no idea a person by the name of Saxby Chambliss actually existed, let alone was a Senator for Georgia, and that he was the bastard that attacked Max Cleland as being unpatriotic. And, of course, he is a lawyer.

As a lawyer myself, I am shocked and embarassed about how many lawyers in Congress are voting for retroactive immunity and expanded wiretapping powers. This validates my thoughts on my three years in law school, and the law as a "profession" in general. To paraphrase: Those who can, do, those who can't, go to law school.

In the previous post, totoro asked whether it was a fantasy to think that all of this activity regarding FISA is a part of some grand plan by the Democrats to once and for all reveal the Republicans' true nature. I myself have sometimes fallen sway to this hope/illusion.

My bigger concern is what is Bush's intent in pushing for this bill at such a late date in his Presidency? I understand that the retroactive immunity is there to prevent anyone from actually finding out what abuses the Bush administration has perpetrated over the past seven years. However, why the need for basket warrants and these other expanded powers, when all that is needed to improve FISA is a minor fix involving foreign transmissions routed through US lines? This is where I leave fantasyland and start entering conspiracyville. Wouldn't a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress reverse the more egregious provisions? Or is there a plan to prevent a Democratic president, so that the Democratic Congress can continue to go along with a Republican president?

Last year the Daily show ran a montage of previous Bush SOTU speeches, all of which started out with the phrase: "The State of our Union is Strong." It will be interesting to see how he spins that this year, what with his call for an economic stimulus package, the subprime mortgage crisis, and the pending expiration of FISA ... I mean the Protect My Ass Act (BTW, how hard would it be for reporters to understand how a bill becomes law? Schoolhouse Rock covered this 25 years ago!) As for FISA, I expect the President to say that the State of the Union will be weaker if Congress does not pass the SIC bill.

Actually, I just had another thought. If the Senate passes the SIC bill with retroactive immunity, then this would need to be reconciled with the House bill, which does not contain immunity. However, since the House is not in session after tomorrow, this means that both houses would have to hash the bill out in committee tomorrow and then both vote on a final bill for the President's signature by tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise, the PAA would expire anyway because there would be no final bill for the President to sign? Do you think maybe this is why McConnell may have been proposing a short extension, because the bills could not be reconciled by tomorrow anyway? Does this make any sense? I am trying to follow this and work on an appellate brief at the same time.