Let me just say that if our only other option, under Reid's White House-subservient orchestration of this FISA vote, is full immunity, I absolutely support Dianne Feinstein's amendment to send the issue of immunity to the FISA court. That's for those in Congress who love the justification of "they won't be happy with anything we do" anyway, so 'let's just take the easy way out.'

At least that way, with the FISA court involved, any disputed details about what a non-warrant Executive Branch certification authorizing domestic spying must contain (stated with honesty, based on fact) can be analyzed and decided by the (secret FISA portion of the) Judicial Branch, potentially rising all the way to the Supreme Court, as provided for by the Constitution. This review would also include an assessment of the specious Article II unilateral authority claims of the Executive Branch, I presume. As Feinstein said yesterday on the Senate floor:

The legislative history is clear--ignored, but clear. In stating that "FISA would prohibit the President, notwithstanding any inherent powers, from violating the terms of that legislation," the 1978 report language was a clear statement of the intent of the Congress at that time, just as this amendment is now.

Congress also wrote in 1978 that in terms of authority for conducting surveillance, "FISA does not simply leave Presidential powers where it finds them. To the contrary. The bill substitutes a clear legislative authorization pursuant to statutory, not constitutional, standards."

[snip]

So it is crystal clear on its face that FISA was the only legal authority under which the President could proceed when he authorized the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program'' after September 11. He chose not to. And this is where the issue becomes joined, I believe, one day before the highest Court of the land: whether the President's Article II power essentially still supersedes these clear statements of legislative intent and clear drafting of law over many decades.- Senator Feinstein, 1/23/08

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S165&position=all

I hope her amendment's "good faith" loophole won't negate her amendment's positives, but I'll still take that amendment, if it can't be revised, over full immunity, any day.

Feinstein's separate exclusivity amendment is excellent. She stated she will not support a FISA bill that does not include her exclusivity amendment, which will need to be added on the floor.

Here's Reid speaking yesterday morning on the Senate floor, with regard to his plan for the Judiciary Committee's (immunity-free) substitute amendment, now to be voted on (or killed without a vote) at 2 p.m. today:

Mr. President, as I indicated yesterday, we are going to, this evening, start on the FISA legislation to complete that. We are going to finish that legislation this week. That means we are going to have all day tomorrow and all day Friday and, hopefully, not all day Saturday. But we need to finish this legislation. It is critically important. It is not fair to jam the House. Since we have been refused an extension by the Republicans, we need to finish this legislation now, send it to the House, have a conference, and see what we can come back with as quickly as possible.

As I indicated, it is not fair to do as we did last August and send something to the House: Take it or leave it. We are not going to do that. That is why I am not going to wait until next week to go to this legislation. We have to complete it now. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I do not support the immunity provisions that are in the Intelligence bill, but it appears that a majority of the Senate does. That being the case, those people who want to amend the Intelligence bill with that information and that legislation we have from the Judiciary Committee will offer that. I hope they will do it as quickly as possible.

There are a number of other issues other than immunity. I have spoken to Senator Feinstein. She says she has something dealing with immunity she wants to offer. She wants to offer something with exclusivity.

There are a number of other things we need to do. As I have indicated, I would hope that if somebody does not like an amendment, they would move to table that amendment and not try to talk it to death because that being the case, we are going to have to let them talk during the evening. We are not going to have a gentlemen's agreement on: OK, so you don't want this to go forward; we are not going to let it go forward. We are going to complete this legislation as quickly as we can. - Harry Reid, 1/23/08

Http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S157&position=all

Motions to table would fail, if the majority leader told his caucus to vote against them... Instead, he's urging them to kill amendments they disagree with without an up or down vote, on an absolutely crucial, precedent-setting, almost certainly unConstitutional matter, in disgraceful dereliction of his oath of office.

Congress: First, honor the Constitution. In so doing, follow its tenets to provide for the common defense in order to defend the country. Following Constitutional tenets by definition includes refusing to end-run the rule of law to accommodate a dictatorial President, no matter his covering justification(s) for his actions.