So, my question is if it isn't loss of political support that explains the actions (or inaction) of the Dems- then what does?

I think they're less worried about voter dissatisfaction than voters not seeing their mugs during every commercial break in election season.

They need corporate donations to pay for that TV time. It may be that's who they're playing up to. Bush wins as a consequence.

AT&T can't put anyone jail (aka take away my liberty). The government can. Hence, the 4th Amendment.

...For those who are pro-immunity, but think the telecoms didn't break a law.

Why do they need immunity?

The statement made by granting retroactive immunity is "We're aware that you KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW, but we're going to let you get away with it, anyway, because we like why you did it (and we don't want to piss off our donors)." Otherwise, as someone else said, why are we even having this discussion?

In addition, the motives of Dick Cheney and his ilk are pretty clear, too - immunity will mean that no one ever gets to know what the telecoms and the Bush Administration were doing.

If you think this is a good use of government, I'm happy to know that you'll never agree with me on anything.

I just got this from Edwards in my email:

"Dear Kristin,

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

Barbara Boxer, (D): (202) 224-3553

Dianne Feinstein, (D): (202) 224-3841

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards

January 24, 2008"

The hearing seemed to split the committee along party lines, with the Democrats reserving their most pointed queries for Clemens, and the Republicans giving McNamee a rougher time.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10639015/2

When was the last time Republicans stood up for an accused drug user? I guess his millionaire status (and the autographs he gave them) make him a victim.

Marriage is between two consenting adults.

Great comment, but I'd add something so that it looks like this: "Marriage is between two consenting adults competent to enter a contract"?

I have checked out of politics lately due, in part, to a huge workload, but also due to the nastiness and pettiness of the primary race.

As a Californian, I was so excited about today's decision that I shed tears. But, then I read the comments to the Salon article Glenn linked to, and am, frankly, ashamed of the liberal and Democratic commenters who are UPSET about this decision being handed down at such an "inconvenient" time.

Those making such comments are no less ridiculously partisan than Republicans. We should be throwing a parade, but they're pissed off that it's inconvenient to their dreams of Obama as President. On top of it, they're wimps. Do they think the Republicans would back down from something they really believed in because they were worried how it would play during an election? Hell no. As far as I know McCain's still claiming Iraq is a success.

National Review Online: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EzNmNiZTkzYzY2OTM0ZWUxMWNiYTI3ZmQ3ODBjNWY=

By a vote of 4 to 3 (I think), the California supreme court has concocted a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution. I’ll have more once I’ve read the decision.

He's since read the decision, but this is so typical. "I haven't read it yet, but I know it's horrible judicial activism at work!" How, Glenn, did you know something like this would happen? ;)

I couldn't agree more. Look at the comment section of that article I wrote in October, 2006 on the New Jersey ruling - it was exactly the same way, telling me I was stupid for thinking it wouldn't doom Democrats, that it was terrible the decision came out now, etc. It's just selfishness and hysteria combining in a particularly toxic brew.

-- GlennGreenwald

And, of course October 2006 was a complete disaster for Democrats. Le sigh.

I'm going to celebrate with my partner/now fiancé tonight! I asked and he said YES!!!

This warms the cockles of my cold, little, black heart.

On another topic, if the amendment to the California Constitution passes, the Supreme Court can't knock it down as unconstitutional. It would be, by definition, constitutional. The only recourse is another amendment to change it.