“Hmmm. "Implicit sanctioning of illegal activity." Hmmmm.

Is it part of the rule of law to prejudge?”

I have no idea what your point here is. Who is said anything about prejudging? Retroactive immunity means that IF something illegal occurred, it is sanctioned in the sense that the lawbreaker will not have to face prosecution or be liable. The illegal act is sanctioned whether it occurred or not. Seems clear to me, but by all means expand on your ‘hmmm’ if I am missing something.

“Aside from that there is precedent for immunity within the rule of law. Witnesses are given immunity for all sorts of things if the government thinks they have something valuable to offer.”

Apples and oranges. Your example occurs within the judicial process, i.e. in the governmental body responsible for making the call regarding rule violations. I understand that there are judgment calls. The situation being discussed here is the legislative body usurping this judgment role. What you and I are discussing is whether this usurpation is consistent with ‘rule of law.’

Let’s distill the topic:

‘A’ may or may not have broken a law, ‘L.’ ‘B,’ an elected lawmaker who takes campaign contributions from ‘A,’ passes a law preventing prosecution of ‘A’ for violations of ‘L’ regardless of what ‘A’ actually did.

Does the above scenario strike you as consistent with the concept of ‘the rule of law?’

Reid is not doing this by his own self, oh no. He has 18 Democratic Senators getting his back.

Add them to the 49 Rs (counting the absent ones and Lieberman) and wah-lah, cloture happens. Fast. Neat. Done.

Now of course not all 18 Dems are going to vote with the Rs on this, but don't be surprised if this is nevertheless a very lopsided cloture vote.

Reid has taken a lot of brickbats for this manoeuver and he deserves every one of them, but he is not alone. Senator St. Patrick Leahy should be hearing some not-love, too, don't you think? As well as Senator St. John Kerry. How about Senator St. Richard Durbin? Senator St. Carl Levin? This is a blow out. At high speed. All to slap you and me in the face and help the White House in their determination to shred and throw out the very idea of the Constitution. Rule of Law? Ha!

And I don't doubt that they are laughing at their high concept cleverness, how they will stick it to every single American, ha ha ha ha ha. What the FUK is the matter with these people?

Yes they really do believe they are doing the People's Business, don't they? This is one of those Oh So Important Matters they fuss and fret about all the time, isn't it?

Meanwhile, DiFi is in the background trying to work out some sort of "compromise" so the Rockefeller gift to the Big Boys won't be quite as ostentatiously ugly.

Good luck, Di; love ya babe.

Expect no clarity on the point, only deepening confusion and frustration. He [Sh**ter] wants to muddy the waters; that's what he believes political debate is all about and how it is won.

Correction: should be "... how it is not lost" rather than "how it is won." The whole point of "red herrings", dissembling, obfuscation, and "muddying the water" (which is Sh**ter's stock-in-trade, aside from swipes at "Clinton-did-it-too" and reciting verbatim from long-discredited lists of Republican lies/smears) is to distract from a clearly losing position.

Just don't put up with Sh**ter's eedjitcy. No "rational discourse" is possible. Just ridicule him savagely, and highlight his most bone-numbingly stoopid ejaculations for all to see.

Cheers,

‘A’ may or may not have broken a law, ‘L.’ ‘B,’ an elected lawmaker who takes campaign contributions from ‘A,’ passes a law preventing prosecution of ‘A’ for violations of ‘L’ regardless of what ‘A’ actually did.Does the above scenario strike you as consistent with the concept of ‘the rule of law?’

Yes. The second law was passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President. How could it NOT be consistent with the "rule of law?"

I'm sorry. I wrote a really stupid sentence.

I said, "Filibusters are a rare event."

Thinking about it as an editor, I should have said, "A filibuster is a rare event."

I engage in this mea culpa, not to bleed all over the stage, but to reaffirm that a filibuster qualifies as news by any standard because it is rare and unusual.

It may occur in the United States Senate. Filibusters only happen there. A filibuster hasn't happened in, well, a long time, at least since Jimmy Stewart did one. I think.

A sitting senator who is a 2008 presidential candidate seems to want to talk - and maybe talk his head off, because under the rules of the filibuster he can - about an aspect of national legislation that might have an adverse impact on the privacy of all Americans.

Why would this story not get full treatment by the MSM?

What's not to like?

From Leahy's website:

Comment Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

On The Senate’s Consideration Of Legislation

To Amend The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

December 14, 2007

“The Senate should act to add protections for Americans’ rights that were not included in the Protect America Act. I have been consulting with Leader Reid and Chairman Rockefeller about how to proceed, and support the decision to proceed by regular order. Senator Reid is right to bring this legislation to the floor and is doing so in a way that allows consideration of the many improvements made by the bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telephone companies that would eliminate the courts as a check on the illegality of the warrantless wiretapping of Americans that the administration secretly engaged in for almost six years. I will continue to work to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions and that those whose rights were infringed not be left out in the cold. I look forward to a vigorous debate next week and to seeking to make the final bill considered by the Senate as good as it can be.”

I appreciate any explanations. Thanks