LOL!

Funniest thing I've read all week.

This is just kabuki. Reid is majority leader in the Senate. Surely, if he wanted to, he could bring a version of the bill without immunity and force advocates to produce 60 votes to add it as an amendment. He just doesn't want to.

Yes - this is why I'm not madly posting an update about this "filibuster." It's not even going to be a real filibuster. What they mean is that they'll withhold consent for cloture. It will mean a few more hours of debate on the floor before they can pass it.

Reid is saying how he'll sponsor the amendment to take out immunity but they're not whipping the caucus at all. It's all a show with a pre-ordained conclusion.

Obama won't vote for cloture and so he'll say he fulfilled his promise to support a filibuster. He'll vote to take out immunity and, when that fails, he'll either vote for final passage or just not vote at all. Thrilling.

PS I see Politico still hasn't corrected that bogus quote, many hours after saying they would do so.

Yeah - the fact that John Bresnahan went out of his way to email me to acknowledge misquoting me, apologize for it and promise to correct it - only to leave it up for several hours and counting - is more angering than if they just never said anything at all.

It's just not a quote I would ever write ("Steny Hoyer is evil!") and it's irritating that this article is circulating many places with that paragraph near the top, with them knowing the quote is wrong.

I think they are earnest. Indeed, Dodd and Feingold played important roles in blocking this in the past. If that was kabuki, it was impossibly good kabuki.

Make that Jebbie. Which brings up another useful tidbit about simulacra. Be careful never to talk to one, even inadvertently. People will suspect the worst of you.

How about that?

Big Brother might actually be a "brother"!

Simulacra are far more numerous than snipes or japes, and more insidious in that at first glance they look so much like what their evil creators claim they represent.

Onomatopoeia aren't intended to be edible. They're more like chewing gum; you kinda chomp on 'em a little, roll 'em around in your mouth, then spit 'em out. (You won't die if you swallow one -- that's an old wives' tale -- so please don't stick 'em on the underside of the cafeteria table.)

Now, about that &%&*%8#%$^ traitor Obama.....

How do you stop someone from passing a law that really needs to be an amendment? SCOTUS?

You can't — at least not the first time. It's been done before and it will doubtless be done again. SCOTUS can only rule on constitutionality when a case comes before it. Unlike in some other governmental systems, SCOTUS doesn't habitually or automatically review laws for compliance with the constitution.

A case in point is the line item veto enacted under Clinton. The court held (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 [1998]) that Congress cannot give the president a line item veto and declared the law unconstitutional and maintained that this power could only be given by constitutional amendment. Now that SCOTUS has ruled, it is unlikely that a similar law will be enacted again.

How would a SCOTUS slapdown affect retroactive immunity after the fact? Does this avoid ex post facto, since when the crimes were committed they were illegal, as opposed to legal (when ex post facto would apply)?
— Silash

It is extremely important to keep in mind that this FISA revsion does not provide any immunity from criminal prosecution for any alleged criminal acts. The only "immunity" involved is for civil liability.

This is important for several reasons. Since the telecoms are not given immunity from prosecution, they cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves. A grant of immunity from prosecution usually makes Fifth Amendment protections moot. Second, the telecoms are not being given immunity by statute. Rather, the statute directs a judge before whom a case is pending to dismiss the case if the telecom brings a note from the president countersigned by the AG. Thus, just like Hoyer claims, the law doesn't give the telecoms immunity, but it doesn't give them immunity in much the same way that peacocks don't lay eggs. The law directs someone else to dismiss suits against the telecoms if they can provide the appropriate documentation from a bunch of known liars. Thus, since this section of the law does not deal with crime or punishment, ex post facto doesn't apply.

What SCOTUS may be able to do with this is a wide open question since I'm not sure that a law of this type has been attempted before. As with the original suits against the telecoms, a big issue in getting the issue before SCOTUS is going to be standing. However I feel certain that anyone who has a suit dismissed under this law would have standing to contest the law. What constitutional grounds there may be for striking down the law (or at least this section of it) I'm not sure. Since the law doesn't grant immunity outright, the (implied) prohibition against laws impairing the obligations of contracts no longer seems to apply. Trying to find some kind of Seventh Amendment violation here seems far-fetched. I suspect that if SCOTUS does rule it will be based on resentment at Congress trying to tell the judiciary how to decide cases.

Amy Goodman asked Feingold point blank, twice. He said yes, he would filibuster.

But other news outlets are saying no, he won't--that he will delay and debate, but not prevent.

Even if it's just two of them, wouldn't it be a great sight to see them do a true filibuster on this. I guess we'll see.

Anyone know?

Yes, but she isn't talking.

Thats exactly how it appears in my email as well. I wish someone could point out the country of Terror on a map one day. Well at least he doesn't use the hideous phrase "Homeland Security"... what neo-nazi thought that one up?

And for the record, at least in my case, thats the letter from his senate office with regards to inquiries there. My letter from the campaign was a more generic thanks for your interest in whatever you said.