Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Daily News Weds: Court fight looms after Real ID passage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 11:39 PM
Original message
Daily News Weds: Court fight looms after Real ID passage
Edited on Tue May-10-05 11:42 PM by steve2470
http://rawstory.com/aexternal/ny_daily_news_real_id_510

The New York Daily News will report in Wednesday's editions that a court fight looms in the wake of the Senate's passage of controversial "REAL ID" provisions in Iraq spending bill, RAW STORY has learned.


The Daily News asserts that the White House and GOP leadership rammed through Congress a measure that requires stricter rules for immigrants to get a drivers licenses.

Other provisions allow the Homeland Security secretary to construct barriers in and around the United States, while waiving U.S. labor and environmental laws.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) tells the News the REAL ID Act will not make the country safer and slams Bush and the GOP for not allowing the measure to be debated in the Senate.
<snip>

on edit: deleted unnecessary word
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. So we got Hillary and "activist" judges involved now?
Now you know what to look for in the summer lineup on CNN/FAUX! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hillary voted for it, but she's against it?
Edited on Tue May-10-05 11:55 PM by cestpaspossible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Daphne08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. I agree.
To have filibustered the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill would have fulfilled the Right wingnut's favorite "sound bite" ...that Democrats are obstructionists. :eyes:

I heard Hillary Clinton's speech today and thought it was quite effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Tired, lame EXCUSE..
... how many times are we going to go along with this shit?

Repugs have ALWAYS attached stinking legislation to such bills.

It is EXACTLY this cowering, simpering, hiding in the corner shivering crap that has HAMSTRUNG OUR PARTY.

So fucking what if the Repugs are going to cry "obstructionist". They do it all day every day and if that were a reason to go along with their bullshit the Dem congress should just go the fuck home, they are 100% USELESS.

This is why I'm not interested in ANY SENATOR as a 2008 nominee. They are all fucking pissants, every last god damned one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
35. Senators aren't pissants
they're realists.

and they don't have the luxury of venting on anonymous internet message boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Yeah...
... realists who will do anything except rock the boat, lest their perk-filled jobs be at risk.

People who talk a good game but always give up the votes to the repgs are worse than pissants, that's just the best word I could come up with at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. And Hillary's a democrat, too. Now you're catching on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nittygritty Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. SO WHY THE FUCK DID SHE VOTE FOR IT????
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) tells the News the REAL ID Act will not make the country safer and slams Bush and the GOP for not allowing the measure to be debated in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torgo Johnson Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. WELL, WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR IT THEN, HILLARY!!!!
I am typing in all caps because what I am doing right now is yelling. Oh geez, "I think this won't make us safer, we never had a chance to debate, but I will vote for it anyway because it is politically expedient to flush 80 billion down the toliet called Iraq. Fuck off,Hillary. Where were the so called progressives,Obama, Kerry, Durbin, Feingold!!!! Fuck all of you. I was pissed off before, but listening to Malloy just sent me over the edge. How am I going to renew my ID, I don't have 4 separate pieces of ID. Right now, I am so angry, I don't see the point of voting anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ltfranklin Donating Member (852 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. She didn't...check out this...
...on The Raw Story that the Real ID passage was NOT in the bill passed, but the Republicans were planning to add it in when it goes into conference (with the Democrats locked out).

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexandrovna/dems_locked...

The quote to look for is "the Senate version does not contain REAL ID but it is expected to be added during negotiations."

So don't damn the Senate Democrats, they didn't vote for this crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks for posting that
I was just about to run off to rawstory to find the link when I saw your post. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Oh, but she did
The GOP tacked the Real ID measure onto the military appropriation.

So what? The Dems should have filibustered. And they would have, were our rights as important to them as their reelection campaigns.

American fascism is a bipartisan effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Your rawstory (hyperlink reference) article is dated April 18, 2005 . . .
Edited on Wed May-11-05 01:45 AM by TaleWgnDg
.
Your rawstory (hyperlink reference) is dated April 28, 2005 (bottom of rawstory article). It's old and very dated.

For an updated, current reference, go to this newspaper link of the Washington Post dated today, May 11, 2005, regarding the U.S. Senate vote 100-0 in favor of the REAL ID Act of 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

The Senate voted yesterday on this REAL ID Act of 2005 and passed it; here's the roll call on it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

The bill (REAL ID Act of 2005) was tacked onto a necessary (H.R. 1268 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005)) bill that required the Senators to vote "yes" . . . the Republicans forced it (in private conference) upon the Democrats. The Democrats had no wiggle room, thus the unanimous vote. That's why Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats were so damn pissed off and said so in more diplomatic terms b4 the microphones and cameras.

The congressional procedures in both houses, the House and the Senate, were more than a tad bit confusing which threw many political junkies. You aren't alone in not understanding what the hell congress was doing.

That being said, however, I believe this so-called "REAL ID Act of 2005" will be hit IMMEDIATELY with a federal lawsuit so that the Act won't see the light of day for a hell of a long time, if at all. This may be why the Dems voted in favor of it. That's my legal guess at it.


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. "No wiggle room." What a sad excuse!
"The Democrats had no wiggle room, thus the unanimous vote."

Heh. Nice try at obfuscation.

Only willful partisans will be impressed that the bill was added in conference. When it hit the floor, the Dems voted for it anyway.

Nothing was "necessary" about the appropriations bill, which, like many of its kind, became a catch-all for partisan measures. The proper thing to do was filibuster or abstain once the Real ID provision was added--not lamely complain about it after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Tis obvious that you haven't read the bill as passed. I strongly
.
Tis obvious that you haven't read the bill as passed; that is, the entire bill as passed. Not merely to pick and chose this so-called "REAL ID Act of 2005" that was tagged onto it. Again, since this amendment will be tossed in the federal courts, what's the beef? LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
33. I agree--I'm sick of "politics as usual"
we need to shake things up, not fall in line with the Pukkkes.

How on earth would it have hurt Hillary to make a protest vote? The measure passes anyway. She stands out as having a conscience.

And too bad ALL the dems didn't abstain. It looks hopeless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
30. Not ID'n me real or otherwise! This is the last fucking straw!
Edited on Wed May-11-05 09:17 AM by lonestarnot
Get my damn pitchfork!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary "Why Can't I Debate What I Vote For Anyway" Clinton
Hillary votes for another Bush proposal, and then promptly slams the lack of "debate." Can she get more pathetic?

Her defenders will say this was a defense measure she *had* to vote for. And Hillary would agree: she's been an eager co-author of the Iraq misadventure from Day One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hecate77 Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I guess you didn't read the whole thread?
Hillary didn't vote for it. No Democrat did. It is going in on the conference committee, which includes no Democrats at all. Please blame this crap on the Repugs where it belongs, and stop trying to take down Democrats every chance you get. Lighten up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Welcome ! and thank you ...
Edited on Wed May-11-05 12:57 AM by jaysunb
for clearing this up. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Read post #11 in this DU thread. Yes, the bill was passed on 5/10/05.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. read DU post #11 in this thread . . . yes, it was passed on 5/10/05
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Uh, it was approved today (or yesterday) in the senate 100-0.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Try tempering knee-jerk stuff. Understand what went down b4 . . .
.
Try tempering knee-jerk stuff. Understand what went down b4 . . . pointing the finger of blame on the Democrats.

For example, read post #11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Heh. You've been answered in post #17.
Understand what went down b4 . . . pointing the finger of blame on the Democrats.

If you weren't quick to defend them, perhaps they'd do better next time.

For example, read post #11.

I did. It was sophistry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. As is your inept rely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. I am sick to the teeth of Dems "having" to vote for things
...and "having" to stay quiet about other things, just to cover their own damn asses. They are selling this country down the river piecemeal to avoid bad press via Rethug spin is what it boils down to. So they avoided looking bad for not voting for the defense bill...but they've just given the Rethugs ammo for the future -- can you say, "Well, the Dems in the Senate voted for the Real ID act, too"??

Sweet Jesus, Joseph and Mary, it's hopeless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
21. I can believe Hillary would vote for it
Edited on Wed May-11-05 03:39 AM by Cookie wookie
being the opportunist she is. But all the Democrats? And Barbara Boxer? That's the unkindest cut of all. Guess they put the pressure on her.

There were 57 brave Democrats in the House who voted against it, and it appears they are the only members of Congress who refuse to collaborate with the fascists thugs, thieves, and pirates who have overthrown our government.

There is no middle ground here nor should their be. There is no such thing as compromise with the devil. There is a line beyond which no one can cross without corrupting their own morals. Those who vote for any of the legislation authored by the fascists are crossing that line every time. There is no excuse, no justification.

And complaining afterward when you've voted for it is the worst kind of weasel behavior. Guess they thought that tactic would somehow allow them to look good to their constituents while the vote would keep the corrupt fascist corporate press from criticizing them.

Wexler said it all:
While I am heartened that 57 of my colleagues joined me in opposing REAL ID, I am baffled that so many Democrats caved in to the parliamentary tricks of the Republican leadership. Though I have come to expect as much from Republicans, by supporting the conference report in spite of the REAL ID poison pill, Democrats have abandoned our core values and failed to stand up for the rights to privacy, fair treatment under the law and freedom from persecution upon which our country was founded. It is tragic irony on the very anniversary of Yom HaShoa, the day we remember the horrors of the Holocaust, we are shutting the door to victims of persecution. . . . We were not elected to rubber stamp anything just because we support part of it, Wexler said.

http://www.wexler.house.gov/pressreleases/050505.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. So they added (past tense) the bill in committee...
then the senate voted 100-0 for it.

Simple enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
25. Great...sold down the river for a police state.
Edited on Wed May-11-05 06:39 AM by Zodiak Ironfist
I can't believe the mental gymnastics some people have to perform to apologize for the indefensible Democratic support for this bill. How many thousands of times do we have to be sold down the river before we stop imagining the sell-out as some brilliant political strategy?

It isn't...these Democrats are worried about nothing but their jobs and their actions are consistent with only that hypothesis.

And let's not forget that the Democrats just unanimously gave Homeland Security the ability to waive all immigration laws and build walls around our borders. Of course, with NO judicial review (not that judges have been fair recently ala Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force ruling).

These are dark times, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. agree - the REAL ID
allows RFID 2 B included which means once U have your new homeland ID card, your every move can B tracked. There is no where U can go that U cannot B found. If this was a true 2 party country, there would have been LOUD opposition to this bill. That ONE HUNDRED senators find it necessary 2 continue funding the murder of Iraqis; 2 continue dumping money down the Iraq rat hole; 2 continue corporate welfare 4 defense contractors is inexcusable.

I quit 2day. There is NO reason 4 me 2 continue 2 work 2 'take my country back'. If I am not going 2 get even token support from democrats in the senate, why the hell do I need 2 keep banging my head against a wall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
27. What if you don't drive?
If you don't drive and need a driver's license does that mean you won't be able to get on a plane, etc? Did they ever consider that? When I lived in Manhattan, I didn't drive, didn't have a car. There is no need for it. How about Seniors who have given up driving?

In their grand plan, what do they propose to do with all these people? They cannot travel anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Then you get the other color armband. Seriously, though, I think they are
going to integrate it into the state ID's, so it will be there whether you get an ID or Driver's license.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
29. Anyone know what this is? It's in the bill. Who is he?
(Sec. 6056) Prohibits funds from this or any other Act from being used to fund the independent counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros after June 1, 2005. Requires a detailed accounting of prior costs associated with such investigation.

Who is this guy? What did he do? Why are they protecting him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Ask and you shall receive
Charges of Wrongdoing
In addition to housing issues, however, Cisneros has had to struggle with a scandal that developed into a full-scale federal investigation. In March 1995 Attorney General Janet Reno asked for an independent counsel to investigate charges that Cisneros lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about secret payments he made to a former mistress. Cisneros was alleged to have paid Linda Medlar, a political fundraiser, almost $200,000 between 1990-93 to keep their past affair quiet. In mid-1994 Medlar sued Cisneros, saying he reneged on his oral agreement to keep paying her four thousand dollars a month. She then charged that Cisneros lied about the payments to the FBI during his background investigation for the position of secretary of HUD.

In January 1997, as the investigation into the charges dragged on, Cisneros resigned his post, citing his financial needs a child in college, another in law school, and mounting legal bills. He soon took a position as president of Univisin, a leading Spanish-language television network he continues to run.

In December 1997, a grand jury charged Cisneros with eighteen counts of conspiracy, false statements, and obstruction of justice, all stemming from the alleged payments to Medlar (who was now known as Linda Jones), which were said to total more than $250,000. On January 15, 1998, Jones pleaded guilty to 28 charges of fraud and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in federal prison. However, Cisneros, who awaited trial in Washington, DC, was not named in the case.

In early September 1999, after a four-year intensive investigation, jury selection was about to begin for the former mayor's trial when Cisneros reached a plea agreement with the Federal prosecutor. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI. He was fined $10,000, but did not face jail time or probation. Cisneros said in a public statement that he "was not candid" with the FBI, and hoped to be remembered for his actions as the Secretary of Housing and Development.


http://www.galegroup.com/free_resources/chh/bio/cisnero...

There you are. Clinton cabinet member, former mayor of
San Antonio. Supposedly gave some cash to a mistress and th investigation has cost 21 million dollars so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. So, it takes an act of congress to stop an investigation?
If the whole thing is over and he has paid his fine, I would think it was over.

I guess it takes an act of congress to make someone stop an investigation on anyone associated with the Clintons.

Imagine how much worse it would have been for Martha Stewart if she had been a friend of Hill & Bill.

Thank you, Zodiak Ironfist, for answering my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-11-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. You didn't know?
Edited on Wed May-11-05 10:38 PM by TaleWgnDg
.
You didn't know? Once started, there was no way to stop the multitude-runaway-train "independent counsel/prosecutor investigations" during the Clinton years. The "independent counsel/prosecutor law" was like a large-holed sieve, more ran amuck through it than was contained.

They were hellbent. Right or wrong, it didn't matter.

There was nothing in the law that prohibited the "independent counsel/prosecutor" from doing whatever the hell it wanted to do (e.g., how does one go from Whitewater to Paula Jones to oral sex in the Oval Office?), and there was nothing in the law that prohibited the investigation to go on and on and on and on as did the ex-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Cisneros' "independent counselor/prosecutor" investigation from 1995 to whenever congress passed a bill in 2005 to cut the umbilical money cord as was does here by this bill. At least, I assume the umbilical cord has been severed since funding was (and is) the sole restraining factor in these, for the most part, political "investigations."

___________________________________________

edited to add: Washington Post newspaper references on Cisneros http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/c... . . . and from wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC