Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reid decides to IGNORE Dodd's hold on Telcom Immunity Bill! Outrageous

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:07 PM
Original message
Reid decides to IGNORE Dodd's hold on Telcom Immunity Bill! Outrageous
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 04:10 PM by NormaR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Harry Reid Can't Lead. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. He was elected to lead, not to Reid.
To combine your quote with one from the Simpsons movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can we have Dodd replace Reid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. WTF?
With "Democrats" like Reid, Pelosi, Liebermann, and Feinstein in Congress, the Neocons have nothing to worry about.

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. With "Democrats" like Reid, Pelosi, Liebermann, and Feinstein ...
How the bloody hell can we say with a straight face that we have a two party system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Reid has bent over for BFEE for decades.
Hell, he let Armitage skate on the Khun Sa deal 20 years ago.

His ass has always been, and always will be, owned by the BFEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. What is with our own sabotaging the party?
Not only are we in battle with the GOP, we have to struggle with our own as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red Zelda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Please get this bastard out of there
Fuck off, Harry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not only that, he's using procedural chicanery to do the repukes' bidding
substituting the Intelligence Committee version of the bil (with retroactive immunity for telecoms) for the Judiciary Committee version (NO retroactive immunity).

I just got this in an email from DFA:

Last month, you took action and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that did not include retroactive immunity. Immunity would let telecommunication companies who broke the law helping the Bush Administration spy on Americans off the hook.

Now, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, is using procedural tricks to make your work irrelevant by bringing the Intelligence Committee's version of the same bill to the Senate floor instead. What's the big difference? This version of the bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies.

Wait! That's not all. Even this bill can be stopped if Senator Reid just respects the hold Senator Chris Dodd has placed on the bill.

However, media reports indicate that Senator Reid will not honor Senator Dodd's hold. That's where we come in, and we have to act fast. The vote could happen in the next several hours. Please pick up your phone right now and call Senator Reid:

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542


For Pete's sake, Reid honors repuke holds on bills! That's supposed to be how the flippin' Senate works! Yet for some reason, for this bill, a fellow Dem's hold is useless. Why? Is there a telecom based in NV that owns Reid like DE's credit card co's do Biden? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. My understanding is that he's bringing up both bills.
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 09:26 PM by igil
Maybe not intentionally, but in order of exiting from committee.

Then the Senate can choose which one it wants without the awkwardness of amendments on the matter.

This was a previously discussed option. Now, if the first one passes, will he bring up the second one? Probably not. So it's essentially a question of where senators place the bar, what they're willing to go on record doing and saying on the issue of immunity for the telecoms.

To wit: If you have a measure with immunity, it would take action to remove it. If you have a measure without immunity, it would take action to include it. I can see a situation where senators would not want to go on record opposing immunity, but would vote for a bill not containing it; I can also see a situation where senators would not want to go on record advocating immunity, but would vote for a bill containing it. Ideally, you'd have a set of senators that would insist on the version they want, and would readily amend either bill to look like they want the final bill to be. But I have no confidence that this would happen, and can see having a number of senators not feel strongly enough to change it either way.

So it's a bit of chicanery, because the ordering predisposes the immunity-containing bill to a slightly higher chance of passing. But the chicanery implicitly assumes that a number of senators are spineless, so we can pass the buck a bit, can't we?

On edit: I guess I'd also have to factor in filibuster attempts on amendments. This procedure would nullify them, but not symmetrically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Call Biden, Obama and Clinton: They have already pledged to support the filibuster. Hold 'em to it
More from Kos:


December 14, 2007


.....

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear earlier today that he intends to disregard Senator Dodd's hold on FISA. And because he chose the path of least resistance for it's passage, it appears we'll see a filibuster next week.

Chris Dodd will lead that effort, but he can't speak forever and will need to lateral the ball at some point if we are going to sustain a filibuster for more than 8 hours or so.

You may, at this point, recall all the breathless press releases from candidates saying they would "support a filibuster." I didn't exactly know what that meant at the time, but it sure was celebrated. The intent to most was rather clear, they would filibuster with Dodd if necessary.

* ttagaris's diary :: ::
*

Joe Biden

San Francisco: "Will you join Sen. Chris Dodd's hold and proposed filibuster on any FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms?"

Sen. Joe Biden: "Yes."


Barack Obama

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."


Hillary Clinton

"I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee...As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently."


Hopefully we can take them at their word and they will return to support a filibuster.

.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. Phones are ringing busy
at his office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. yes, I can't get through right now, although I did this morning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. rangell called reid out this morning on miller`s show
he admitted that with a slim majority the democrats can not stop a filibuster but he`s pissed because they do not even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. still outraged
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R Thank you for posting...! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes, but I think an important lesson is being overlooked.
And that is: Holds can be ignored. They are chits, markers, indicating either a *possible* filibuster in the event that a bill is presented for voting before additional information is made available or questions asked, or the likelihood of a 'nay' vote if a bill is presented for approval by unanimous consent.

Nothing more.

To ignore them is rude. But sometimes 'rude' is ok.

They do not stop legislation, if the chair is willing to present a bill for an actual vote by other than unanimous consent. They do not even entail the threat of a filibuster--just a 'nay' vote. They can be ignored; "overriden", as I've seen elsewhere, is far too strong a word. When a repub places a hold on a bill, remember this: He is not holding up legislation, he is merely requiring more information (or maybe an amendment) or he is requiring that a different procedure be used to prevent failure by having unanimous consent fail. Placing a hold and expecting it to be honored when neither more information is requested, nor is there any expectation that unanimous consent would be the voting method of choice in any event, is rude, it's gaming the system--in this case, against your own leadership. Of course, sometimes 'rude' is ok.

They are *not* ignored if the chair doesn't much like the bill anyway, if he would find that debate might be politically disadvantageous, if the chair doesn't think the bill would pass by a voice or roll-call vote, or if he begrudges the time that would be spent in debate and voting.
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 Tue Nov 25th 2014, 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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