I called about his vote on the FISA bill...you know...the one that killed the bill that did NOT grant retroactive immunity to telecoms?
They said he was supportive of what Chris Dodd was doing. He supported his amendment.
Yet when I told them that did not make sense in the light of his vote today to table the bill put forth by the Judiciary committee...you know..
the one that does NOT grant immunity...they kept insisting he supported what Chris Dodd was doing. I could see at another forum on this topic that others were equally confused.
Here was the vote to "squelch" the bill of the Senate Judiciary Committee which recommended NO retroactive immunity.
From TPM:
Well, one down.
The Senate just voted to kill (table) the Senate Judiciary Committee's surveillance bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The vote was 60-36 to table, with a number of Dems crossing over. As we said earlier, a number of other amendments will also go up for votes this afternoon.
..."Update: The final tally was actually 60-36, not 60-34, and
the full list of Dems voting to kill were: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).TPM MuckrakerDear Bill Nelson, why did you help kill one bill with no immunity yet your office insists you will vote for one with no immunity.
Today, Sen. Nelson was among 12 Democratic senators who voted to table the Senate Judiciary Committee's electronic surveillance bill, which would have withheld retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. In other words, Sen. Nelson voted to give aid and comfort to massive multinational corporations that may have assisted -- in fact, likely did assist -- the federal government in conducting covert electronic surveillance on American citizens, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution..Picture and quote courtesy of
Ybor City StogieI have been very disappointed in how our congressional leaders
give up on battles too easily.Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) himself opposes retroactive immunity, he struck a deal with the two committee chairmen to hold a vote first on the intelligence committee's version, and then have a vote on Leahy's version as an amendment. Civil liberty advocates say that move slants the debate in favor of a bill with immunity.
Why would he do that? He has control over what comes to the floor. Why not just bring the Senate Judiciary Bill to the floor. That would have been his choice. Why did he allow that bill to be killed?