FISA Fix

I heard Russ Feingold on Democracy Now this morning and he vowed to filibuster the FISA bill, but it was kind of a weak admission with the acknowledgement that he wouldn't be able to sustain it.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

He's saying that they only have the power to delay and not derail the bill. They could put a hold on it, stretching out the process until the July 4 break, which would be the smart thing to do. But there aren't 40 votes for a filibuster and it's unlikely they can be found.

Dodd and Feingold will offer an amendment to strip immunity and oppose cloture, but that will probably fail as well (especially because it would need 50 or potentially 60 votes to pass, more than a filibuster). Harry Reid will cosponsor the Dodd-Feingold amendment (and bring it to a sure failed vote and do nothing to stop the train from changring down the track). Ron Wyden will also oppose cloture, but I can't count to 40 on this one. Not that we shouldn't keep trying, but I want to be realistic. Nancy Pelosi welcomes more debate on the bill, which is why she gave it a solid hour in the House.

The fix is in, and I'm quite disheartened about it, and until I see different on the floor of the Senate, I'm assuming this abomination will become law.

...you really have to love Arlen Specter, who's trying to set some kind of record for vociferously opposing a bill and then voting for it:

“It is totally insufficient to confer immunity merely because the companies received written requests from the government saying the program was legal. While it is true that the standard of review has been changed from “abuse of discretion” to “substantial evidence” in this bill, the real question is “substantial evidence” of what? Only that the President authorized the program and the government sent written requests to the companies assuring them it was legal. The court is not required to find that the requests were lawful, or that the surveillance itself was constitutional.

“The provision that the legislation will be the exclusive means for the government to wiretap is meaningless because that specific limitation is in the 1978 Act and it didn’t stop the government from conducting the warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program with the telephone companies’ assistance. The bill leaves the President with his position that his Article II powers as commander in chief cannot be limited by statute. That is a sound constitutional argument, but only the courts can ultimately decide that issue, and this bill dodges the issue by limiting judicial review [...]

“The Senate now has the opportunity to provide for judicial review by amending the House Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill to authorize the U.S. District Courts to determine the constitutionality of the administration’s program before granting immunity to the telephone companies.

“The case for that determination has an important extra dimension beyond separation of powers. It involves a repugnant factor; namely, that the government had instigated and maintained for many years a secret practice, the scope of which is unknown to the public and known only to some members of Congress. It smacks of Star Chamber proceedings from old England. Now the administration insists on retroactive immunity and the House has complied. It is time the Senate stood up and earned its reputation as the “world’s greatest deliberative body” and at least demonstrate some courage, if not a full profile, by insisting on judicial review.

“In offering an amendment for judicial review, I am mindful of the importance of what the telephone companies have been doing on the war against terrorism from my classified briefings. It is a difficult decision to vote for retroactive immunity if my amendment fails, but I will do so, just as I voted for it when my substitution amendment failed because I conclude that the threat of terrorism and the other important provisions in the House bill outweigh the invasion of privacy.

Shorter Specter: "I care about the Constitution, but not SO much as to hold up a bill." He's truly hilarious.