« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Final FISA Amendment Fails
The Senate defeated the final -- and least-divisive -- of three amendments to the new federal wiretapping bill it's considering today.
It was closer than the other two votes today -- this one shot down 56-42. Rules required 60 votes to approve the amendment.
The third and final amendment called for Congress to wait until after reviewing a pending inspector general's report about the White House's surveillance program before determining whether to grant immunity to telecom companies. It was sponsored by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).
The defeat of those amendments all but guarantees that the broader FISA law will pass when the Senate takes it up, probably later this afternoon.
The senators broke for lunch.
Advertisement
Comments (10)
I would like to know which Senators voted to strip immunity from the FISA bill.
Can we list it on the site?
Campion
July 9, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following voted YEA to amend, and remove telecoms immunity:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
July 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link listing the vote tally.
Notice 31 Dems voted YEA to strip telecoms immunity, or 2/3 of their 49 Dem seats. Presumably Kennedy would have voted YEA had it been close.
ZERO Republicans voted for the amendment, 100% of Republicans (49) voted to support telecoms immunity.
Lieberman (ID-CT), NEA
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
The only two Senators not voting:
Kennedy (D-MA) - recovering from brain surgery.
McCain (R-AZ) - political cowardice.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
July 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it my imagination, or can one Senator stop a bill from coming to a vote? Do you suppose any of them has the testicular fortitude?
July 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is your imagination.
There was large enough majority against the amendment to vote cloture. So, no, a filibuster was not possible. Not at all.
July 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telecomm Immunity violates the cause of actions under SECTION 1983 and 1985....THUS..IT CONFLICTS WITH OTHER LAWS?
What do Fed courts do when their is a conflict in laws?
They look to the legislative history...the debates to see "If congress said anything with intent to overwrite and subvert SECTIONS 1983, 1985?
It all goes to fed judges...a very dangerous secretive cabal of totally corrupt bought off corporate whores.
At least 70% of the fed judges are GOP stooges.
This US SUP CT IS LIKELY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION UNLESS THE SWING VOTER GETS ANOTHER...yes another...BRAIN TUMOR--BRAIN STROKE (SD US SEn TIM JOHNSON...SEN TED KENNEDY...RICH GORDON...LEROY ROGERS...JON VAN PATTEN...and so many others fried with a DOD DARPA weapon called DEW).
WATCH FOR A US SUP CT JUDGE TO GET ANOTHER STROKE OR BRAIN TUMOR.
July 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need a little more ALLCAPS.
:rolleyes:
July 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pray that Obama doesn't vote for the passage of this needless bill "because" it provides for telecom immunity that should never have been allowed to be included in this bill in the first place. Why are Democrats voting "for" telecom immunity that will prevent George W. Bush's accountability for vilolating our Constitution? Why?
July 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@kozmick - thought any senator could put a hold on any bill for any reason ... anonymous holds? Or is that just nominations ...
July 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I've seen it explained, A hold -- anonymous or otherwise -- can be put on any bill.
It's effectively notice to the speaker that if the bill were to come to a vote, you (Senator X) would filibuster.
If the speaker, looking at the lay of the land, decides there aren't enough votes to sustain your filibuster (and there weren't in this case) he can tell you "Tough titties" and ignore your hold.
In this case, Feingold managed to delay the vote by a week or so, but Dodd's earlier attempt at a hold was turned down by Reid.
July 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink