Bigly.

 

The House owns this bill. All of it.

Remember them when you next vote.  Here's a list to help.

Things that go bump in the night...

And it's NOT Halloween...

Unexplained radiation coming from a shipping container.

Snakes in Florida that can eat deer.

Bank of America forecloses on house lost in hurricane.

Living in an oligarchy.

Greeks and Germans and the world economy.

The House of Representatives proving they are completely unable to think of how to create jobs.

Learning what living on 30 dollars a week for food is like.

Getting excommunicated by the Mormon church.

Reaching 7 billion people on earth and realizing that number doesn't affect an attitude change in those demanding that every sperm/egg union is sacred.

You show'em, Joe.

Rep. Joe Crowley (D) of New York:



How do they enter that into the Congressional Record if he doesn't say anything to record?

Orange triumphant

The Constitution

Note to Republicans... reading the Constitution in the House is fine. Skipping or glossing over anything is not. Read ALL the amendments too. And really listen to what it says. Knowing the history about why they dumped the Articles of Confederation would be helpful.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

By the way... the Constitution is a legal document. It is not a religious icon.

Playing chess in Congress

Means you have to know how to make the rules work for you.

Via Atrios at Eschaton, Kagro X of the Daily Kos:

The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, passed the House last year without including retroactive amnesty for the telecom companies and sent it on to the Senate.

When the Senate took up the issue, it opted not to deal with H.R. 3773, but instead passed its Rockefeller-backed FISA bill (S. 2248) that did include retroactive amnesty. And there was a tremendous uproar among immunity opponents over the procedure the Senate used, making the Bush-backed Rockefeller legislation the base bill, and the immunity-free Judiciary committee bill the substitute, creating an uphill battle for the fight against immunity. That situation created a lot of ill will toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Everyone remembers that.

But here's the interesting part. Rather than send S. 2248 to the House once it passed, Reid sent the bill on a little detour. With the unanimous consent of the Senate, he stripped out the language of H.R. 3773 and substituted in the language of S. 2248, vitiated the passage of S. 2248, and sent the amended H.R. 3773 back to the House.

That put the House in the position of considering the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, as opposed to the original version of S. 2248. What difference does that make? Well, it makes no substantive difference, in that H.R. 3773 as amended now included retroactive immunity, along with all the other garbage we didn't want the Senate to pass.

But as I've stressed a number of times, control of procedure can, in the end, control the substantive outcome.

So, what's a House that's opposed to retroactive immunity to do? Amend H.R. 3773 to take it back out, of course. And that -- along with a number of other substantive improvements -- is what Chairmen Conyers and Reyes plan to do, in the form of an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773.

Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? The sort of thing people say when they make fun of the legislative process: the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3773.

Only guess what's special about offering an amendment to the amendment that isn't true of just starting over with a new House bill that doesn't have immunity in it?

You can't move to recommit an amendment to an amendment.

So the House gets to strip immunity (and the other junk) back out of H.R. 3773, and the Republicans can't just undo that work with a motion designed to peel off Blue Dogs. If the amendment to the Senate amendment passes, it pops right back out of the House and goes back to the Senate on the express bus, no stops.

And there's more. It arrives back in the Senate in privileged form, as a message from the House (the message being: we amended your crap) the consideration of which is not subject to filibuster. To be sure, the Republicans (or anyone willing to stand in their shoes) can filibuster the actual debate on the House amendment to Senate amendment, but they can't filibuster the question of whether or not to even have that debate, as they can with most other legislation.

That doesn't mean we're out of the woods, of course. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide it wants to overlook the ridiculous trail of surveillance overreaches and lawbreaking in the "administration's" use of surveillance tools that emerges with each passing day. The Senate, at Jay Rockefeller's urging, can still decide that it quite inexplicably continues to trust the Bush-Cheney "administration" with these tools and that they want to blindly continue in their almost childlike belief that they'll somehow be able to exercise oversight of these immense new powers, despite all of the roadblocks the White House routinely throws up in the way of even the most routine inquiries.

Wow.

Has anyone asked how the families feel?

Being forced to spend more time with the retired politician?

McCrery, 58, joins 17 other Republicans who are headed into voluntary retirement as the party struggles to adjust to its return to minority status in the 2006 elections.

Officials disclosed McCrery's decision on condition of anonymity, not wanting to pre-empt a formal statement.

A statement prepared for release said that McCrery reached his decision out of disappointment that Republicans no longer controlled the House as well as a desire to spend more time with his children.

McCrery had been well-positioned to take over as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in January if the GOP had held control in last year's elections.

"The chairmanship would have allowed me to play a leading role in addressing some of the biggest long-term problems facing our country," the statement said.

He said he had sought to work harmoniously with Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who chairs the panel, and that the two have had some success in drafting bipartisan trade legislation.

"But on tax reform, Medicare and health care reform, and Social Security Reform, our best efforts have come to naught," the statement said.

"So, given that disappointment and my desire to more fully enjoy the last few years my boys will be at home, I will not seek re-election to the Congress in 2008."

Diaper Dave subpoenaed

WASHINGTON -- The "D.C. Madam" served a subpoena Tuesday on Sen. David Vitter, R-La., requiring him to testify about his use of the Washington, D.C., escort service federal prosecutors say was a prostitution ring.

The subpoena calls on the freshman senator to testify at a federal court hearing Nov. 28 looking into the business operations of the $2 million escort service Deborah Jeane Palfrey operated in the nation's capital for 13 years.

Vitter has acknowledged being a client of Palfrey's company, Pamela Martin & Associates, and his telephone number appeared six times in the firm's phone records between 1999 and 2001, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

[snip]

Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Sibley, said Vitter is being summoned to testify about what transpired during his sessions with the escorts. Sibley said he thinks Vitter might have been a client of Neble, and the subpoena also requires him to show up with any records relating to her or the service.

[snip]

Vitter declined to say whether he would honor Palfrey's subpoena or challenge it. A spokesman said, "Sen. Vitter is completely focused on critical Louisiana priorities in the U.S. Senate."

Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

Helping us realize what is at stake

John Dean discusses the showdown with Harriet Miers:

By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.

In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power. Bush's White House is ready, willing, and able to play hardball. Indeed, the White House may actually be trying to bait the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives into voting to deem Ms. Miers in contempt of congress.
[snip]
As a result of Miers's "no show," the full House Judiciary Committee will no doubt support the subcommittee, and vote to deem Miers in contempt. One can only hope - but probably this hope is in vain -- that Republicans may realize this is not a partisan issue, but an institutional matter, and thus will either abstain or vote to support the dignity of the committee on which they serve. Republicans should remember that they will one day be back in control, and may then be confronted by a Democratic president defying their subpoenas - and relying on this very precedent to do so. Realistically, however, there is zero chance that Republicans will place their constitutional interest ahead of their partisan interests.

The House Judiciary Committee itself cannot hold Miers in contempt; rather, the Committee can only report its request that this be done to the full House, which must then vote to deem her in contempt. Before the full House turns to this question, however, its members should not only carefully consider what they are doing, but also consider what they are not doing. At this stage, it is unclear how far this conflict will progress. The White House appears to have given this matter much more thought than Congressional leaders have thus far.

Long ago, Congress should have oiled up its most powerful tool to require Executive cooperation. No one who follows these matters is surprised that Bush is again pushing the envelope of presidential powers. But it continues to mystify me why Congress does not get its act together, and remind the White House that they are constitutional co-equals.

Update 7/17: Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat catches another viewpoint which is less scary:

The always essential Crooks and Liars supplies video of Keith Olbermann's interview with constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who sees matters quite differently: reminding us that Congress has the power to try individuals for contempt directly, bringing them before Congress rather than the courts, Turley sees the Bush administration's approach as extremely foolish. Maybe no one told Gonzo or John Yoo or even Dick Cheney about that congressional power?

The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act

Holy crap! Look! Actual legislation being attempted in the House of Representatives!

But look! Republican senators say no to ethics!