 |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 01, 2008 |
|
In the News on May 1, 2008
By Eric Livingston ::
2 Comments :: Email to a friend
|
|
A Washington Times editorial takes a look at the current efforts by House Republicans to pass a discharge petition, thereby finally forcing a vote on FISA re-authorization despite Speaker Pelosi's objections.
For more than two months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has denied members of that chamber the opportunity to vote on one of the most important pieces of national security legislation before Congress this year. That legislation is a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in February that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies which helped the government monitor terrorist communications after September 11. So, House Republicans, led by Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King of New York, are seeking to get around this obstructionism by employing a "discharge petition." If 218 House members sign the petition, the House would get to vote on the issue no matter what Mrs. Pelosi says.
As of yesterday afternoon, Mr. Fossella and Mr. King had gotten 184 members — all of them Republicans — to sign the petition, which began circulating eight days ago. But with Democrats comprising a 234-198 majority of the House, the discharge petition will fail unless at least 20 members of the majority party are willing to defy Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership in order to sign — an act that could jeopardize a member's political career (at least if he or she intends to remain a Democrat and a member of the House). The logical place to look for these Democratic votes is the House Blue Dog Coalition — a group of self-styled moderates and even a few conservative Democrats. Twenty-one Blue Dog members signed a Jan. 28 letter to Mrs. Pelosi urging support for the Senate bill, but the speaker ignored them. Three times this year, she has sent the House on vacation rather than allowing them to vote on FISA.
Speaker Pelosi has thus far refused to hold a vote on this legislation because it still contains provisions granting immunity to telecommunications companies if they are sued for cooperating with law enforcement officials. The biggest beneficiaries of these lawsuits? Trial lawyers. The biggest losers? The rest of us who are now less secure. |
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
By
keeeemosabe @
Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:19 PM
|
|
Bull-Only Retro-active immunity does not increase national security. The only reason retroactive immunity is an issue is because someone (Bush) broke the law and everybody knows it. He is the one who wants immunity for breaking the law so he doesn't have to cool his heels in prison after leaving office instead of doing goofy speeches for $250k a pop.
|
|
|
By
Interogatory @
Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:44 AM
|
Tell us where the law was broken? Lazy people like verification. Everyone is still looking for one person who's rightd were violated, thus the dismissal of the latest suit for lack of standing.
Funny thing is Clinton and Nixon both did very well after disgrace. I guess disgrace is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Click Here to post a comment
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |