Kneel Before Dodd

Right, so Dodd is apparently the only candidate, the only Democratic Senator left who has some balls. He's put a hold on the FISA bill that the President wants to move through the Congress and, looks like, he'll fillibuster if it comes down to that.

The short story on the bill is that it's going to apply retroactive immunity to the telecoms, removing any civil liability[1] from whatever wrongdoings they may have commited by providing information to the intelligence community without warrants for some nebulous purpose[2]. That, by the way, is the stuff that no one is willing to tell Congress exactly what happened and to what extent about. So, in essence, the telecoms are hoping to be let off the hook before the public even knows what happens. If you ask me, that's a sure sign that there's fire beneath all the smoke. That there's some pretty egregious behavior on the part of the administration or the executives. Or, more likely, both. Granted, if it ever sees the light of the day, I'll be too saturated with background outrage from all the other scandals and betrayals of common decency on behalf of this administration to be properly shocked. But, at the very least, we should reserve the right to make those telecoms pay through the nose for whatever they've done[3].

So, of course, the bill looked to be heading for passage with enough of the cowardly, unprincipled Democrats lining up behind it for the vote to pass. But, thankfully for our Republic and my sanity, candidate Dodd's stepped in to put a hold on the bill. Which, while it won't kill it should at least make it a long, costly fight to get it passed. One that will keep the issue - which had damned well better be a winning one for the Democrats - in front of the public for a while.

The short story on holds, by the way, is that they're one of those quirks of the Senate's rules even though you won't find them in any of the bylaws. Basically, they're a gentleman's agreement that if any Senator has a problem with a bill he can go to his party's leader and anonymously place a hold on it and remove unanamous consent[4]. Or the default agreement that allows the Senate to fast track procedural votes on a bill. Instead, with a hold in place, a bill has to pass a vote just to get to the floor for a vote on whether or not to pass it. And that vote can be fillibustered. So, a hold is a promise to drag out the progress of a bill as long as possible.

I'd be perfectly happy if holds were a historical curiosity rather than the roadbump currently keeping our Constitution from going into the woodshredder, by the way. Because they can be anonymous they're unaccountable and undemocratic. And, like the fillibuster, they mean that one Senator can effectively grind Congress to a halt. I'm all for protecting the rights of the minority opion but there's a limit. Still, it's on the books, so to speak, and I applaud Mr. Dodd for both for the courage of his convictions and for using every resource at his disposal to fight for them. The real question here is just why the rest of the Democratic Congress isn't doing the same.

[1]- Awesome typo of the day. I originally wrote "removing any civil liberty". Which, as we well know is the job of the executive branch, not the legislative.

[2]- Note that, because this deals with civil liability or the ability of people to sue the pants off people who've done something wrong, Bush can't issue pardons here. That's why he needs the Congress to co-operate. Also, because it deals with civil and not criminal law, it doesn't fall under the prohibition against ex post facto laws - you can't pass laws that reach into the past and change the criminal laws in effect then, basically, in order to play gotcha or let your cronies off easy.

[3]- Really, just go read that Greenwald link. If you can't get mad about what the telecoms are trying to pull here then you can't get mad about anything. And if we can't stop this then there's really no hope at all left for the current political system.

[4]- Basically, before a bill goes before a vote in the Senate, everyone has to agree that it can go to a vote. This is done, procedurally, by a "motion to proceed" but this is normally waved as everyone is assumed to have given their okay. Which is something that members give the Minority and Majority Leaders authority over. The Senate rules, by the way, are fucked up.