Democrats fear special session on FISA, will guard Congress during break

[babylonsister]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0208/Democrats_set_pro_forma_sessions_to_avoid_special_session_on_FISA.html

Democrats set pro forma sessions to avoid 'special session' on FISA


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) mistrust of President Bush is really well known and runs deep.

Fearing a recess appointment by Bush during the Christmas-New Year’s break, the Nevada Democrat refused to adjourn the chamber during the whole period, scheduling very, very brief pro forma sessions every couple of days to avoid any such appointments.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has joined with her Senate colleague, scheduling two pro forma sessions for the House this week so that Bush cannot call Congress back into special session to take up the now-expired Protect America Act, an enhanced surveillance bill that lapsed over the weekend, or the Senate-passed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bush and the Republican congressional leaders have been pounding the Democrats, claiming they have endangered the country by allowing the law to lapse. Democrats counter that Republicans, joined by some conservative Democrats, blocked a three-week extension of the act, so they are at fault.

The House and Senate also disagree on the hugely controversial issue of retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies involved in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The Senate has approved retroactive immunity, while the House has not. Talks are continuing this week, even as Congress is out.

Pelosi, fearing that Bush would try to capitalize on the House’s absence to call Congress back into a special session, scheduled two pro forma sessions on Tuesday and Thursday. The Senate will do the same at the same time. Since neither chamber goes out for more than three days, Bush cannot take the dramatic step of calling the Congress back for the first special session since Harry Truman did it in 1948.

And for all you progressives out there, the non-Republican senator you most love to hate – Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) – will be presiding over one of the pro forma sessions this week. So, you better keep an eye on him

[Bandit]

1. Didn't Bush* already say he doesn't recognize these sessions?

I seem to recall the last time the Senate held a five minute session Bush* said it wasn't real and he could still make his recess appointments if he wished. Can't recall what came of that other than Bush* telling the Senate to stuff it and they did.

[babylonsister]

3. Let him try; I don't trust him for one second, and am glad the

Dems are being so diligent.

[Donnachaidh]

5. ahh -- but he DIDN'T appoint any recess people.

He can SAY he doesn't recognize them. But saying and DOING are two different things.

[Donnachaidh]

2. WTF is Lieberman doing this -- is Pelosi/Reid nuts?

The only other reason he could be *joining* this is to pull his *I'm really just a Democrat* act, thinking he can fool people once again. The writing is on the wall big enough for even pigs like him to see what is coming. He's ready to play *oily compadre* again, to save his own ass?

[kentuck]

6. Lieberman is a Senator...

Pelosi has nothing to do with that decision.

[babylonsister]

7. Good question; I hope he won't try to pull a fast one, and hope Dems

are ready for any eventuality.

[zanne]

9. Same here. nt

[woodsprite]

14. Even my republican MIL knows Lieberman as 'the traitor'. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

4. retroactive immunity would require an amendment to the constitution.

to get rid of that pesky "no laws of ex-post facto" line.

[L. Coyote]

10. That used to be the case, when we still had a "Justice" department. The New

Office of Political Control that replaced the DoJ no longer adheres to that antiquated old hide! Plus, the SCOTUS that installed this Junta has gained 2 more adherents appointed by the Junta.

I expect the Justice Department will do nothing major against the Junta while Bush is still in the Exec. After all, they installed this regime.

[hootinholler]

21. I'm not so sure about that...

This is a law that makes an illegal act legal, not one that makes a legal act illegal. I think they can do that.

-Hoot

[dysfunctional press]

23. the constitution forbids laws of ex-post facto- after the fact.

it doesn't specify one way or the other, whether that means making a legal act illegal, or making an illegal act legal- it just says that no laws can be made after the fact. retroactive immunity would be after the fact.

[Wizard777]

24. No It doesn't. It was a crime at the time and still is.

I have heard people say that only applies to criminal law. Not civil law. But the Constitution says, no ex post facto law. It makes no distinction. So it could be construed to even apply to the budget which is also law.

There is also a separation of powers issue. This is basically a Congressional pardon. Only the President has the power to pardon crimes. So this would be, in reality, more of a law that would prohibit prosecution. That would also get around the ex post facto provision. Because it would not pardon past crimes. Just prohibit future prosecution of those crimes. But just like any other law it can be repealed at any time.

[bdamomma]

8. just like babysitting.

and keeping watch.

[babylonsister]

11. Yep; that's what it's come down to. And can anyone blame them? nt

[bdamomma]

12. jeez, if they (dems) are so cautious about this, and the House

is doing it too, why not impeachment hearings which should of been conducted a long time ago, but again it is never too late for impeachment.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Can Bush demand a special session?

And if so, would that mean that the Democrats have to do what he wants them to do? I'm glad that at least part of Congress is FINALLY standing up to Bush on something. It's too bad they're not doing something substantial about the Iraq occupation or repealing the hideous Military Commision Act but at least it's about something important to the continued freedom of our country and its Constitution.

[babylonsister]

15. I think he can try to demand anything he wants, but while the Dems

are guarding the henhouse (Congress), I don't think he can do much about it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Well that's a bright ray of sunshine in my day

Thanks

[babylonsister]

18. That's why the Dems are there during a recess. They don't trust him

either. :hi:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. With VERY good reason!

:hi:

[eallen]

20. "He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them."

US Constitution, Article II, Section 3. No, it doesn't require them to do what he wants.

:hippie:

[spanone]

16. and they won't consider impeachment...i know, i know...it's only our constitution

[DCKit]

22. "...that Republicans, joined by some conservative Democrats..."

Can we PLEASE stop using the word "conservative" to describe these people? They are "fascists", "un-American", "un-Constitutional", "traitors", "DINOs", "complicit", "unlawful", "non-representative", "Corporatists", "enablers", "neo-cons", "wolves-in-sheeps-clothing", "collaborators" and a whole host of other things, but they are NOT "conservative", by any definition of the word.

Let us please leave redefining of the English language to the Republicons and call the enemies of Democracy by their proper name(s), regardless of which party affiliation they may claim.