Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FISA roll call

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:20 PM
Original message
FISA roll call

Vote Summary



Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 6304 )
Vote Number: 158 Vote Date: June 25, 2008, 06:25 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 80
NAYs 15
Not Voting 5

YEAs ---80
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---15
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sold out by our own
The Vichy-Dems strike again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. This was the vote for cloture, correct?
When is the vote on the actual bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. No, this is the first procedural vote (cloture for the motion to proceed to the bill).
I would expect there is at least a cloture for the bill before a vote for the bill.

Reid seemed to imply the bill itself would be voted after the 4th of July recess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Thanks for the clarification
There are way too many procedural votes if you want my opinion (which you probably don't).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama & Clinton absent.
What's up with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Obama is probably out campaigning
Hillary? I'm not sure what her reason is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. How is that an excuse? Seriously?
He's on record, if moderately, against telcom immunity, and what's more important than that today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. nada. absolutely nothing is more important right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. And the procedural votes are the whole game.
If it gets to a final vote on the bill, one can safely vote against with the Republicans as a solid block of yeahs and several Democrats no matter what going with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. but they can still filibuster and not let the vote take place, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. That would be the cloture motion to end a filibuster (2/3 required?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. We have 15 Senators opposed to voting. (+KENNEDY) Can't they just keep talking?
I mean many votes have been cancelled becuase republicans "threatened to filibuster". they never even did it.
in the meantime the 15 could force ammendments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Threatening to filibuster only works...
when the other side rolls over. You should have to actually do it. But here we probably have the reverse situation.

A persistently pursued filibuster can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, but you've got to have enough guys to keep talking around the clock. I can imagine at some point the leadership might put enormous pressure on the filibusters to stop in the name of getting all that important other business done, and to avoid an "embarrassing" vote that exposes the real level of support for telcom immunity (which the bill vote will not do).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. fuck the "leadership". Steny Hoyer wrote this piece of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. Would 80-16 have made a difference as opposed to 80-15?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
15. Of course "In-Your-Way" caved, but Akaka?
:puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. So cloture means they limit discussion to 30 hours.
Was there any discussion of the amendement removing immunity today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC