Perhaps this is why so many Democratic voters are for Obama!
SoS, you're going to have to put a smiley on the end of your snark, so we know not to jump down your throat! *smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2008 05:25 PMSoS, you're going to have to put a smiley on the end of your snark, so we know not to jump down your throat! *smirk*
I'm... getting... to... the... point... where... my... snark... and... cynicism... is... all... I... have... left... ;)
Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2008 05:34 PMHah, SoS! At least you have that! I'm just getting bored - that's worse, I think.
Anyhow, good for the Dems for finally standing up, but I get the feeling that they'd hoped to coincide it with the shiny new nominee, (which I cynically believe is why they waited so goddamn long to do it in the first place) and it was getting down to the wire. Now it's obscured in the Obillary debacle. Oy!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2008 05:53 PMI'm just getting bored...
You get reeeaaallly mean when you're bored!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 12, 2008 05:57 PMYeah, I do, don't I? Sorry about that!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2008 06:08 PMFiredoglake and Empty Wheel have both examined the Dems proposal for telecom review, and received a number of comments--some lawyers amongst them. I got the impression the lawyers felt the wording of the Dem bill was a glass-half-full, but there were concerns about the high incidence of weasel words. IANAL, but a lay-reading gives me no comfort.
Posted by gtash at March 12, 2008 06:19 PMgtash,
that's my impression- not a cave-in, but not what it should be. which is better than we've been getting.
Posted by Turkana at March 12, 2008 06:35 PMIANAL
I am not a lawyer?!
Damn you kids with yer text messaging lingo!
Well, it's not an obvious cave in, but who sknows if its been "calculated" to result in the lawsuits being dismissed. And it gives way too much additional discretion to the judges, most of whom are Repubs at this point.
As many in the left blogosphere have begun wondering, didn't the telecoms demand contractual indemnification promises from the Prezlidenter when he asked them to knowingly violate the law years ago? The telecoms corporate lawyers knew that what Bushco wanted was patently illegal, and this is the usual protection a company demands when someone asks them to do something they wouldn't have done on their own.
The Congress has to apprpriate all funds the gub'mint spends. Did the Dem Congress ever ask if Bushco had ALREADY agreed to indemnify the Telecoms, and if so, why do they need immunity from possible judgements for money damages?---the US would be on the hook under the postulated indemnity agreements.
Congress is filled with lawyers. Can't they figre this (basic) stuff out? Can't they get this most basic info?
Posted by euzoius at March 12, 2008 06:53 PMWow, what died and brought the Old Left Coaster out of retirement?
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 12, 2008 09:33 PMand then, perhaps,
we can hope that the congress critters start to reflect of elliot spitzer's rapid political demise
and what connection there might be between essentially unregulated spying by the bush administration on any american they choose to target,
on their phone calls,
on their emails
on their bank accounts,
including congressmen seeking an escort to bliss.
maybe then we could get some really serious congressional oversight on the inevitable abuse of this power.
Posted by orionATL at March 13, 2008 07:07 AM