11 members of the House of Representatives will sue President Bush tomorrow to stop enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act. From a press release by Rep. John Conyers (received by e-mail, no link yet):

On February 8, the President signed a version of the "Deficit Reduction Act" that had passed the Senate, but had never passed the House (the House passed version of the bill provided for 36 months of durable medical equipment funding whereas the Senate bill provided for 13 months - amounting to a roughly $2 billion difference) As such, the version signed by the president should not be considered a "law," as it does not comply with the constitutional requirement that the same exact bill pass both Houses of Congress. According to public accounts, the Republican leaders of the House and the Senate, as well as the President, were well aware the legislation before the President had not passed the House of Representatives before the presidential signing ceremony.

Time Magazine has a cogent explanation for why Harry Reid scuttled the immigration compromise bill yesterday. He figured out he had walked into a trap, like the one I described here. From Time:

After initially signing on, Reid decided he might be walking into a trap. Some Republicans wanted to vote on amendments that Reid believed would have essentially picked apart the compromise plan; under one of them, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security would have had to certify that the border was secure before any illegal immigrants could be made legal.

What's more, even if he could defeat the amendments, any bill the Senate passed would have to go into a conference committee with the House -- which wants to build a wall along much of the U.S.-Mexico border, criminalize all illegal immigrants in the U.S., and dramatically increase the penalties against those who help them, from businesses to churches. Looking several moves ahead in a game of legislative chess, Reid feared that the conference would produce something that looked more like the House bill, which currently has no amnesty provisions for making current illegals citizens, than the Senate version.

The right and left blogosphere, as well as the New York Times and the Washington Times, report differing interpretations of the testimony of five Judges at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week on FISA and Bush's NSA warrantless surveillance program.

• Glenn Greenwald and Anonymous Liberal weigh in here.

• Right wing Powerline, which says the New York Times blew the story, is here and here.

Let's go to the transcripts. Since they are not yet available free, I've put them on TalkLeft, along with the transcript of the question and answer session that followed. They are in pdf format.

Bump and Update: Crooks and Liars has a video of Feingold, in which he mentions this post by blogger Glenn Greenwald. Christy has some after-hearing thoughts. Raw Story has transcripts from the hearing.

******
Original Post:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Senator Russ Feingold's motion to censure President Bush. Christy (Reddhedd) at Firedoglake is live-blogging via C-Span. Crooks and Liars will have some video. Glenn Greenwald is covering there as well.

Bump and Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debating the Senate version of H.R. 4437 on Monday. It has already passed the House.

Update: From Common Dreams:

Apparently drowned out by the shrill charges and counter-charges in the immigration debate is a simple truth articulated by George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America. He told us,

"No human being -- whether citizen or non-citizen -- should be placed outside the protections of the law. No one who performs needed work should be denied fair wages and decent conditions. A society that exploits immigrants for their labor while declaring them illegal is caught in a tangle of contradictions."

Update: (3/25) Barbara Boxer slams the bill:

"It's anti-faith based,'' Boxer said. "It's inhumane. Sensenbrenner is inhumane.''

More details on the bill are available from the ACLU here and here. As for what's wrong with employment verification programs, the ACLU explains here.

by TChris

Last year, TalkLeft reported that Sen. Leahy was contemplating legislation to curb the administration's abuse of the material witness law. Leahy introduced that bill in the Senate, and Rep. Jeff Flake says he'll introduce a similar bill in the House. Momentum for reform is building as the administration's abuse of the material witness law becomes more obvious.

Recent prosecutions, lawsuits and internal investigations by the government have all focused attention on the potential misuse of the material witness law in terrorism investigations. The Justice Department, for instance, recently opened an inquiry into 21 instances of possible misuses of the law, its Office of the Inspector General said. A Justice Department spokesman would not elaborate on the inquiry, by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or name the detainees involved.

I don't often write about environmental issues. But there's an important vote coming up Thursday. The full Senate is expected to vote on a budget resolution that instructs the Energy Committee to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The budget resolution the Senate is debating assumes that offering leases for oil and gas drilling in the federal refuge would raise some $3 billion in revenue. If the language remains intact, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would be directed to produce language for a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill that would open ANWR to drilling.

The action alert page from the Wilderness Society will send a message to your Senator. Spreading the word on your blogs also would help.

by TChris

Republicans are packaging as "reform" a plan that would gut FISA, leaving the president free to spy on Americans without obtaining a warrant. A NY Times editorial expresses appropriate outrage at this cynical ploy to shield the president's lawless behavior:

Faced with a president who is almost certainly breaking the law, the Senate sets up a panel to watch him do it and calls that control. ... The Republicans' idea of supervision involves saying the White House should get a warrant for spying whenever possible. Currently a warrant is needed, period. And that's the right law. The White House has not offered a scrap of evidence that it interferes with antiterrorist operations. Mr. Bush simply decided the law did not apply to him.

The Times reports that the deal, negotiated with the White House, "left Senate Democrats fuming on the sidelines." The Times also reports that the proposal is "likely to win approval from the full Senate." Isn't it time for spineless Democrats to stop fuming and start filibustering?

Congress has passed the Patriot Act Renewal legislation:

The law makes it easier for federal agents to secretly tap phones, obtain library and bank records, and search homes of terrorism suspects. Bush has called it a vital tool in protecting the country. But numerous civil libertarians and librarians said it allows abuse of innocent Americans' privacy, and lawmakers agreed last year to add several safeguards before renewing provisions that were scheduled to expire.

The Meth Bill was included in the legislation:

The reauthorized Patriot Act includes new tools to combat the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. It will require retailers to place cold medicines with pseudoephedrine -- a key ingredient of the illegal drug -- behind counters, and will set limits on each person's monthly and daily purchases. Buyers will have to identify themselves and sign for their purchases.

The "safeguards" are largely cosmetic. The ACLU explains.

As expected, the Senate today voted to pass the Patriot Act renewal legislation, including the Meth bill and new death penalty offenses. Ten Democrats voted against it. Send them your thanks.

The ``no'' votes came from Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Feingold, Byrd and seven other Senate Democrats: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

The House will pass it next week and then it goes to Bush for his signature.

The Senate is expected to vote today on the Patriot Act renewal legislation . It's a bad bill, and besides Sen. Russ Feingold, no one else is standing up to say so. We don't need:

• a national federal police force. Here is the text to Section 605 which would create one.
• the anti-Meth Act
• New drug crimes and death penalty eligible offenses
• Sneak and Peek searches that are more about the drug war than the terror war. Sen. Feingold's statement on this is here.

It's time to show Sen. Russ Feingold some heart. He's the only one sticking out his neck and calling the Patriot Act renewal authoriztion bill for what it is: a bill that will not make us safer, only less free.

The Wisconsin Democrat is crusading against the bill, and he finds himself in a familiar place. He has almost no support - and some outright hostility - from his colleagues, just as he did after the Sept. 11 attacks, when he provided the sole vote against the original Patriot Act, just as he did when he was one of the few clear voices against the war in Iraq, and just as he did when he was first in the Senate to call for a reduction in U.S. troops there. As he surveys the debate, Feingold sounds dismayed by fellow Democrats who have given up opposing the bill as an invasion of civil rights.

"If Democrats can't stand up on something like this when the president's poll numbers are 34 percent, I just wonder how much right we have to govern this country," Feingold said in an interview Tuesday. "You've got to show people you believe in something, not just that you're gaming the issues."