Can we say Filibuster?

So habeas corpus got another shiv in the heart today. On the Senate’s plate today was The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. It was to amend The Military Commissions Act of 2006. The MCA Act removed the right of Writ of Habeas Corpus from any accused enemy combatant.

Simply, The Writ of Habeas Corpus: The Writ mandates that a prisoner can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The prisoner must be brought before an objective court where his imprisonment is either judged to be legal or he must be released.

Now, I know that no one likes a terrorist. There’s no sympathy for them, either. No more so than for a citizen who has committed such a heinous act that it makes your eyes bleed to read about it. But, we all know that a good many people are accused falsely and, without the right to legal counsel and an impartial trial, they’re pretty much screwed with no recourse. Take, for example, 92% of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay who have been released after being held for three years without any formal charges or any kind of representation or legal recourse. Many didn’t have a clue why they were there.

You know, our judicial system worked very well after the first World Trade Center bombing. It seems to work in other countries, too.

Unfortunately, the distinction between an enemy combatant and a US citizen is extremely fuzzy in the MCA. Who among us would like to be another Jose Padilla, whether we were rightly or wrongly accused? Suspending habeus corpus is wrong. It violates all moral principles and civilized ones, too. And it doesn’t show much faith in one of the primary pillars of our democracy.

Today we had a chance to fix that. On the Senate’s docket today was a vote on an amendment to the Military Commissions Act. It is called The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Patrick Leahy, the bill was to restore habeas corpus. What we ended up with was a Republican filibuster, though you’d have a hard time learning that from the media.

In a filibuster, the debate over a contested bill continues until there are 60 votes to stop the debate...it’s a vote for something called cloture. Voting yes on cloture shuts off debate (filibuster) and the body can move to vote on the bill. This is perfectly legal and a long honored right of those who disagree with a bill up for vote. But it can be abused.

The media have adopted an odd way of describing Republican filibusters as “the Senate didn’t have the 60 votes to pass the bill.”

No, it takes 51% of the Senate’s vote to pass a bill, not 60%.

This bill didn’t get a chance to come to a vote because it was being filibustered and there were not the required 60 votes to shut down the filibuster. The Republicans have been doing this with just about every piece of important legislation since January. Back in the day when the Republicans ruled Congress, we heard about every Democratic filibuster (which did not happen too often) and the Republicans even threatened to eliminate the right to filibuster from the rules. They started talking about nuclear options. And then we had that ridiculous Gang of (bipartisan) 14, who had a written contract that seven of the Democrats would no longer vote with their fellow Democrats during a filibuster during the supreme court nominee votes. In return, the Republicans agreed not to vote for the ‘nuclear option’. What a deal. Given the make-up of the Senate, at that time, the Gang of 14 contract made it impossible for the Democrats to have enough member votes to sustain a filibuster. The Republican contingent’s agreement not to vote for the nuclear option was just a pretty decoration. I still marvel over that piece of ‘bipartisan’ work. Well, times do change, don’t they? Only now filibustering isn’t called filibustering. It’s benignly called, “not enough votes to pass.”

Well look. Today there were 56 votes for cloture and 43 against. Only four votes short of breaking the filibuster. Had the amendment been allowed to come to a vote, it would have passed. The President would have had, as part of his legacy, the pleasure of vetoing habeas corpus, which, at this point, would make him look as sketchy as John Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts). Better to filibuster than go through that, I expect.

Oh yeah, the Republicans had a busy day today. They also filibustered Senator Webb’s (Va) bill “requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.”

Votes for cloture - 56, votes against - 44. Bill was not allowed to come to a vote. Dirtbags.

If the Democrats had some backbone, they would force the filibusters to continue until the 43-44 Republicans, who held out today, were blue in the face, suffering from laryngitis, exhausted and dead on their feet, and totally rumpled and stinking from sleeping on cots on the chamber floor or closets until they either changed enough minds or joined with the majority—and voted for cloture to get on with voting on the bill. I mean if these bills are so all-fired worth filibustering, then filibuster them to the bitter bloody end. They don’t want the bills to be allowed to come to a vote because they know there are enough votes to pass them. So, let them filibuster until Christmas. They don’t seem to be doing much else of consequence, so they might as well earn their pay and entertain us in the bargain. Let us have some all out, no holds barred, old timey filibusters. And let’s call them what they are: Filibusters.

So, what will the Dems do? Any guesses?