Four votes...

[ProSense]

and perspectives:

Bush Loyalist Confirmed as Attorney General Despite Deeply Disturbing Record on Law, Rights

Gonzales Confirmation Calls for Close Oversight, says PFAW

The U.S. Senate confirmed President Bush’s nomination of longtime confidant Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as United States Attorney General, in spite of a public record that raises serious questions about his commitment to constitutional principles and the rule of law. The 60-36 vote reflected significant opposition for an executive branch nominee, and the second highest vote against an attorney general nominee since 1925.

“Americans should be able to feel confident that the Attorney General is committed to protecting their legal and constitutional rights,” said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. “Unfortunately, Alberto Gonzales has a record that undermines such confidence. He has consistently advanced the goals of the administration even when they conflicted with the law, the Constitution, and basic human rights principles. His record reflects dangerously misplaced loyalties.”

Snip...

Neas praised senators who resisted political pressure to rubber-stamp the nomination, noting that Senator Kennedy this week continued to press the White House for additional materials relevant to an assessment of Gonzales’ record.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17807

For Immediate Release: 9/29/2005
Contact: Nick Berning or Josh Glasstetter
Nick Berning, Josh Glasstetter
email: [e-mail]
phone: [phone]

Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice

Stakes Huge with Replacement for Swing Vote O’Connor

People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement regarding the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States:

We are deeply disappointed that John Roberts has been confirmed to a lifetime position as Chief Justice of the United States. Nominees for powerful lifetime positions on the Supreme Court have an obligation to demonstrate that they have a basic commitment to Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections. We believe that Judge Roberts did not meet this burden. Now that he has been confirmed, we wish John Roberts well, and hope that he will use his intellect and his abilities to serve all Americans with a fair and even hand. Only time will tell his place in history.

We applaud those who opposed Judge Roberts based on his record and his testimony. We are disappointed with those Democrats and moderate Republicans who chose to support Judge Roberts, despite his long record of working to undermine rights and legal protections, his evasive answers to the Senate, and the Bush administration’s continued refusal to release key documents that would have illuminated his record and approach to the Constitution. But we are pleased that many of those same senators have said they would oppose any effort by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with an ideologue who would push the Court to the right.

more...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19587

Filibuster Effort Shows Intensity of Alito Opposition

Filibuster vote, expected tally on final confirmation demonstrate depth of opposition to Alito record and judicial philosophy

Following today’s 72-25 vote to cut off debate on the nomination of Samuel Alito, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas had the following statement:

“Senators who voted to extend debate did everything possible to defeat the nomination of Samuel Alito to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. They also upheld the Senate’s crucial role in our system of checks and balances. We believe that time will confirm the wisdom of their attempt to defeat this nominee.

“Samuel Alito’s record tells us that the rights and liberties of every American will be significantly weakened over the decades that Alito is likely to serve on the Supreme Court. His well-documented record is why he was supported so enthusiastically by far-right activists. If he is true to that record, he will side far more often with the rights of the powerful against the powerless, favor corporations and big government against the rights and privacy of individuals, seek to roll back a woman’s right to choose, and undermine legal protections for women, immigrants, minorities, and Americans with disabilities. He will stand aside while the executive branch claims excessive power to intrude on Americans’ privacy and legal protections, but will vote to restrict the ability of Congress to protect the health, safety and welfare of Americans and our communities.

We are grateful for the leadership shown by senators who worked to prevent Samuel Alito’s confirmation to a lifetime seat on our nation’s highest court, and it is excruciatingly disappointing that more senators did not consider Alito’s record sufficient reason to join those efforts.

more...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20386

This is from Feb 10, but the statement is still valid.

USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Deal Fails to Protect Civil Liberties

The announced compromise deal reached this week regarding the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act failed to address key concerns regarding civil liberties and government overreaching. People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas expressed his disappointment in senators’ failure to protect Americans’ rights to privacy and liberty.

“This is a missed opportunity to make desperately needed reforms in the PATRIOT Act, and for the Senate to play a crucial role in our system of checks and balances” said Neas. “Unfortunately, it appears that too many senators have decided to accept the unacceptable rather than stand up for the rights of ordinary Americans against unnecessary government intrusion. This deal means that the government can continue to legally demand your library and hospital records, even if you did nothing wrong.”

more...

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20448

[MH1]

1. Can someone summarize

The reasons FOR renewing the PATRIOT Act, in the version that was just voted on?

I considered it a fait accompli and so haven't taken the time to look into it, and am buried with some local stuff. But I would really, REALLY appreciate it if someone would look at the pros - or at least Kerry's (and/or Kennedy's and/or Boxer's) take on the pros - before knocking this vote any more.

I'm not griping at you, ProSense - I understand your point with putting the multiple votes in perspective. STILL I want to know the other side of the story on the PA vote. I'm tired of the knee jerk reactions from the usual suspects out in GD. We can do better in here, I hope.

[Mass]

2. Kennedy's take

In substance: given that we cannot trust the administration and that the bill is going to pass, it is important to vote for anything that will compel the administration to anything.

In other terms, let's rush to vote that before they change their mind again.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/06/03/2006302A36.html

KENNEDY ON PATRIOT ACT
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON SUNUNU COMPROMISE (S. 2771) AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RE-AUTHORIZATION OF THE PATRIOT ACT


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Laura Capps/Melissa Wagoner [phone]

For months, we have been ready to roll up our sleeves and get back to work on the PATRIOT Act, but the White House has continued to block bipartisan efforts to improve the original bill and accept oversight of its intrusive surveillance programs. Again, and again, the Administration has refused to join in serious negotiations with Republican and Democrats on matters of national security, including the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps and the FBI's use of National Security Letters. The latest proposal offers improvements, and deserves to pass; however, it is unacceptable and undemocratic that further amendments could not even be considered.

We need to implement these improvements quickly given the Administration's disregard of Congressional oversight. The proposed re-authorization bill requires public reports on the use of two of the most controversial provisions, Section 215 and National Security Letters. It also requires the Inspector General to audit their use, and it mandates a report on any data-mining activities by the Justice Department.

Americans deserve national security laws that protect both our security and our constitutional rights, and more changes are clearly needed. One of the most glaring omissions in the proposal is the failure to include a four-year sunset provision on National Security Letters, even though it would be consistent with the new reporting and auditing requirements that will take effect.

The latest changes provide some additional protection for libraries, but these safeguards should apply to all of the means used by the government to obtain sensitive information, including financial documents and library records. We also need a report on the government's use of computerized searches from all federal agencies and we will continue to seek such a requirement as part of efforts toward other reforms.

We have not yet achieved the 9/11 Commission's goal to maintain governmental powers that enhance our national security while ensuring adequate oversight over their use. With so much at stake, the Administration's refusal to work with Congress can only weaken our national security and further undermine the public's trust in their government. So this battle will go on, and I regret we could not accomplish more in this needed legislation.

[MH1]

5. Thanks everyone...this all helps! n/t

[ProSense]

3. The main sticking points have been

laid out at a number of websites and in the recent articles. The Senators filibustered the bill before the holidays and some revisions were made, after the bill was extended twice---the first vote to extended it was unanimous. So this took some time.

The way I understand it is some people were satisfied with most of the law and the measures added to improve the most contentious parts, even though they didn't go far enough. Some people were not.

[jenndar]

4. Right.

The biggest problem, it seems, in understanding why people voted the way they did is the complicated history of the bill. Senator Leahy did a pretty good job of summarizing it today, and, for me at least, it was a real argument for why we need to be working so hard to gain back Democratic seats in both houses of Congress. Even when I don't agree with my favorite Senators, I respect them way too much to be forced into making votes like these.