I haven't written much about this lately, but it appears to be moving towards a front burner status. It, in this case, is the issue of the various bills in Congress to deal with Bush's illegal wiretapping. The most notorious of these bills, the Arlen "two-faced" Specter FISA bill gives the President sweeping powers to eavesdrop while retroactively legalizing what has already been done illegally. Glenn Greenwald has a great post up today that summarizes the various bills and their status.

It looks like the buck is being passed to the full Senate after party-line votes in committee. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans have the guts to bring it to a vote before the mid-terms. On the one side, it may be their last chance to give Bush a get-out-of-jail free card. On the other side, many Republicans want nothing to do with Bush or his policies before the election. Whether it actually comes to the floor, then, may be a 50/50 proposition.

Let's assume it does. Is this not the perfect opportunity and timing to filibuster? The law is bad and well worth opposing. The polls all back up the Democrats, including the polling on limiting Presidential power to eavesdrop. Exposing the totalitarian tendencies of Congressional Republicans can only be a good thing. "Some" might claim that the downside is appearing obstructionist in the war on terra, but like Bill Clinton said the other day, "that dog won't hunt and is getting pretty mangy". Wonder if the Senate Dems have the stones?

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald reports that Harry Reid has said that the Spectre bill would not be enacted:

Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

In response, Sen. Reid explained that our system does not allow every bill to be enacted simply because a majority supports it, that Senate rules allow minority rights to be protected, clearly alluding to a filibuster. Indeed, as part of that vow, Sen. Reid specifically referenced the fact that in the Senate, one does not need 50%, but only 40%, to block the enactment of a bill. He explained that rule existed to protect minority rights. When I asked him expressly whether the Democrats are committed to filibustering the Specter bill if doing so is necessary to defeat it, he said he thought that would not be necessary, but repeated that they would make sure the Specter bill did not become law. He was unequivocal about that a second time.

I hope he means it.