Russ Feingold: “I would like to use a couple of minutes of my time to respond to my friend from Arizona. I want to be clear there is no…”

“I would like to use a couple of minutes of my time to respond to my friend from Arizona. I want to be clear there is no intention here to get in the way at all of the expedited removal cases or Secretary Chertoff's program. That is exactly what I was saying a few minutes ago. Were this limited to expedited removal, I probably would not be offering this amendment. In fact, we tried at staff level to suggest that this kind of change be made. It was rejected. We were forced to do this, which I do not think involves, as the Senator from Arizona suggests, outlier cases. These are dramatic, serious matters that could involve life-or-death situations for people all over the world who have come to this country and fear returning to their own countries or the countries where they may be persecuted-- which the Senator from Kansas and I illustrated. The Senator began his remarks by suggesting his position was existing law. Obviously, it couldn't be existing law if you had to propose it in committee. More important, he neglected to mention it wasn't just the ninth circuit, which of course is frequently held up as somehow a court we should not listen to--it is not just the ninth circuit that agrees with my interpretation of this, it is the first, second, third, fifth, six, seventh and ninth circuit that have all said this standard should not apply to stays. This is not some renegade court. It is an amazing array of courts of appeals around the United States.…”