Bingaman/ Graham update

[First paragraph cross-posted to comments at two other blogs]

I'm watching C-SPAN right now, Bingaman amendment lost (54-44), then Graham spoke in favor of his and corrected part of his previous lies (mistakes?) where he had said that U.S. soldiers didn't have the ability to appeal military court decisions to U.S. civilian courts, then Specter noted that a comment Graham had made about the Supreme Court being able to issue certiorari went against the plain language of the bill placing exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit, and Specter continued to decry that such an important idea as stripping habeas corpus was being voted upon so soon after its introduction, because it didn't allow for an opportunity for judiciary committee hearings. Now they're voting on the revised Graham amendment. The revision to the Graham amendment passed overwhelmingly, I missed the count but it seemed like around seven nay votes.

This is still quite bad, and taking away habeas corpus is a very scary precedent, but it's not as abysmally bad as the original Graham amendment. One interesting question to which I presume the answer is "no": Should Graham stating minutes before the passage of the amendment that the Supreme Court would be able to grant cert. under the amendments provisions have any effect on how the Supreme Court interprets its jurisdiction under the bill? Should Specter stating that the amendment says otherwise (and implying that is a very bad thing) and then everyone still voting for it undo any effect that Graham's statement otherwise would have had? If you think legislative history should have no influence on interpretation, pretend you think otherwise while answering the second question.