Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 293 posts

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#21

Post by ejstronge »

mwfunk wrote: post #18
ejstronge wrote: post #2

Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?

The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto. If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this: Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor. The 59 yea votes co…

Unless I’m mistaken, you’d need 66 votes to override a veto - the number 60 is for overriding a filibuster

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#22

Post by function_seven »

mwfunk wrote: post #18
ejstronge wrote: post #2

Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?

The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto. If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this: Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor. The 59 yea votes co…

> The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto.

The veto override requires a 2/3 majority. The 60-vote threshold is required to end a filibuster.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#23

Post by [deleted] »

mwfunk wrote: post #18
ejstronge wrote: post #2

Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?

The president must be at least planning on obstructing the bill, since the only reason they'd need 60 votes would be to overcome a veto. If we treat the absences as very wimpy nay votes, and lump the 2 independents in with the party they caucus with (both Democrat), then the party breakdown looks like this: Democrats: 35 yea, 12 nay, so ~75% in favor. Republicans, 24 yea, 29 nay, so ~45% in favor. The 59 yea votes co…

[deleted]

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#24

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #13
rootusrootus wrote: post #7

Of course! Wyden again! I'm really happy he is our senator. I wish there were more like-minded people in congress. Too bad he couldn't quite get all the necessary votes.

Makes me pretty happy to see headlines with him and generally be quite proud of what I see. If only I could say the same thing about our congressman in OR2...

[deleted]

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#25

Post by filoleg »

fzeroracer wrote: post #20
ABeeSea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.

Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.

So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#27

Post by blurbleblurble »

Doesn't it have to go back to the House anyway? Am I missing something? I thought that bills needed to pass in both the House and Senate before they can be signed into law?

Now in the House they'll have an opportunity to reject the bill with McConnell's original amendment, which is obviously dispicable. This all seems like political theater, like Senator Schumer allowed a vote on this today knowing Sanders would be out. This way, the GOP looks slimy and the House has more reason to simply reject the bill as is and Bernie Sanders can be the scapegoat --> more support for Biden. If this amendment had passed, it'd have been harder for the House to reject the bill.

(Sanders was out today with Ilhan Omar advocating for international debt relief for indebted countries. )

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#28

Post by billme »

Here’s the bill, might want to read it before commenting:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6172

—— or better yet, read what the EFF wrote recently on it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expire...

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#29

Post by fzeroracer »

filoleg wrote: post #25
fzeroracer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.

So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?

Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.

Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data

#30

Post by blurbleblurble »

filoleg wrote: post #25
fzeroracer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.

So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?

My take is a little more nuanced. I believe this still needs to get approved back in the House. If this amendment had passed, the Patriot act renewal would have been more palatable when it gets there, and moderate democrats would have had a much harder time rejecting the bill there. I just can't imagine how the house could possibly pass the legislation that the Senate just approved.

In this context, it wasn't as critical of a vote. I wouldn't be surprised if Schumer allowed the vote to happen today while Sanders was absent to drum up some extra support for Biden.

Post reply on HN