> Mitch McConnell (R-KY) switched his vote at the last minute. He submitted a motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat. A new vote may be set for later on Wednesday.
So while it didn't advance this morning, it will likely come up for another vote later today. It hasn't been "rejected" per se, but has at least experienced a (potentially short) setback.
It required 60 votes, and received 59 (officially 58 because McConnell switched his vote to retain the ability to reintroduce it). It only needs one more vote to pass, in other words. Feinstein was absent today, but will presumably be vote number 60 next time.
...and they will keep trying to get it until someone higher than them either forbids it outright or we change their culture from within. It is clear that a cultural change at the FBI, CA or NSA is decades away, leaving us only the first option.
Good journalism doesn't bury the raw material. Go back to journalism school, zdnet.
For those who want to read it- only took me about 15 minutes to get to the following:
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend section 2709 of title 18,
United States Code, to clarify that the
Government may obtain a specified set of
electronic communication transactional
records under that section, and to make
permanent the authority for individual
terrorists to be treated as agents of foreign
powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978)
At the appropriate place , insert the following:
SEC. lll. Section 2709 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection
(b) and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, or his or her
designee in a position not lower than Deputy
Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters
or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau
field office designated by the Director, may,
using a term that specifically identifies a
person, entity, telephone number, or account
as the basis for a request, request information
and records described in paragraph (2) of
a person or entity, but not the contents of an
electronic communication, if the Director
(or his or her designee) certifies in writing to
the wire or electronic communication service
provider to which the request is made
that the information and records sought are
relevant to an authorized investigation to
protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities, provided
that such an investigation of a United States
person is not conducted solely on the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
‘‘(2) OBTAINABLE TYPES OF INFORMATION AND
RECORDS.—The information and records described
in this paragraph are the following:
‘‘(A) Name, physical address, e-mail address,
telephone number, instrument number,
and other similar account identifying
information.
‘‘(B) Account number, login history, length
of service (including start date), types of
service, and means and sources of payment
for service (including any card or bank account
information).
‘‘(C) Local and long distance toll billing
records.
‘‘(D) Internet Protocol (commonly known
as ‘IP’) address or other network address, including
any temporarily assigned IP or network
address, communication addressing,
routing, or transmission information, including
any network address translation information
(but excluding cell tower information),
and session times and durations for an
electronic communication.’’.
SEC. lll. Section 6001 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking
subsection (b).
If you are calling your representatives, the relevant points of reference are:
On June 20th, Senator McCain introduced an amendment to section 2709 of title 18 that allows the director of the FBI to obtain (among other things) internet protocol records of american citizens without a warrant.
If you're inclined to, I'd suggest calling them and underlining the importance of the warrant process for approving collection of this data, rather than the FBI's opinion that it is important.
J. Edgar Hoover taught us that the FBI cannot be trusted with this kind of open-ended privilege. Even with judicial review, the FBI still misbehaves. Let's not make it easy for them to be lazy.
This is the thing I hate about the congress: they can be as efficient or inefficient as they please and nothing seems to be able to affect them.
Terrorist? New legislation comes to the floor immediately with the aim to curtail this liberty or that one. Not only that but everyone seems to actually show up, and there is enthusiasm about voting.
New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job? Nah, we’re gonna drag our feet for months and months and months. And we are never going to actually get around to doing one of the few things that we are clearly assigned to do. And there will be no repercussions.
I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months. For congresspeople, there should be provisions that require them to do every assigned task in a very clear time frame; any who “selectively” do their jobs should be fired.
> I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months.
Members of Congress are accountable to the electorate of their district (or, for Senators, state.) If those people want their member of Congress to do something, they demonstrate that by holding them accountable if they fail to do it.
Yes, the real problem is that even though Congress is hated as a whole the individual members tend to be quite popular within their own states and districts.
As far as I know the ability to drag your feet is one of the main powers of our elected officials if they disagree with the way things go; they can usually just do nothing until someone gets voted out of office or dies or the political winds change.
Forcing action oftentimes can lead to shortsighted actions which have long term negative effects, I don't know if forcing the hands of people I generally disagree with would result in a better status quo for us all.
eg In the supreme court example the republicans are playing political football with people that could have easily gotten confirmed under a republican president(a stupid game which does nothing but hurt the country), but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all?
The correct action in a democracy to those who refuse to do their jobs in public office is to vote out the people and replace them with people who will move forward, but as polls show people are generally happy with their representation and blame others for their problems.
> but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all?
I don't think you can. For every instance of "dragging your feet", you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is preventing something that is "actually bad for us all". And you will find people who believe this claim.
And for every instance of preventing something actually bad, you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is merely foot dragging, and you will find people who believe this claim.
> New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job?
No Senate in a Presidential election year will ever allow a vote on a Justice when the Senate and President are of different parties. It hasn't been done in the past, and it won't be done in the future. The Court is still doing business with 8, as it has in the past and probably will in the future.
Kennedy was actually going for a spot that started in 87 with the failed Bork nomination. Calling that an election year nomination is a bit of a stretch since they rejected the first candidate. In fact, he was sworn in on February 8, 1988.
Rehnquist was confirmed on December 10, 1971 not in 1972.
Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no).
> Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no).
Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten:
> "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
>"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
>"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
So, yeah.
I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that if a Justice had resigned or died and if Bush had taken Biden at his word to consider his nominee after the election, that when Bush lost the election and if he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition.
But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever (not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool.
Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be very interesting to see).
He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election. Listen to the speech, and you I have not forgotten as I can. The Senate GOP has been very loud in saying that its a no go.
Yes, put off until after the election, and then the nominee considered at that point. There are a few Republican Senators who have publicly gone on record as being receptive to that, but on the whole Republicans in the Senate have made it clear they do not intend to consider any SCOTUS nominee from Obama, period.
Also, this is a Senate that has very consistently blocked Obama's other judicial appointments. Biden didn't take part in that kind of shit back in the 80s and 90s, either.
Of course as a Senate Democrat he did take part in any blocking of judicial appointments by Bush where applicable, which did not rise to the level of the Republican blocking of Obama appointments, but this source hardly paints him as the sort of, I don't know, judge-appointment-blocking ninja which I guess in your mind he's made a career out of. And it certainly doesn't support your original wrong assertion that Biden threatened to block SCOTUS nominees during an election year, back in 1992.
Here's something he also said during that same speech:
> I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.
Garland was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current appointment, and Obama has made every attempt to reach out to Senate Republicans. Every criteria laid out by Biden back then, has been met. So no, this GOP obstruction does not have precedent or justification across the aisle, or it at least does not have it where you claim it does. Look somewhere else.
And let's not forget it's a shitty precedent to have. The Constitution says nothing about "except in an election year" for fucks sake, and the American people most certainly did "decide" back when they re-elected Obama in 2012. For that matter, given his current approval rating, they have not changed their mind since then, either.
It's kinda the nature of everything. Nothing has ever happened until it has. What makes this Congress so special that they feel justified in ignoring their Constitutionally granted responsibilities.
They didn't ignore it, they withheld their consent by deciding not to vote on the candidate. I would rather they not waste money on a charade and reject the candidate on the Senate floor. Less cost, same result.
Have they held hearings to determine whether they support the judge? How could they purport to have an informed opinion without going through the standard process of review? They did ignore it.
They also misrepresented the process they were undertaking to screen him:
"Sen. Orrin Hatch reacts to meeting with Merrick Garland before it occurs"
Why would they need the hearing, its "advice and consent". Why do the standard process when the answer is no. They will not give their consent until after the election.
The inefficiency of congress is a feature, not a bug actually - inefficiency being the bulwark against populist overreaction. The senate's staggered elections are designed thusly so that all of the senate is never fully exposed to the short-term populism of the electorate as the house is.
I was initially confused thinking "how would they get the NAT information from my home router.. from the ISP?", then I remembered some providers do NAT at their level now. Sucked when AT&T did it - made it impossible to view the entry-level IP cameras we had remotely (well, I could have set up a VPN...)
Posted this in the other thread about this. I think it's important enough to paste here:
If anybody wants to do something about this with me and others, start sending Foia requests for similar information to your local and state governments. You'll find that there is a huge amount of aversion towards releasing things like call logs and email. Push on and on and you'll eventually get what you're looking for. Highlighting the absurdities of these laws through civil reciprocation may just go a long way.
If all goes as best as it can go, I should have Chicago's mayor's office's dns resolution logs tomorrow. Just so I can limit an email search since they consider it too difficult to search for three companies in their email records for a single week. It's taken a year and a half to get this far, but it takes minutes for them to do the same.
This is absurd.
This isn't a place for journalists anymore. None I've talked to are ever willing to do anything similar because of the time it takes to get a request fulfilled. Don't be like them, and just persist, dammit.
Note that this bill's sponsor, John McCain, is being primaried by a Fourth Amendment proponent Kelli Ward [1]. The Democrat candidate, who is polling ahead of McCain, doesn't mention the Fourth Amendment under her issues page [2].
Last poll I saw, it was a dead heat in one and widely varied in others. It must be a bit worrisome since Pres. George W. Bush do a campaign stop for McCain.
Does it really apply to just browser histories? Does it mean they can take your computers without warrant to get to this history, or does it mean ISPs will have to sniff traffic to extract URLs visited and keep a log of them (for how long?).
It doesn't make much sense to me, unless they are carefully wording this into something that seems reasonable to the public ("I'll just use private mode, no deal") when it really means monitoring all our internet traffic. But then why is the media repeating it?
35 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 81.2 ms ] thread> Mitch McConnell (R-KY) switched his vote at the last minute. He submitted a motion to reconsider the vote following the defeat. A new vote may be set for later on Wednesday.
So while it didn't advance this morning, it will likely come up for another vote later today. It hasn't been "rejected" per se, but has at least experienced a (potentially short) setback.
(No wonder Feinstein's office was so dismissive of my call today.)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the amendment as an add-on to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill earlier this week
For those who want to read it- only took me about 15 minutes to get to the following:
The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To amend section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that the Government may obtain a specified set of electronic communication transactional records under that section, and to make permanent the authority for individual terrorists to be treated as agents of foreign powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) At the appropriate place , insert the following:
SEC. lll. Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: ‘‘(b) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his or her designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may, using a term that specifically identifies a person, entity, telephone number, or account as the basis for a request, request information and records described in paragraph (2) of a person or entity, but not the contents of an electronic communication, if the Director (or his or her designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information and records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ‘‘(2) OBTAINABLE TYPES OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS.—The information and records described in this paragraph are the following: ‘‘(A) Name, physical address, e-mail address, telephone number, instrument number, and other similar account identifying information. ‘‘(B) Account number, login history, length of service (including start date), types of service, and means and sources of payment for service (including any card or bank account information). ‘‘(C) Local and long distance toll billing records. ‘‘(D) Internet Protocol (commonly known as ‘IP’) address or other network address, including any temporarily assigned IP or network address, communication addressing, routing, or transmission information, including any network address translation information (but excluding cell tower information), and session times and durations for an electronic communication.’’. SEC. lll. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking subsection (b).
If you are calling your representatives, the relevant points of reference are:
On June 20th, Senator McCain introduced an amendment to section 2709 of title 18 that allows the director of the FBI to obtain (among other things) internet protocol records of american citizens without a warrant.
If you're inclined to, I'd suggest calling them and underlining the importance of the warrant process for approving collection of this data, rather than the FBI's opinion that it is important.
J. Edgar Hoover taught us that the FBI cannot be trusted with this kind of open-ended privilege. Even with judicial review, the FBI still misbehaves. Let's not make it easy for them to be lazy.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/19/aaron-swa...
Terrorist? New legislation comes to the floor immediately with the aim to curtail this liberty or that one. Not only that but everyone seems to actually show up, and there is enthusiasm about voting.
New Supreme Court justice needed, the appointment of whom is literally the senate’s assigned job? Nah, we’re gonna drag our feet for months and months and months. And we are never going to actually get around to doing one of the few things that we are clearly assigned to do. And there will be no repercussions.
I’ve never had a job in my life where I didn’t have a manager checking in at least every week or two to see what’s up. I’ve never had a job where I wouldn’t have been fired if I refused to do something for months. For congresspeople, there should be provisions that require them to do every assigned task in a very clear time frame; any who “selectively” do their jobs should be fired.
Members of Congress are accountable to the electorate of their district (or, for Senators, state.) If those people want their member of Congress to do something, they demonstrate that by holding them accountable if they fail to do it.
Forcing action oftentimes can lead to shortsighted actions which have long term negative effects, I don't know if forcing the hands of people I generally disagree with would result in a better status quo for us all.
eg In the supreme court example the republicans are playing political football with people that could have easily gotten confirmed under a republican president(a stupid game which does nothing but hurt the country), but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all?
The correct action in a democracy to those who refuse to do their jobs in public office is to vote out the people and replace them with people who will move forward, but as polls show people are generally happy with their representation and blame others for their problems.
I don't think you can. For every instance of "dragging your feet", you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is preventing something that is "actually bad for us all". And you will find people who believe this claim.
And for every instance of preventing something actually bad, you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is merely foot dragging, and you will find people who believe this claim.
No Senate in a Presidential election year will ever allow a vote on a Justice when the Senate and President are of different parties. It hasn't been done in the past, and it won't be done in the future. The Court is still doing business with 8, as it has in the past and probably will in the future.
And Rehnquist in 72 (associate justice), nominated by Nixon, again, a Democratic senate?
Rehnquist was confirmed on December 10, 1971 not in 1972.
Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no).
Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten:
> "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
>"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
>"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
So, yeah.
I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that if a Justice had resigned or died and if Bush had taken Biden at his word to consider his nominee after the election, that when Bush lost the election and if he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition.
But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever (not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool.
Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be very interesting to see).
He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election. Listen to the speech, and you I have not forgotten as I can. The Senate GOP has been very loud in saying that its a no go.
Also, this is a Senate that has very consistently blocked Obama's other judicial appointments. Biden didn't take part in that kind of shit back in the 80s and 90s, either.
What? He very much did participate in not considering appointments to the federal bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appoin...
Of course as a Senate Democrat he did take part in any blocking of judicial appointments by Bush where applicable, which did not rise to the level of the Republican blocking of Obama appointments, but this source hardly paints him as the sort of, I don't know, judge-appointment-blocking ninja which I guess in your mind he's made a career out of. And it certainly doesn't support your original wrong assertion that Biden threatened to block SCOTUS nominees during an election year, back in 1992.
Here's something he also said during that same speech:
> I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.
Garland was approved unanimously by the Senate for his current appointment, and Obama has made every attempt to reach out to Senate Republicans. Every criteria laid out by Biden back then, has been met. So no, this GOP obstruction does not have precedent or justification across the aisle, or it at least does not have it where you claim it does. Look somewhere else.
And let's not forget it's a shitty precedent to have. The Constitution says nothing about "except in an election year" for fucks sake, and the American people most certainly did "decide" back when they re-elected Obama in 2012. For that matter, given his current approval rating, they have not changed their mind since then, either.
They also misrepresented the process they were undertaking to screen him:
"Sen. Orrin Hatch reacts to meeting with Merrick Garland before it occurs"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/26/...
I called mine today because Amy Klobuchar should not be voting yes to this garbage.
If anybody wants to do something about this with me and others, start sending Foia requests for similar information to your local and state governments. You'll find that there is a huge amount of aversion towards releasing things like call logs and email. Push on and on and you'll eventually get what you're looking for. Highlighting the absurdities of these laws through civil reciprocation may just go a long way.
If all goes as best as it can go, I should have Chicago's mayor's office's dns resolution logs tomorrow. Just so I can limit an email search since they consider it too difficult to search for three companies in their email records for a single week. It's taken a year and a half to get this far, but it takes minutes for them to do the same.
This is absurd.
This isn't a place for journalists anymore. None I've talked to are ever willing to do anything similar because of the time it takes to get a request fulfilled. Don't be like them, and just persist, dammit.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...
[1] http://www.kelliward.com/fourth_amendment
[2] http://www.kirkpatrickforsenate.com
It doesn't make much sense to me, unless they are carefully wording this into something that seems reasonable to the public ("I'll just use private mode, no deal") when it really means monitoring all our internet traffic. But then why is the media repeating it?