If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Patrick Leahy's bill requiring government agencies to get a search warrant has been blocked by a senate Republican. Which one? Sorry we can't tell you that, it's an anonymous hold; and as you know the Senate takes its privacy very seriously   (thehill.com) divider line 48
    More: Sad, Republican Block, Republican, search warrants, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley, Senate  
•       •       •

1252 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2013 at 2:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-05 01:41:42 PM
FARK: the republicans have introduced a nearly identical bill
 
2013-08-05 02:09:19 PM

Voiceofreason01: FARK: the republicans have introduced a nearly identical bill


At this point, having your name attached to the bill is more important. Why, we wouldn't want a repeat of Obamacare, would we?
 
2013-08-05 02:14:23 PM
Someone should file a subpoena for all the Senators' E-mails to find out who put in the anonymous hold.
 
2013-08-05 02:14:53 PM
John McCain or Lindsay Graham, I'd wager.
 
2013-08-05 02:15:22 PM
The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.
 
2013-08-05 02:24:21 PM
With this government, foreign terrorists are the least of our worries
 
2013-08-05 02:35:05 PM
Just not MY privacy.
 
2013-08-05 02:42:46 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: With this government, foreign terrorists are the least of our worries


You're right. I'd be much more scared of the Cartels.
 
2013-08-05 02:50:30 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


Don't get me started on LSU.
 
2013-08-05 02:54:01 PM
Only man in the senate with balls.
 
2013-08-05 02:57:04 PM

hardinparamedic: MaudlinMutantMollusk: With this government, foreign terrorists are the least of our worries

You're right. I'd be much more scared of the Cartels.


You mean Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed?
 
2013-08-05 02:57:23 PM
Well if the bill is so flawed, what's the harm in putting your name to it?  Seems to me you'd have a good case for your hold on it.
 
2013-08-05 02:57:42 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


How the SEC's concerns should be addressed comes down to "sorry, but the right to protection against illegal search and seizure of private property, including correspondence, outweighs your agency's desire for shiat to be slightly more convenient.  fark off."

There you go.  Done!
 
2013-08-05 03:02:57 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


It would take bipartisan support and hard work to craft good legislation.  Good legislation is fine and dandy but it doesn't turn out the donors like grandstanding and hard work doesn't get you any votes. If you want to pass a bill make sure there are no nits to pick.
 
2013-08-05 03:07:16 PM

Cheron: netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.

It would take bipartisan support and hard work to craft good legislation.  Good legislation is fine and dandy but it doesn't turn out the donors like grandstanding and hard work doesn't get you any votes. If you want to pass a bill make sure there are no nits to pick.


And, y'know, it would require a party that had any actual interest in limiting government power. No party like that has any actual power in our government, however.
 
2013-08-05 03:07:42 PM
I call Shenanigans!

How do we know it wasn't a democrat if the person is remaining anonymous?
 
2013-08-05 03:08:34 PM

LordJiro: And, y'know, it would require a party that had any actual interest in limiting government power. No party like that has any actual power in our government, however.


I think we can close the political tab now
 
2013-08-05 03:08:58 PM

vudukungfu: Only man in the senate with balls.


"LANCE ARMSTRONG FOR SENATE - NO ONE ELSE HAS BALLS THERE, MAY AS WELL ELECT ONE."
 
2013-08-05 03:09:49 PM
Why are these assholes against Due Process? Seriously, if you(As a cop or prosecutor) suspect someone, but don't have enough evidence for a warrant, maybe you need to do your job better...
 
2013-08-05 03:17:26 PM

Jim_Callahan: netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.

How the SEC's concerns should be addressed comes down to "sorry, but the right to protection against illegal search and seizure of private property, including correspondence, outweighs your agency's desire for shiat to be slightly more convenient.  fark off."

There you go.  Done!


+350,000,000
 
2013-08-05 03:18:53 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


If there's a legitimate reason for delaying it the person responsible wouldn't need to hide behind anonymity.
 
2013-08-05 03:20:44 PM

Mikey1969: Why are these assholes against Due Process?


Had the Founding Fathers realized that you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong then they wouldn't have included the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-08-05 03:23:10 PM
Lindsay Graham.
 
2013-08-05 03:25:00 PM
And once again, Congress is doing NOTHING.
 
2013-08-05 03:27:14 PM

PsyLord: And once again, Congress is doing NOTHING.


And once again we are going to pretend this is a bi-partisan.
 
2013-08-05 03:28:23 PM

ps69: Lindsay Graham.


He does have a history of hating America for the sake of the "war on terror."  Very solid candidate for top douchebag.
 
2013-08-05 03:31:30 PM

vudukungfu: Only man in the senate with balls.


Why do you assume it is a man?
 
2013-08-05 03:33:17 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


Whyever does the SEC need this anyway?  They're just going to cut a deal with any company they suspect of wrongdoing, where the company agrees  to cough up a few hundred million of the billions they made cheating the system,  admits no wrongdoing and offers up a few low-level employees and a middle manager or two as sacrificial lambs.   Just like they've done during all the fall-out form the mortgage mess.
 
2013-08-05 03:34:51 PM

Muta: Mikey1969: Why are these assholes against Due Process?

Had the Founding Fathers realized that you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong then they wouldn't have included the 4th Amendment.


So what you're really saying is that these people are just trying to make the whole thing more efficient.
 
2013-08-05 03:56:49 PM

Voiceofreason01: FARK: the republicans have introduced a nearly identical bill


House Bill S.608 "The Republican Patriotic Bill Protecting Real Americans From Evil Democrats Who Want To Read Your Emails and To Repeal Obamacare"
 
2013-08-05 04:07:57 PM

Magorn: netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.

Whyever does the SEC need this anyway?  They're just going to cut a deal with any company they suspect of wrongdoing, where the company agrees  to cough up a few hundred million of the billions they made cheating the system,  admits no wrongdoing and offers up a few low-level employees and a middle manager or two as sacrificial lambs.   Just like they've done during all the fall-out form the mortgage mess.


Because if they can't even get the evidence they need for that we're all well and truly farked.

Allowing publicly traded financial companies to act without any oversight is asking for a scam and a collapse even worse than now.
 
2013-08-05 04:39:08 PM
Thanks Obama and Reid.
Shameful.
 
2013-08-05 04:43:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama and Reid.
Shameful.


How can we tell you did not even read the article "but at least one Republican objected to the bill"


Now tell us how this is Obama who could not get a republican to put a hold on anything, including insanity. Or is it just your usual knee jerk reaction to blame him for everything?
 
2013-08-05 04:43:54 PM

Muta: Mikey1969: Why are these assholes against Due Process?

Had the Founding Fathers realized that you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong then they wouldn't have included the 4th Amendment.


And yet the Framers provided no remedy for violation of the Fourth Amendment. It was decades before we even got the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment has always been honored more in its breach than in its observance.
 
2013-08-05 04:47:59 PM

sdd2000: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama and Reid.
Shameful.

How can we tell you did not even read the article "but at least one Republican objected to the bill"


Now tell us how this is Obama who could not get a republican to put a hold on anything, including insanity. Or is it just your usual knee jerk reaction to blame him for everything?


Anonymous hold is the issue I was referring to.
Isn't Reid in charge of the Senate?
Doesn't Obama have even the slightest bit of influence on Reid?  I thought he cared about transparency?
 
2013-08-05 04:51:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: sdd2000: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama and Reid.
Shameful.

How can we tell you did not even read the article "but at least one Republican objected to the bill"


Now tell us how this is Obama who could not get a republican to put a hold on anything, including insanity. Or is it just your usual knee jerk reaction to blame him for everything?

Anonymous hold is the issue I was referring to.
Isn't Reid in charge of the Senate?
Doesn't Obama have even the slightest bit of influence on Reid?  I thought he cared about transparency?


THEN CALL OUT THE TURTLE TO STOP IT NOT OBAMA YOU IDIOT!
 
2013-08-05 04:52:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Anonymous hold is the issue I was referring to.
Isn't Reid in charge of the Senate?
Doesn't Obama have even the slightest bit of influence on Reid? I thought he cared about transparency?


Except whichever republican put the hold on the bill only has to inform the leader of his/her party. So not Reid, but McConnell. Senate works under the concept of unanimous consent.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-05 05:11:06 PM

Chewb1zz: tenpoundsofcheese: Anonymous hold is the issue I was referring to.
Isn't Reid in charge of the Senate?
Doesn't Obama have even the slightest bit of influence on Reid? I thought he cared about transparency?

Except whichever republican put the hold on the bill only has to inform the leader of his/her party. So not Reid, but McConnell. Senate works under the concept of unanimous consent.


You're trying to explain the rules of the Senate to someone who can't even grasp the rules to Candyland? Good luck with that.
 
2013-08-05 05:33:12 PM

Chewb1zz: tenpoundsofcheese: Anonymous hold is the issue I was referring to.
Isn't Reid in charge of the Senate?
Doesn't Obama have even the slightest bit of influence on Reid? I thought he cared about transparency?

Except whichever republican put the hold on the bill only has to inform the leader of his/her party. So not Reid, but McConnell. Senate works under the concept of unanimous consent.


The Senate can work under the concept of unanimous consent, but it doesn't have to.  The only thing such consent is sought for is a suspension of the rules by which legislation is normally debated and voted on.  Without the consent, they are free to send it through the normal procedure, which in this case appears will take all of one additional month.
 
2013-08-05 05:59:58 PM
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pushed for a vote on the bill before Congress left for its August recess. He secured unanimous support from Democrats
=================================================================

Well... that's heartening.
 
2013-08-05 06:00:45 PM
My guess is Miss Lindsay...
 
2013-08-05 06:30:50 PM

netizencain: The bill is flawed... "She warned that applying a warrant requirement to the SEC would impede the agency's "ability to protect investors and to assist victims of securities fraud."

Seems that the bill doesn't need to be rushed through with mistakes... just address the SEC's concerns.  Done.


Preventing any government agency from going through email at will is a feature, not a flaw.  When you get protection from government intrusion, people you don't like also get that protection.  It's how our system works.
 
2013-08-05 06:35:14 PM
This is one of the dumbest rules. Get rid of this one well before the filibuster is done away with. Why is one senator allowed to hold stuff up?
 
2013-08-05 07:13:08 PM

Obama's Left Nut: This is one of the dumbest rules. Get rid of this one well before the filibuster is done away with. Why is one senator allowed to hold stuff up?


Because the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. Or something.
 
2013-08-05 07:39:24 PM

BMulligan: Obama's Left Nut: This is one of the dumbest rules. Get rid of this one well before the filibuster is done away with. Why is one senator allowed to hold stuff up?

Because the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. Or something.


Wouldn't that be what a filibuster is for? And I am talking Mr. Smith Goes To Washington style. Keep the floor, keep talking piss in a bucket.
 
2013-08-05 08:03:23 PM
10#ocheeze has been phoning it in for months now. I think the joy has gone out of his life.
 
2013-08-05 09:39:51 PM

red5ish: 10#ocheeze has been phoning it in for months now. I think the joy has gone out of his life.


If anyone ever needs to rub one out into a box of Kleenex, it's 4.55 Kilograms of Cheese.
 
2013-08-05 09:49:16 PM
Unanimous consent means everyone must agree. If someone doesn't that fine, but why should they be allowed to remain anonymous, We got secret government operations, secret courts, top secrets, and secret senators in the most transparent administration ever.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report