10 ms·

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 thi

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?

ABeeSea 6y ago
Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.
- outside1234 6y ago
  You have to admit its on brand - just talk - never getting anything done or passed...
- mc32 6y ago
  It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.
  - qroshan 6y ago
    How is it strange? It is completely consistent with "My way or the highway, No Compromise attitude"
  - croon 6y ago
    Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  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.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    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?
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      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.
      - sterlind 6y ago
        The vote is on a plan to REQUIRE a warrant. If he'd voted, he would have voted YEA, to pass this bill requiring a warrant, because he does not want to increase the surveillance state (on that we agree!) It's "yea" for requiring warrants, and "nay" for warrantless surveillance (which is somehow the law of the land now? When did I miss this??)
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Actually, this is an amendment on a bill to reauthorize expired warrantless surveillance programs, so a yes vote is a vote to make warrants for certain searches a condition for reauthorize broad authority for warrantless dragnet surveillance. I suspect Bernie's abstention is because he thinks reauthorization is equally unacceptable with or without the condition. Procedurally, he could vote yes on the amendment and still vote on the bill, and there's an argument that not doing so is making the perfect the enemy of the good (or at least the barely decent the enemy of the mildly less oppressive of two oppressive options), but it's kind of hard for me to get mad at Sanders for not collaborating in putting lipstick on this particular totalitarian pig of law. One can maybe rationalize the USA Patriot Act in the context of it's time, it's much harder to rationalize the USA Freedom Act’s deliberate after-the-fact authorization of much of the illegal blanket surveillance that went beyond what the original Patriot Act authorized, and it's far harder to rationalize the current reauthorization of the combination, with or without minor tweaks.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  I suspect it's because Bernie opposes 215 renewal with or without the amendment.
  - dlp211 6y ago
    I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
    - repsilat 6y ago
      It could make sense to vote against watering down the bill if you think the watered-down version is more likely to pass. This amendment could be the opposite of a poison pill (a "spoonful of sugar"?)
      - loeg 6y ago
        The bill will pass either way. Now it just passes with worse privacy properties for regular Americans.
- skuhn 6y ago
  Bernie hasn't voted yet since the senate reconvened May 4th. There has been no explanation that I'm aware of for why he isn't voting. https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/votes-missed/116 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/vo...
mwfunk 6y ago
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 consisted of 35 Democrats (King is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 24 Republicans. I'm much more interested in why it failed to pass, so I'll refrain from listing the yea votes for brevity. The 4 absent senators were 2 Democrats (Sanders is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 2 Republicans: Alexander (R-TN) Murray (D-WA) Sanders (I-VT) Sasse (R-NE) The 37 nay votes were from 10 Democrat and 27 Republican senators: Barrasso (R-WY) Blackburn (R-TN) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Cotton (R-AR) Feinstein (D-CA) Fischer (R-NE) Graham (R-SC) Hassan (D-NH) Hyde-Smith (R-MS) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (R-WI) Jones (D-AL) Kaine (D-VA) Lankford (R-OK) Manchin (D-WV) McConnell (R-KY) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Roberts (R-KS) Romney (R-UT) Rubio (R-FL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Young (R-IN)
- ejstronge 6y ago
  Unless I’m mistaken, you’d need 66 votes to override a veto - the number 60 is for overriding a filibuster
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - CalChris 6y ago
    No. First it has to be brought to the floor (not automatic) in each house with quorums present. It then takes 2/3s vote of members present in both houses. The minimum to override in the Senate would be 2/3 * 51 = 34 votes.
    - vxNsr 6y ago
      What? the Senate has 100 members+VP, whats 51?

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?

ABeeSea 6y ago

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

outside1234 6y ago
You have to admit its on brand - just talk - never getting anything done or passed...
mc32 6y ago
It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.
- qroshan 6y ago
  How is it strange? It is completely consistent with "My way or the highway, No Compromise attitude"
- croon 6y ago
  Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.
fzeroracer 6y ago
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.
- filoleg 6y ago
  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?
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    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.
    - sterlind 6y ago
      The vote is on a plan to REQUIRE a warrant. If he'd voted, he would have voted YEA, to pass this bill requiring a warrant, because he does not want to increase the surveillance state (on that we agree!) It's "yea" for requiring warrants, and "nay" for warrantless surveillance (which is somehow the law of the land now? When did I miss this??)
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Actually, this is an amendment on a bill to reauthorize expired warrantless surveillance programs, so a yes vote is a vote to make warrants for certain searches a condition for reauthorize broad authority for warrantless dragnet surveillance. I suspect Bernie's abstention is because he thinks reauthorization is equally unacceptable with or without the condition. Procedurally, he could vote yes on the amendment and still vote on the bill, and there's an argument that not doing so is making the perfect the enemy of the good (or at least the barely decent the enemy of the mildly less oppressive of two oppressive options), but it's kind of hard for me to get mad at Sanders for not collaborating in putting lipstick on this particular totalitarian pig of law. One can maybe rationalize the USA Patriot Act in the context of it's time, it's much harder to rationalize the USA Freedom Act’s deliberate after-the-fact authorization of much of the illegal blanket surveillance that went beyond what the original Patriot Act authorized, and it's far harder to rationalize the current reauthorization of the combination, with or without minor tweaks.
dragonwriter 6y ago
I suspect it's because Bernie opposes 215 renewal with or without the amendment.
- dlp211 6y ago
  I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
  - repsilat 6y ago
    It could make sense to vote against watering down the bill if you think the watered-down version is more likely to pass. This amendment could be the opposite of a poison pill (a "spoonful of sugar"?)
    - loeg 6y ago
      The bill will pass either way. Now it just passes with worse privacy properties for regular Americans.
skuhn 6y ago
Bernie hasn't voted yet since the senate reconvened May 4th. There has been no explanation that I'm aware of for why he isn't voting. https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/votes-missed/116 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/vo...

mwfunk 6y ago

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 consisted of 35 Democrats (King is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 24 Republicans. I'm much more interested in why it failed to pass, so I'll refrain from listing the yea votes for brevity. The 4 absent senators were 2 Democrats (Sanders is independent but caucuses with the Democrats), and 2 Republicans: Alexander (R-TN) Murray (D-WA) Sanders (I-VT) Sasse (R-NE) The 37 nay votes were from 10 Democrat and 27 Republican senators: Barrasso (R-WY) Blackburn (R-TN) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Cotton (R-AR) Feinstein (D-CA) Fischer (R-NE) Graham (R-SC) Hassan (D-NH) Hyde-Smith (R-MS) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (R-WI) Jones (D-AL) Kaine (D-VA) Lankford (R-OK) Manchin (D-WV) McConnell (R-KY) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Roberts (R-KS) Romney (R-UT) Rubio (R-FL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Young (R-IN)

ejstronge 6y ago
Unless I’m mistaken, you’d need 66 votes to override a veto - the number 60 is for overriding a filibuster
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- CalChris 6y ago
  No. First it has to be brought to the floor (not automatic) in each house with quorums present. It then takes 2/3s vote of members present in both houses. The minimum to override in the Senate would be 2/3 * 51 = 34 votes.
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    What? the Senate has 100 members+VP, whats 51?