11 ms·
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
by vegetablepotpie 3y ago
4th amendment text:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. KENNEDY.
- dehrmann 3y ago> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
- tomschlick 3y agoWhy do Californians keep re-electing her?
- throwaway5959 3y agoWhy do Kentuckians keep re-electing Mitch McConnell?
- cuttysnark 3y agoA senator whose name isn't on this list—what's your point?
- jdminhbg 3y agoBecause he represents their views and is an extremely powerful senator besides?
- alistairSH 3y agoExactly.
- Alupis 3y agoUnlike McConnell, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "regular joe" support for Feinstein. There's practically nobody in this thread singing her praises... even among her fellow D's.
- alistairSH 3y agoI suspect that's because the Democrats, in recent times, haven't pursued "party purity" to the same extent as the Republicans. It's a more fractured electorate without the few "big ticket" issues that the GOP weaponizes (guns, god, and gays). But, when you look at Feinstein's accomplishments, she has represent her constituents as well as anybody... She authored the Respect for Marriage Act (undoing the conservative Defense of Marriage Act). She's pursued fair pay for federal wild land firefighters. She's protected millions of acres of federal land in CA for recreation. The list is extensive, as it should be for somebody of her tenure. And with all that said, I do feel it's time for her to retire. I'm unconvinced on term limits, but I do dislike the tendency of long-time politicians to hang on well past their prime (and this applies equally on all sides of the aisle, and also to the courts).
- Alupis 3y ago> I suspect that's because the Democrats, in recent times, haven't pursued "party purity" to the same extent as the Republicans. It's a more fractured electorate without the few "big ticket" issues that the GOP weaponizes (guns, god, and gays). The Republican Party of today is changing right before our eyes. Many hard-line issues are becoming soft - famously recently with Trump and his complete lack of religiousness. Many of the other hard-line issues were distorted by political opponents, such as your claimed "gay" issue (when viewed through a religious lens, the marriage issue makes more sense, it wasn't really about people's sexual preference, it was about a specific word. if anything, republicans are absolutely terrible at getting their message across, consistently... but I digress...). The point was, the younger generation of Republicans do not staunchly adhere to these "classical" Republican views - and the party is changing. The Republican Party seems to represent a lot more working-class people and minority groups today than a decade ago - voter segments that historically were under lock-and-key for Democrats. To that end, the Democrat party is also changing; getting pulled a lot more left-ward than most average Liberals are comfortable with. It's a weird world where the likes of John Stewart and Bill Maher sound more like conservatives than liberals. Both parties have found themselves within an identity crisis. My gut tells me there will be a course correction for the Democratic party not to distant in the future, and the Republican party will continue to "liberalize" as the younger generation takes over. We'll see where the road takes us all...
- HDThoreaun 3y agoHe looks out for their interests. One of the first projects finished with the infrastructure bill was bridge in kentucky that Mcconnell and Biden opened together.
- mattnewton 3y agoThat makes more sense to me than Feinstein really. He looks after wealthy Kentucky interests, and is a very powerful senator shaping policy for the whole Republican Party; Feinstein seems unaware of Silicon Valley’s interests and basically votes along party lines.
- saltcured 3y agoI think you can say the same thing about California. Your mistake is conflating "Silicon Valley's interests" with "wealthy California interests". I imagine it is also true that Kentucky does not have one monolithic base of wealthy or elite agendas. I think it is more accurate to say that both of them have transitioned into iconic status. The political/marketing machinations have lofted their identities so high that it barely matters that they are humans at all. They are brands. There is also the basic senate rules mentioned elsewhere, which institutionalize seniority. Look at the list of longest serving US senators and ask yourself if Feinstein is really an anomaly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_... Edit to add: remember when we used to have this conversation about Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd? It's idiomatic.
- tmpz22 3y agoDon't these positions benefit from tenure as well as interpersonal relationship developed over decades?
- dllthomas 3y agoYeah, as a Californian asking those around me why they support her over another Democrat in the general after a jungle primary, "seniority" is the answer that stood out.
- anigbrowl 3y agoBecause she's not a Republican, and competitive primaries for long-time incumbents are often political suicide for the challenger. Voters have a poor set of choices and select the least bad.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoIn California's fucked up system she actually runs against a Democrat most of the time. I assume it's name recognition and more money that gets her reelected.
- jdminhbg 3y agoCalifornia uses "jungle primaries" where the top two vote getters regardless of party advance to the general election. You can't blame the two-party system here, voters could easily choose another Democrat if that's what they wanted.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoYep, and in this case, it's isomorphic to the question, "Why didn't Kevin De Leon(D) defeat DiFi in the 2018 election?" - question whose answers can range from, "not enough votes," to "less money," to "why did the CA coast prefer DiFi and CA's interior prefer KDL?"
- rnk 3y agoThe problem is last time her opponent wasn't reputable enough to be a good counterweight. I wish Katy Porter had run and replaced her. I think she was barely in politics then.
- wholinator2 3y agoUnless it's ranked choice doesnt it still fall to the "least bad" fallacy? Like, people aren't sure that everyone else is going to vote the democrat they want and are afraid if they don't vote for the most likely, then they'll dilute the vote to the point that none of their chosen party wins? I mean, sure, if the democratic vote was a monolith that was capable of making a single choice or even knowing what its own choices would be we could say that it must be this way because people want it like this. Rather than it being yet another consequence of antiquated voting systems incrementally improving while claiming all the hard work is already done
- govolckurself 3y ago[dead]
- 0xcde4c3db 3y agoThis is basically fourth-hand info, so take it with a grain of salt: but what I've heard boils down to this: The Democratic Party, in its capacity as an actual political organizing apparatus (not an identity/platform), never really recovered from the broad shift in influence from labor to finance in the late '70s/early '80s. It has thus fallen back to relying heavily on a strained ad-hoc network of political machines built by various "rock star" Democrats. That's why the party loosely realigned around "third way" / "blue dog" Democrats in the '90s; it's not that there was some transcendent soul-searching about principles, it's that people like Bill Clinton and Evan Bayh were supported by campaign apparatus that won tough elections. More broadly, this has led to an arguably pathological degree of deference among Democrats to any org that has a track record of winning elections. And whatever faults Feinstein's political machine has, it has that track record.
- bluefirebrand 3y ago> or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data I know we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence explains things, but I genuinely do think a lot of people who run governments do actually think they should not be affected by the same rules they want to apply to everyone else.
- LocalH 3y agoIt's a base-level "us and them" viewpoint. The ruling class would never stand to live under the same constraints they place everyone else. That is true for just about every nation that has ever existed, at some point.
- mhb 3y agowhen incompetence explains things Listen to her talk sometime.
- HeckFeck 3y agoIn the UK, we will have ministers say 'We need to force the evil big tech companies to break encryption so terrorists and perverts can be caught' and the next week they'll warn of the dangers of Russia hacking into vital infrastructure, and the urgent need for strong cybersecurity strategies. A bewildering and curious lot our leaders are.
- willcipriano 3y agoClinton's emails, that are rightfully a matter of public record (unless they were classified, then she should've went to jail) get leaked, and it's the end of the world and calls the election into doubt. The same people want to read the communications of private citizens. They aren't even pretending that there isn't a double standard anymore.
- jacooper 3y agoThey never did, they are important, you are not therefore somehow they deserve to spy on everyone.
- hammyhavoc 3y agoGlad it isn't just me that noticed this cognitive dissonance. It's exhausting.
- coldpie 3y agoHer brain is pea soup. I'm pretty sure she is not capable of connecting things.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoShe has been on medical leave since February, which makes me wonder in what capacity she co-sponsored this bill... can she do that from her nursing home?
- Alupis 3y agoHaving interned long long ago, most "co-authorships/sponsorships" are merely tokens added to a bill to make it seem more impressive. Rarely, if ever, does a bill sponsor have much to do with the bill. At least in my experience. It was a game to see who we could round up for the bill, and then a political game about who would look better or bring a stronger base.
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoRight, I didn't have any expectation that she personally drafted the text of section 4 or debated the finer details prior to its introduction, or sought out expert testimony, or even read all 53 pages, or anything like that. I was more curious over whether the "rounding up" and adding her to the list involved her being present or questioned in any capacity, or whether she just had a standing guideline that she wanted to be listed as a co-sponsor on any Judiciary Committee bills also sponsored by Durbin and Graham or something like that.
- lockhouse 3y agoBetween Feinstein, Biden, and Fetterman it's starting to look like an annual cognitive test may need to become a qualification for Federal government office. The two party system and the rigging of primaries leaves us with electing braindead meat puppets as the lesser of two evils. What a sad state of affairs.
- deleted 3y ago
- anigbrowl 3y agoOn the plus side, she's incapable of voting at the moment.
- govolckurself 3y ago[dead]
- Eumenes 3y agoShe's mentally incompetent at this stage and should step down. Its obvious she's just a puppet.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoShe's not even a puppet, she hasn't been in DC or able to vote or participate in the Senate since ~Feb.
- dsfyu404ed 3y agoThis shouldn't be surprising. Even before she was old and "of questionable judgement" she was voting for and sponsoring stuff like this. Go back to the war on drugs era and you can find sound bytes of her advocating for all sorts of absurd stuff. And by "absurd" I don't mean "didn't age well but was the party line". I'm talking about stuff that violates rights in excess of what the average party politician was pushing for. That said, even if you strike her name from the list you know this is bad because it's a bunch of bipartisan long time congresspeople who are sponsoring this bill. When the careerists of the swamp get together to do something we the people always lose.
- borski 3y agoI met her at an SVLG dinner and had a discussion about encryption; it became instantly clear she doesn’t know what a computer is past that it is a TV that takes input, and that encryption is just “evil people wanting to do evil things.” There was no reasoning with her either, frankly because she is well-aged, and thus thinks herself “wise” with very little left to learn. It was honestly infuriating. [edit] In case anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, I promise I’m not. I went back to look at my texts to my now-wife after that meeting, and I was livid and extremely disappointed. She was at a table of, at the time, a dozen or so cybersecurity experts from industry and academia, and instead of listening to (or rather, hearing) what they had to say, she pushed forward an agenda of “trying to stop evil” while “protecting the children” and “thanking us for our concerns,” all while explaining that she understands encryption and knows how important it is, but that it’s more important for the military to have it and normal people don’t really need it as much. After all, it’s not like we don’t talk to other people in coffee shops where people can overhear and stuff. Ugh.
- pc86 3y agoEven among the dinosaurs in the US Senate, Feinstein stands alone in her striking ability to be willfully ignorant about anything developed after the steam locomotive. The country would be an objectively better place if both the House and Senate had a mandatory retirement age.
- borski 3y agoMy instinct is to say “no, that’s ageist” because there are plenty of older people who are legitimately brilliant. But honestly, she’s a fantastic example of why we should have term limits, at the very least.
- morkalork 3y agoLeave administration to younger, more capable people. The ones who are too old but are brilliant can still be advisors and mentors.
- Alupis 3y ago
- lokar 3y agoShe has always been a militarist
- matheusmoreira 3y ago> Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. Good. I hope they start spying on her just for kicks. People who would deny us our privacy should be leading by example.
- monksy 3y agoMy senator Duckworth is going to respond back with a from letter stating "OMG THE CHILDREN". (Just like she did for the first Earn act concern I sent). Might as well add her name on there too.
- anigbrowl 3y agoAnd it'll keep being persuasive to her voters until people come up with a meaningful counter-proposal that does a better job of addressing child safety online while also protecting privacy.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shitlord 3y agoMine is a co-sponsor (Rubio) and he will say the same thing. People hate pedos more than they care about their own privacy or oppose their political enemies.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y agoSo much for being a SF senator
- tastyfreeze 3y agoAlaska nearly voted swamp creature Murkowski out in the last midterm.
- rnk 3y agoMurkowski is a non-maga republican. If she was out you'd get a maga supporter in all likelihood.
- SimianSci 3y agoIt's important to point out that many of these senators are also members of the Intelligence committee and are receiving regular reports from intelligence agencies as part of their senatorial duties. It is logical to think that these agencies are using these briefings to lobby senators for changes that directly impact their performance. It's highly unlikely this comes from a place of malice, but rather is a second order effect of organizational incentives to do better work. Regardless, it's important for citizens to fight back against this pressure as it can be conceived as a potentially never-ending erosion of human rights.
- x86x87 3y agoHahahahaha Of course. Of course Cruz and Hawley are actually angels that are a victim of circumstances. Collins? Fucking immaculate. I don't know how many times we have to "fight back" when they come uo with this BS. They should just cut it out and serve the people that elected them. PS: Mandatory "Think about the children!"
- d23 3y agoUnfortunately I see one senator on here I previously thought highly of (and yeah, not Cruz or Hawley).
- rnk 3y agoThey are serving lots of constituents. There's no absolute block across all the people in a state. People have different ideas. I hate all these "spy on you and disable encryption". But it's not like there's a uniform view of how to approach this. Plenty of people respond to "think of the children".
- thrthrthr88 3y ago[flagged]
- switch007 3y agoIt’s almost like they intentionally trolled future generations by mixing sentences that sound like iron clad protections with weasel words like “unreasonable” which anybody could foresee as being debated ad infinitum for centuries
- encryptluks2 3y ago[dead]