3 ms·
> you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree. Who'd filibuster in her support? > It'd probably be easier to convince Feinst
by bobsil1 13y ago
> you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree.
Who'd filibuster in her support?
> It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways
This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_real...
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Who'd filibuster in her support? Since the Senate doesn't require "active" filibusters in practice, just the absence of sufficient votes to invoke cloture, you'd just ask who'd use Senate procedure to keep her. > This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review: That's probably a response to the White House saying that reforms are necessary (which itself is probably a result of recent revelations about what the NSA monitoring of allied leaders and the ensuing diplomatic crisis), not to any public campaign.
- bobsil1 13y agoOn second thought, I wonder if it's because of instinctive sympathy for fellow elites. Else maybe it's just the diplomatic pressure from those elites.