Something else to be grateful for…

Patrick Leahy retracting the latest attempt to turn the US into the USSR. Well done, Sen. Leahy.

"(Typo in the previous comment.)You'd have to ask people who actually make that claim.It's interesting, ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Is not there an international law that says that asylum seekers have a right to ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"You'd have to ask people who actually make that claim.It's interesting, though, that the Trump ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Trump and his ilk can never be responsible, because..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jeremy Dobbs

    Salient comment on the original: “He won’t support it but it will still go up for a vote. Dirty work done, now time to publicly take away support so that he still looks “good” when the bad legislation passes. Typical political Bull Dung!”

  • Well done Senator Leahy? It was his bill. The only reason he caved was due to public pressure. I would say well done public pressure for getting Leahy to cave. Meanwhile, on the casual observation front. So Marco Rubio gets taken to the woodshed for a comment that many agreed was not as bad as it was interpreted; the comment being used to strongly suggest that he was just another duplicitous, or possibly idiot, Catholic GOPer. But Leahy, who proposed this bill that would have been another step toward ‘turning the US into the USSR’, and only backs down due to overwhelming criticism from across the board, gets high fives and kudos.

  • Jessie

    Dave G. is correct. I don’t think you should give credit to a man who proposes to turn the US into the USSR and then does a kind of “well I’m not REALLY for that” move that will still get his bill into law (at which he will claim “surprise and dismay”). Mark, I like your work but sometimes you give pols too much credit by taking them at their word instead of looking hard at their actions.

  • The Deuce

    I’m not sure why Leahy should get accolades for “rejecting” something that was his idea in the first place, AFTER he’s already done the damage no less. I’ve got to agree with what the other posters have said here. Sometimes it seems as if, in order to maintain the narrative that all sides are equally guilty, you tend to give less scrutiny to the actions of those pols who are actually most guilty.

    • Mark Shea

      Or, maybe it’s that I saw the article on New Advent, read it, and thought, “Whew! I’m glad that bill has been defeated” and didn’t bother to research its whole history.

  • In USA, republic serves an protects you.
    In USSA, you serve republic.

  • Richard Johnson

    The bill has one sponsor, and that sponsor has withdrawn support. As the bill is being offered as a substitute for the House bill, I suspect it will be either tabled and a new substitute offered, or an amendment to strike the offensive language will be offered and accepted.

    This is not unusual in legislative proceedings. I read once that less than 3% of the bills proposed in either House actually are passed and sent to the President for signature. This bill will join the other 97% in going down the garbage chute.

    The system worked. The people spoke…loudly. Vigilance paid off in this instance. Senator Leahy responded by withdrawing support for the bill. His hands were smacked.

    This needs to happen more often.

  • Nick R

    The history of the bill is a bit complicated. The original bill would’ve protected Americans more by making the law clear that any electronic surveillance or investigation requires a warrant (which many times it does not currently). I really hope we can get a version of the original bill passed. Then the Sherrifs and DA organizations pressured an amendment to be added to the bill which reversed this segment of it. I’m not sure if Leahy agreed to the amendment or not, I think he did but haven’t found proof. Then after this all blew up and became public he disavowed the entire thing.