Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

All 157 no votes were Republican.

Although they always talk about "less government interference" and freedom and rights, they consistently vote to strip already established rights and freedoms away from people.

View on HN

The interesting thing to me is that the Senate version of the bill is sponsored by a Republican, meaning it should easily pass, yet Democratic leadership has thus far remained uncommitted to getting a vote on the floor due to "other priorities" and a recess coming up.

> The interesting thing to me is that the Senate version of the bill is sponsored by a Republican, meaning it should easily pass, yet Democratic leadership has thus far remained uncommitted to getting a vote on the floor due to "other priorities" and a recess coming up.

Majority Leader Schumer has said he wants to bring it to the floor, but is working to assure that the Republican votes for it to pass (cloture, which takes 60 votes, more than the floor) are there first (that's been Schumer's MO on most things—if it's going to just get blocked by filibuster, he won't bring it up.)

I haven’t heard of this, can you post it here so I can cite the bill to my local (Democratic) house representative?

"It’s unclear if the Senate will take up the legislation, as Democratic leaders remained noncommittal on Tuesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he would personally support putting it on the floor, but questioned whether there’s enough time on the calendar with the Senate set to go on an extended recess in two weeks and two huge party priorities to finish before then.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not say Tuesday if there would be a floor vote but said, “we’re going to look at everything we can do.”

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/19/dozens-of-repub...

An update from last night: in addition to Susan Collins as a primary sponsor to the Senate bill, Sen. Rob Portman from Ohio is also now signing on as a cosponsor.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/u...

Strictly speaking, advocating for small governments (more easily controlled, gerrymandered, etc) to decide whether or not certain humans have basic fucking rights is definitely a talking point with a rich history in the United States. (I’m aware not just republicans made such talking points in the past… only that that specific football has been in play a long while in many forms.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxtzsYiCTDI

I don't know how accurately he's reflecting his own position, but here's Rep. Jim Jordan saying that he feels this is the Democrats attempting to "delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court," and that the bill is "unnecessary"

So the opponents' position is something like this?

Supreme Court: rules marriage equality is constitutional

Bigots: damned activist judges shouldn't legislate from the bench

Congress: legislates marriage equality

Bigots: damned activist legislature shouldn't legislate its concurrence with the courts!

This legislation is in direct response to one of the supreme court justices suggesting in his formal opinion that the supreme court decision to protect gay marriage (among others) should be reconsidered. Wether or not he believes the other parts, calling it "unnecessary" is downright intellectually dishonest.

"please stop undermining our end-run around the legislature by actually legislating!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com