If you need another reason to avoid voting for Democrats just because they’re Democrats, here you go:

Just before she cast her vote on S. 1927, a bill which replaces judicial warrants with the presumption of government prerogative to execute searches, Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein had this to say about it:

I spent all afternoon on the McConnell bill and am just beginning to understand the subtleties in it and the others laws that come into play.

That’s right: Senator Dianne Feinstein came out and said squarely that she was “just beginning to understand” S. 1927. And yet, despite avowedly not understanding S. 1927, she declared in the very next sentence her intention to vote YES for the bill’s passage. And then she did.

Voting for a constitution-gutting bill without understanding it first? That’s the kind of careless behavior you should expect from a junior state senator, or some kind of emergency replacement, or some other inexperienced politician. But Dianne Feinstein has been in politics since I was in diapers, and I’m no spring chicken. She should have known better.

There’s no excuse for Dianne Feinstein’s behavior. It’s not like the Senator couldn’t have delayed the vote. For all practical purposes, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill, because it takes 60 votes to end debate on a bill. The bill passed on exactly 60 votes. If Senator Feinstein, who admitted she didn’t understand the bill she was voting on, had really cared about what she was doing, she could have single-handedly stopped the vote and let debate on the bill continue, giving herself and her colleagues enough time to read the bill again and figure it out.

But no, Senator Feinstein wasn’t interested in understanding the bill. She didn’t care enough to wait and read the bill one more time. She didn’t bother. She just went ahead and voted YES, admitting that she did not know what the full ramifications of voting YES were.

This vote wasn’t about a tiny matter — it had to do with the gutting of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects us from seizure and surveillance without warrant or reason. The 4th Amendment stands between liberty and tyranny. If on this big issue Senator Feinstein can’t be bothered to take the time to know what she’s doing, why should the people of California ever vote for her again?