Okay, Who Let the Balls Out? UPDATED
UPDATED: Never mind. Screw it. There ain’t no damn balls.
Y’all, there seems to be something afoot among Democrats in Washington. They’re playing El Degüello over the loudspeakers.
Get this – Harry Reid is gonna do what needs doing on filibuster reform.
Reid reiterated his ultimatum to McConnell to make a deal or watch Democrats go it alone.
“I am not going to negotiate things here,” Reid said. “Senator McConnell and I are talking. The point is this: we’re going to change how we do business around here. We can do it the easy way or the hard way, but it’s going to change.”
Y’all, the visual on this is Mr. Rodgers holding his foot atop a turtle in a very threatening manner.
This is what a mandate looks like.
“It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day in the neighborhood! Won’t you be my neighbor????”
1There’s a long bit of expository dialogue in the film Lincoln where the president explains to his cabinet why he’s pushing for the 13th Amendment in a lame-duck session of Congress, when it would easily pass when the new session starts later that year. Near the end, he explains why he thinks the electorate will back him:
I signed the Emancipation Proclamation a year and half before my second election. I felt I was within my power to do it; however I also felt that I might be wrong about that; I knew the people would tell me. I gave ‘em a year and half to think about it. And they reelected me.
That sounds applicable to 2013, too.
2Oh Lord, I won’t get that image out of my head for a bit. And I just snorted cookie crumbs all over my monitor. At least it wasn’t coffee.
3It’s about time.
“Degüello” = “No quarter”
We know about this here in the Alamo city.
I’d like to see the next four years of Republicans hearing Degüello day and night.
Just saying…
4Fred Rodgers would never have threatened to harm a turtle or any other defenseless creature. He might have sung a song to it about how wrong it is to be an obstruction on the path to progress though it’s more likely that he would simply have picked it up and relocated it to a safe place to prevent it from being run over by a mob of angry Senators.
5Hurray for Harry Reid!
6I think I just got pretty ignorant here. Can you tell me the procedure for this? I would go searching for it, but the political side of my brain is really tired these days.
7I kinda think Harry just said, “Go ahead, make my day!” and Republicans from McFuddle in DC to that ass who talks to chairs out there on the west coast are gibbering! I love it!
8The current procedure for the filibuster requires no effort, no work. McConnell just says he’s going to filibuster and that’s it, no muss, no fuss, no reading the phone book until 3 in the morning. One of the proposals puts back the requirement for a “talking filibuster,” one you have to put effort into, and work for. I would think this is something the Republicans would support.
9Margaritas? Everyone? Republicans can go cry in their beer.
10Lynne, Role Call has an interesting take on this http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_democrats_lack_votes_for_talking_filibuster_plan-221037-1.html
Filibusters are a parlimentary procedure and as such not governed by the Constitution, it is part of the “rules of the Senate” and in requires a 60% vote to bring a bill or nomination to the floor for a vote. The filibuster permits a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” decide to invoke cloture (end the debate). In the good old days, you actually had to stand on your feet and talk (the record for this went to Strom Thurmond who spoke for a little over 24 hours in his successful attempt to block civil rights legislation), today’s lazy varmints just automatically fold if someone says the word filibuster. If you want to read it, I believe it is Senate Rule 22.
Back in 1892 the Supreme Court ruled in The United States v. Ballin (1892), that changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Kinda like Bill Mahr’s New Rules, the rules of the new legislative session are determined on the 1st day and rules do not automatically cary on from one session to the next.
People who want to change the filibuster call such a change the constitutional option, people who hate it call it the nuclear option. Under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.
I know this sounds complicated but actually the rules in the House are much more complex.
One thing I would caution about, this might be one of those times when we should be careful what we ask for. Anytime your party is in the majority you hate the filibuster just as anytime you are in the minority you love it. The filibuster has often been referred to as the conscience of the Senate (see Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”), in the past it has been helpful to Democrats (see Robert Bork), so while in recent years it has been seriously abused, we still need to think about this.
11My hero, Henry B. Gonzalez, holds the record for the longest filibuster – 22 hours. Here is a link by Miss Molly Ivans, herownself telling the story. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0012a/copyright/mi-gonzalez.html
Let’s get the House of Rep.’s back to an honorable place. HBG has rolled over in his grave so many times they think they are having earthquakes in San Antonio.
12Thanks for the info, Deb. My political brain is so tired these days, it’s almost all I can do to read the headlines.
13Sorry Cindy but Strom Thurmond holds the record in the US Senate at 24hours and 18 minutes
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/tp/Five-Longest-Filibusters.htm
You are correct that the honorable Mr Gonzalez holds the record in the Texas Lege but Strom still holds the record.
Forgive me it is the retired government teacher, and yes, the parlimentarian in me.
A little known piece of triva, the Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules. Early on, both houses had unlimited debate provisions. The House of Representatives, however, as a much larger body, found this rule unworkable and rules to limit debate came into effect. The Senate, until recently, never created such a rule. The term for the use of unlimited debate as a legislative tactic became known as a filibuster in the 1850’s. The first attack on the filibuster came in 1841, by the great statesman and orator, Henry Clay. It survived, though, until 1917, when the Senate adopted a rule allowing a filibuster to be stopped using the previously mentioned cloture rule.
Now that is trivia you will never need to know!
14The Dems had the majority in both the House and Senate from the time of FDR (when the voting majority figured out whose side the Rethugs were actually on). While the House changed hands once, during the Eisenhower administration, it only lasted, I believe, two years (until the Reagan era, which brought us Newtie). So, the Dems could show magnanimity to the opposition (which used to be called the “Loyal Opposition”–when’s the last time any of you heard that term?). It used to take 67 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster, but got changed at some point to 60. Now, they have just acted like putzes so they won’t even have that margin to deal with. Thank You, Mitch McTurtle. Oh, and the “Hastert Rule” in the House, where a vote will only be brought to the floor with a Majority of the Majority? Kiss that one goodbye, too.
I’m telling you: the Rethugs hate government and, therefore, refuse to govern. That idea is biting them in the butt.
15Deb & BarbinDC: Thank you for giving the rest of us a short history lesson in Congressional rules and procedures. Helps us understand the archaic system of governing rules they try to abuse. I know it’s been weeks since JJ posted those turtle photos, but I’m still laughing whenever McTurtle’s image crops up in my mind. 😉
16Deb, I stand corrected. Good job. But, Henry B. Gonzalez is still my hero. 🙂
17GO TEXAS DEMOCRATS!!!
Love their “Battleground Texas” plan to turn the Great State of Texas BLUE!!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/democrats-launch-plan-to-turn-texas-blue-86651.html
18I think this is one of those things I’m gonna have to see to believe.
Nothing against Harry……. but after four years of gridlock and nothing got done…..
I’m gonna have to see it to believe it.
19Cindy D you have exceptional taste in heroes and authors! Barbara Jordan was one of mine. Texas produces some mighty fine women, Juanita Jean, herownself, included! I very much enjoyed reading about Henry B.!
20Re: UPDATE
I never thought they were going to do any real filibuster reform. First hint was the extension of the first day. Filibuster reform should have been the first thing on the *real* first day, and the reform should have been make ’em stand up and read the phone book. A nice side effect of that is that it would have been a PR nightmare for Repukes if they actually did it. I thought President Obama took the cake for compromising in advance, but this takes the seven-tier wedding cake.
21