Senate

The United States Senate is stalled. A minority of Senators threatens to filibuster. Legislation is killed.

I am old enough to remember when filibusters actually required filibustering. That is, when a filibuster took place, Senators had to actually show up to do it. Trudging bleary eyed, sometimes in their pajamas, they would trundle forward for a roll call so that the process could go on. But now that is a thing of the past. Today all the minority has to do is say, "filibuster," and it is as if the process had taken place,

I am reminded of the Star Trek episode, "Taste of Armageddon," where the Enterprise encounters a civilization that is at war, but instead of using real weapons, they fight using computer simulations. However, there are casualties, as each side puts those who would have been killed, had it been a real attack, into disintegration chambers.

Finally, when the Enterprise and its crew are declared "dead" in the computer simulation, Captain Kirk can stand it no longer, and with phasers, they destroy the computer, and the whole game starts to unravel.

ANAN: You realize what you have done?

KIRK: Yes, I do. I've given you back the horrors of war. The Vendikans now assume that you've broken your agreement and that you're preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They'll want do the same. Only the next attack they launch will do a lot more than count up numbers in a computer. They'll destroy cities, devastate your planet. You of course will want to retaliate. If I were you, I'd start making bombs. Yes, Councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative. Put an end to it. Make peace.

ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty Four.

KIRK: All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you. Peace or utter destruction. It's up to you.

Today the Senate does not put people, but legislation into disintegration chambers, all in the name of a filibuster that never takes place.

At it too long, the Senators who meekly acquiesce to killing legislation in a legislative simulation have lost their nerve.

Where's Captain Kirk when you need him?

...unless, of course, you mean the Constitution of ancient Rome.

Many seem to have made the false assumption that we're stuck with the filibuster and the supermajority requirement in the Senate to stop a filibuster. So here's some news:

The filibuster is not in the United States Constitution. Nope. Go ahead. Go look. I dare you.

What the heck is this filibuster stuff then?

In the United States Senate, rules permit 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" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. In current practice, actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

Got it? It's a Senate rule, and now you don't even have to filibuster to get the effect of filibustering. Isn't that nice and tidy. Wouldn't want to actually make a Senator work, now, would you?

And what about the House of Representatives?

In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

Imagine the braying filibustering we would have seen yesterday.

The Senate has passed a bill that contains language to repeal the global gag rule.

So what's next for the global gag rule? It's now headed to a House-Senate "conference committee," where a few members from each chamber will work out differences between each chamber’s version of the bill. Then the Senate and House must approve the final compromise version, which will be sent to the president.

Even though we won this key vote on the global gag rule, President Bush has already threatened to veto any bill that includes a pro-choice provision, including this one.

Now you can help rally support for that language to survive to the final bill.

Of course, the problem of governments' claiming they own women's wombs is well represented within US borders, too.

That's the net effect of this absurd law:

The Senate voted yesterday to make it a crime to take a pregnant minor to another state to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge, handing a long-sought victory to the Bush administration and abortion opponents.

The bill would help about three dozen states enforce laws that require minors to notify or obtain the consent of their parents before having an abortion. It would bar people -- including clergy members and grandparents -- from helping a girl cross state lines to avoid parental-involvement laws. Violations could result in a year in prison.
Their rationale? Parental rights.

Proponents of the Senate bill said it would protect girls from being pressured by their boyfriends into having an abortion. "It's an affirmation of parental rights," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). "An underage child cannot obtain an aspirin at school without parental consent," he said, adding that parents' role in their young daughter's decision about abortion is far more significant.
Nothing like claiming an absurd school rule prohibiting aspirin for students to justify such a draconian law that makes it virtually impossible for an incest victim to take care of herself without the perpetrator's permission.

Of course, the fanciful "pressure from the boyfriend" scenario is what they tell you. But just as important is to protect the progeny rights of fathers who molest their daughters. (They won't tell you that.)

And where are the Democrats?

Democrats are pushing back, accusing Republicans of trying to frighten and divide the electorate rather than tackle tough issues such as high gasoline prices and the Iraq war. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), an antiabortion Democrat who voted for the bill, will spend part of the summer stressing the need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, aides said....Give the girls hell, Harry.

Fifty-one Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for the bill, while four Republicans, 29 Democrats and one independent voted against it.Thus the "Big Tent" some would-be pundits like to blather about for the Democratic Party lets misogyny rain on women. No wonder they dropped the ERA from their platform.

Via BlogHer.

Fuck the non-establishment candidates, and they'll walk.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me." This just goes to show that the Democratic candidates all must represent the Democratic Party first, and the people second.

I know nothing about Hackett, really, and his dropping out makes no difference to me. Frankly, I'm suspicious of the so-called "fighting Dems" and this notion that having worn a uniform automatically makes one a worthy legislator. But Party maneuvers like this make one wonder why the Party even pretends to have primaries.

Asked about Mr. Hackett's contention that he had been pressed to leave the Senate race, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Phil Singer, said, "We've told both Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett that avoiding a primary will make it easier to win the Ohio Senate seat, " but he added, "Obviously, the decision to run is Mr. Hackett's and Mr. Hackett's alone."Spoken like true lawyers. You believe them, don't you?

Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said that part of what made Democratic leaders nervous about Mr. Hackett was what had also made him so popular with voters.

"Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician," Ms. Duffy said. "On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown."

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."No wonder the Democrats are afraid of him. He might actually have a chance at winning, and then where would all the high-paid D.C. consultants be?