Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Texas senator Wendy Davis is performing an world-record length filibuster to prevent an anti-abortion law from passing. If she can keep talking for 13 hours without sitting down, going to the bathroom or leaning on anything she will successsfully stall the bill. People are sending her stories and information to help her keep talking in this herculean act of continuous waffling.

Article with livestream.

Livestream:

2Q8Hr0O20LY

I hope she didn't forget her diapers.

There comes a time when a gal just has to stand up and ferociously shit her pants for the things she believes in.

Anyway, I hope I wake up tomorrow to learn that she succeeded. This is a pretty damn cool story imo.

Originally posted by Nephthys
There comes a time when a gal just has to stand up and ferociously shit her pants for the things she believes in.

Anyway, I hope I wake up tomorrow to learn that she succeeded. This is a pretty damn cool story imo.

How far is she in, anyway?

The record for filibustering is much more than thirteen hours. Strom Thurmond holds the record for a 24 hour, 18 minute filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
How far is she in, anyway?

I read one article posted 7 hours ago that said she'd been doing it for over 2 hours, so between 9 and 10 hours. Still a ways to go.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The record for filibustering is much more than thirteen hours. Strom Thurmond holds the record for a 24 hour, 18 minute filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

I wasn't being serious, but good to know.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The record for filibustering is much more than thirteen hours. Strom Thurmond holds the record for a 24 hour, 18 minute filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Haha, that's something to be proud of...

Anyway, I've always though filibusters were rather ridiculous and almost undemocratic. Allowing the minority to triumph over the majority.

Yeah, I'm not too clear on the rules of filibustering, but it seems to me like you should be able to block a filibuster if you could get a 2/3 vote.

The point of it, as far as I can tell, is that it's designed specifically too overrule a majority/super majority bias. I.E 9 out of the 10 voters will vote to pass a law legalizing child porn. The 10th guy stands up and makes a long winded moral stand to overthrow it, etc etc.

Like many American laws, it's one of those things that's pretty ****ing awesome and "freedom" idealistically... but tends to suck dick in practice.

And like many American things, its actually from Italy.

This is great to listen to when playing Call of Duty.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, I'm not too clear on the rules of filibustering, but it seems to me like you should be able to block a filibuster if you could get a 2/3 vote.

3/5ths I believe.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The point of it, as far as I can tell, is that it's designed specifically too overrule a majority/super majority bias. I.E 9 out of the 10 voters will vote to pass a law legalizing child porn. The 10th guy stands up and makes a long winded moral stand to overthrow it, etc etc.

Kind of. The filibuster (there are several types) in the Senate can be used for a number of things. For example, you can filibuster in order to specifically force a vote on an issue that would normally be given basically a quick nod of assent by the Senate. In this case the filibuster is being used to force proponents to get a 3/5 majority (which really means forcing them to burn political capital).

Oh shit, something just happened.

Senator 'interrupts' to ask "how do I cast a vote in the Senate? I'm worried I might make a mistake."

I'd like to propose that any Senator who feels they are not competent to cast a vote in the Senate should be immediately institutionalized.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The point of it, as far as I can tell, is that it's designed specifically tooLike many American laws, it's one of those things that's pretty ****ing awesome and "freedom" idealistically... but tends to suck dick in practice.

It starts sucking dick when they pass rules in Cogress that allow some Republican Fascist fat **** to simply say he's filibustering without actually doing anything and then they all just leave to do blow or cash their Phillip Morris checks or rape children or whatever it is that conservatives do in their free time and nothing gets done that isn't a train wreck.

These Texans are even worse. I mean some dumb **** in their senate actually thinks rape kits give you abortions. It makes me wonder if people are genuinely that stupid or if Texas puts radium salts in their drinking water.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The record for filibustering is much more than thirteen hours. Strom Thurmond holds the record for a 24 hour, 18 minute filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

The difference being that he got to take breaks.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like to propose that any Senator who feels they are not competent to cast a vote in the Senate should be immediately institutionalized.
crylaugh

Holy shit, this is bizarre. As far as I can tell Republicans now actually broke the law (in front of thousands of people watching), and disregard a tool they have been constantly using for their purposes to destroy any proceedings of the actual elected federal government.

Thereby becoming more evil than even the most evil politician Hollywood can imagine in the same instance.

Can't wait to find out what people will say when the dust settles.

Seems they found that their desire to pass a bill does not bend time to their will (that rhymes).

And SB5 did not pass after all. Now we just need dead tree media to give us the rundown and confirm twitter chatter

Haha, yeah it seems they couldn't make the vote in time. Missed it by 2 minutes. Also curiously enough this article claims they tried to falsify the time?

'But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place on Wednesday, and then were changed to read Tuesday, senators convened for a private meeting.'

Lol WTF?

Yeah, they did do that. Pretty ****ed up.

Wow. I'm reading the Something Awful thread on this and they did it in plain sight, after the date had already been released to the public. Holy shit. That is literally fraud.

And from what I can see thats not the only law they broke. They seem to have straight up ignored legal procedure as it suited them towards the end.

They did. They broke the law on live feed camera to try and pass this bill, and then went in and altered timestamps to make it seem legit. The Lt. Governor (I don't know his name) conceded that the vote was after midnight and the bill was dead, though.

However apparently Perry is trying to bring another special session to attempt to force it through...

Oh, and of course, no news outlets in the US were really following this at all. Twitter has more on top of things than the actual media.

They've done so much illegal stuff before, what reason do they have to think that they can't do it now?

Originally posted by Cyner
They've done so much illegal stuff before, what reason do they have to think that they can't do it now?

Well they were on camera and in front of their political opponents . . .

Originally posted by Peach
Oh, and of course, no news outlets in the US were really following this at all. Twitter has more on top of things than the actual media.

I take your point, but TYT has covered this

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well they were on camera and in front of their political opponents . . .

Well the 2000 election was pretty important and well monitored, so were the 2012 primaries, and they cheated there. Too bad there weren't any camera's put directly on them at these events though. They'll probably still get away with it.

in both of those cases, neither Gore or Paul pursued legal action

EDIT: iirc in 2000 Gore conceded the election

yup, hopefully someone in texas will be much more aggressive in keeping them in check.

maybe, it might work better as leverage for the immediate future though; if the Repubs try to reintroduce the legislation, then they file a lawsuit.

As it stands, no need to spike the ball and risk looking vindictive.

I don't see how they'd look vindictive. The Repubs broke the law and sidestepped legal procedure many times yesterday. Seeking to get them the **** away from being able to repeat their actions is clearly the right thing to do.

And it's already being reintroduced.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/26/2223441/perry-calls-second-special-session/

Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't see how they'd look vindictive. The Repubs broke the law and sidestepped legal procedure many times yesterday. Seeking to get them the **** away from being able to repeat their actions is clearly the right thing to do.

you also don't see how that statement seems vindictive either, eh?

Originally posted by Peach
And it's already being reintroduced.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/26/2223441/perry-calls-second-special-session/

/facepalm

Originally posted by Oliver North
you also don't see how that statement seems vindictive either, eh?

No. More concerned over how people engaging so blatantly in misconduct can continue serving in a legal capacity.

I mean, am I making a mountain out of a molehill here? From what I can tell they broke the law in front of thousands of people to try to falsely pass a bill. How is that not instant legal action?

Originally posted by Nephthys
No. More concerned over how people engaging so blatantly in misconduct can continue serving in a legal capacity.

I mean, am I making a mountain out of a molehill here? From what I can tell they broke the law in front of thousands of people. How is that not instant legal action?

its more the pragmatics of how such a case would go. It would be incredibly divisive, expensive, polarizing, etc. At the end of the day, if the bill was killed, even with some maleficence on the other side, it would probably be best laid to rest.

Given they reintroduced the bill, I'd say go for it

Originally posted by Peach
And it's already being reintroduced.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/26/2223441/perry-calls-second-special-session/

Well, obviously, it was just a filibuster. I don't get why people (on twitter) thought that this meant the bill was done...

Was still a good thing though.

The legislative session is supposed to be over, and Perry is calling another special session simply to try and pass this...despite the fact that it's been killed once in special session (which exist solely so bills can try and be pushed through with minimal debate), and despite the fact that the majority of the people in Texas don't want to see it passed. I don't have the link to the article anymore, but something like 80% of people in this state either oppose it or think it's unnecessary.

It's a dick move on top of every other dick move pulled recently.

Hence why its so unsurprising. This is the Republican part after all.

http://compliancecampaign.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/simpsons-republicans2.jpg

Originally posted by Peach
I don't have the link to the article anymore, but something like 80% of people in this state either oppose it or think it's unnecessary.

80% of Texans are against restrictions on abortion?

was the poll done in Austin?

Maybe Texans have been infected by apathy, and the poll counts people who don't care along with those opposed.

lol, maybe

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It starts sucking dick when they pass rules in Cogress that allow some Republican Fascist fat **** to simply say he's filibustering without actually doing anything and then they all just leave to do blow or cash their Phillip Morris checks or rape children or whatever it is that conservatives do in their free time and nothing gets done that isn't a train wreck.

These Texans are even worse. I mean some dumb **** in their senate actually thinks rape kits give you abortions. It makes me wonder if people are genuinely that stupid or if Texas puts radium salts in their drinking water.

Now calm down about Texas buddy, we ain't to bad. There's some of us in hiding behind enemy lines, avoiding the anti-democrat death mobs. But yeah, there's something definetly wrong with the ground water tho.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Maybe have been infected by apathy, and the poll counts people who don't care along with those opposed.

Fixed your post. estahuh

Originally posted by Peach
The legislative session is supposed to be over, and Perry is calling another special session simply to try and pass this...despite the fact that it's been killed once in special session (which exist solely so bills can try and be pushed through with minimal debate), and despite the fact that the majority of the people in Texas don't want to see it passed. I don't have the link to the article anymore, but something like 80% of people in this state either oppose it or think it's unnecessary.

It's a dick move on top of every other dick move pulled recently.

A filibuster is a dick move by the same logic. This is just politics- a filibuster is an artificial tactic used to try and sink a vote. By the same rules, calling another session is a tactic designed to get the vote passed. Once you start playing with legislative tricks, you are entering a particular sort of battleground and have no right to complain when your opponents play by the same rulebook.

ALL filibusters are crap. Matters in democracy should go to a vote, not this kind of nonsense. If Texans didn't want laws like this, they should use their own vote as leverage. In the end, all a filibuster does is cock up the democratic process because someone doesn't like the law, a horrible logic.

If the Republicans had used a filibuster to block, say, a gay rights bill, I somehow think you wouldn't be upset if a new session was created to try and pass it again.

If this vote passes, it will be because it was democratically enacted. That's the name of the game. If you want to fight democratically enacted law, there are many ways to do it (re: what just happened to DOMA) without having to resort to cheap anti-democratic tactics like this.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
ALL filibusters are crap. Matters in democracy should go to a vote, not this kind of nonsense. If Texans didn't want laws like this, they should use their own vote as leverage. In the end, all a filibuster does is cock up the democratic process because someone doesn't like the law, a horrible logic.

I won't pretend my personal politics have no effect but filibusters are not inherently crap. Plenty of things can come down to a simple majority. A filibuster forces important issues to be raised to a significant majority. Yes, it delays important things and can be used as a harassment tactic but even in a democracy the minority should not be totally disenfranchised.

This is not the electorate whose minority rights need protecting! The minority in a legislative voting quorum should be disenfranchised- that's the whole bloody point of a representative democratic legislature! It's ridiculous to require more than a bare majority to pass votes, though if you are weird enough to not want that, then make needing more a general rule, not peculiar to situations where people use cheap exploitations. And this usage was nothing to do with majorities but all to do with an attempt to scupper the bill entirely.

There is no reasonable justification for filibustering and all reasonable democracies make using it impractical. It's a weirdness of the US system that they are still present and practical. Filibusters sidestep the democratic process and reduce the whole thing down to rules lawyering to try and leverage maximum effect, which is what is now happening.

How is it representative if the majority of the state is against the measure and yet the people in power insist on trying to pass it anyway?

That is why Wendy Davis did a 13 hour filibuster, why Leticia van de Putte (my state senator!) went on the offensive towards the end, why the gallery was packed with people, why hundreds of thousands of people were watching the proceedings via livestream, why shit hit the fan when the GOP was so desperate to try and pass this that they altered timestamps and blatantly broke the law and then backed down when they realized no one was going to buy that.

This is where I live now. And one thing I'm learning pretty quickly - the people in this state are a hell of a lot more blue than the ones in power are.

Did you know that two hours after part of the Voter's Rights Act was considered unconstitutional, TX already enacted laws designed to disenfranchise minority voters? Because minorities tend to vote blue. Do you know what gerrymandering is? It's redrawing districts to try and keep the people they want in power in charge.

So no, there's nothing representative about this bill trying to be passed at all, as most of the state doesn't want it, and all it will do is completely and totally **** over any woman that doesn't live in a large city. I'm lucky enough where if it does pass I'd be okay - I'm in San Antonio. But the vast majority of the people in this state - and it's massive - will be completely screwed.

Found it, btw.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/24/2202991/poll-texans-oppose-sb-5/

So yeah, the filibuster blocking the bill? Was actually representative of what the populace wanted - not the GOP trying to force it through.

Originally posted by Peach
Found it, btw.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/24/2202991/poll-texans-oppose-sb-5/

So yeah, the filibuster blocking the bill? Was actually representative of what the populace wanted - not the GOP trying to force it through.

Full breakdown from the pollster's site:
http://gqrr.com/images/Blog_posts/documents/2013/061913_TX_ACLU__FQ_public.pdf

The 80% number isn't very interesting, its just that Texans don't think abortion is a big deal and other topics should be the focus of the legislature.

6 looks like the number we want since 7 is far from neutrally worded. About 63 of the state thinks abortion laws are either where they should be or too restrictive. When the intention of the bill is read, however, the numbers get closer to each other with only 51 opposing it.

I think what Ush is saying though is that within the context of legislation "what the populace wants" is represented by the legislators, and in this realm the current whims of the general populace are more or less irrelevant--until it comes time for the next vote. If that is what Ush is saying, then I can see his point, the entire basis of representative democracy and representative legislation is that the people choose who they want to make the laws, they themselves don't have any direct say in it, unless it's put to referendum.

I think instead of filibustering (which puts the power into the hands of a legislator) there should be a system whereby an unpopular bill can be put on hold for a public referendum. Implementing this would be difficult though, and I'm not sure who would have the power to call this referendum, and it might even slow down the process more than a filibuster already does.

I don't agree with Ush's position that the legislative process should completely disregard the minority in favor of "a simple majority is always right" practice. Though I might be misunderstanding his position as he's coming from the perspective of UK politics and I don't understand them all that well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is not the electorate whose minority rights need protecting! The minority in a legislative voting quorum should be disenfranchised- that's the whole bloody point of a representative democratic legislature!

They're representatives of the people, of course their right to represent their people should be protected. The ability to filibuster and force the higher water mark up means the majority cannot simply ignore the minority unless there is overwhelming support for a measure.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's ridiculous to require more than a bare majority to pass votes

No its not. If you run every vote by simple majority things will swing back and forth all the time and random noise changes the makeup of the representatives. It's bad enough that it happens in the executive.

Amendments to the constitution require 3/4th of the states to ratify them.

And in Germany to change some parts of our "constitution" (some are inalienable I believe) we require a 2/3rd majority.

I do think constitutions are meant to protect minorities from the majoritiy's rule, and filibusters are a somewhat silly, ugly and ultimately ineffective way to do so (even if I am all on the side of this one, lets just look at the craziness filibusters have done to Obama's ability to lead).

HB2 passed its second reading about 12 hours ago.

What happen?? I am not understand what are you trying to say.