232 years ago, in 1790, a simple majority could end any debate.
The current form of filibuster that Manchin is protecting—in which votes can't happen until 60 Senators agree—didn't exist until 1975. Hundreds of exceptions have been made to it, including one last month.
The filibuster arose by accident: in 1805, the Senate streamlined its rules at the urging of Aaron Burr. Nobody thought they were creating a vehicle for obstruction, and no one used it that way until 1837, after the Framers were dead. 2/9 brookings.edu/testimonies/th…
The first filibuster, in 1837, failed. It included a Senator being dragged into the Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms then dragged back out again when he got saucy with the presiding officer. “Am I not permitted to speak in my own defense?” he cried, and the answer was no. 3/9
Up until the 20th Century, most filibusters failed. They required holding the Senate floor and compliance with every rule. An 1893 filibuster on a silver bill went on for 46 days and failed. A 1908 filibuster failed by an accidental yielding to a Senator who had stepped out. 4/9
Even after the initial cloture rule in 1917, filibusters were still rare, and still typically failed except in the lone area of civil rights laws.
When Joe Manchin was born in 1947, the Senate still operated almost entirely by majority-rule. 5/9 getrevue.co/profile/maxken…
The few successful filibusters had a theme: anti-lynching legislation in 1922, 1935, and 1938. Anti-poll-tax legislation in 1942, 1944, 1946, 1948, and 1962. Civil rights legislation in 1946, 1950, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1972, and 1975. Some tradition, huh? 6/9
The very first time in American history that Senators could block legislation *without* indefinitely holding the Senate floor (while also complying with all Senate rules) was 1972: scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewconten…
It's all been downhill since then. 7/9
There's no "tradition" to the current filibuster, and it has been constantly modified. The only real Senate tradition, as Byrd himself recognized, was that a majority could invoke cloture whenever it wanted by changing the rules. Which it has. Repeatedly. Like last month. 8/9
There's no principled or historical justification for the current filibuster in which GOP priorities—judges, tax cuts, drilling on fed land, regulatory rollbacks—go to a majority vote but voting rights, minimum wage, and immigration can't get a vote until 60 Senators agree.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This article is a good starting point for the East Palestine derailment. The info circulating on social media has been suboptimal, to say the least. Grab a cup of coffee and let's go over everything from vinyl chloride to electronic brake regulations.
/1
20 miles *before* it derailed, the 150-car train was already sparking/burning. A "hotbox" detector in Salem, OH, should've picked that up and alerted the crew. It's unknown if it did, but seems unlikely or they would've hit the emergency brake then.
/2
Upon derailment, a bunch of stuff was burning. Some was in the normal range of "stuff on fire," like the semolina and frozen vegetables, and some was nasty but not unusual (polyethylene & polyvinyl), but some of it was uniquely hazardous.
/3
That's not what FL & TX are doing. They could move more people if they coordinated with other states; they refuse. And they're not trying to save money, they're spending a ton of money to sporadically move a handful of people in ways that maximize chaos and media coverage.
I guess it was inevitable thanks to Trump's quest to be involved with every aspect of American law: let's talk about federal magistrate judges.
Many moons ago, I clerked for one. (I recommend law students consider it, it was a great and useful experience.)
/1
United States Magistrate Judges aren't appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate and they're not lifetime appointments. They come to the position through a long process including a merit selection panel and a vote of the active judges in the district.
/2
If you've ever heard the phrase "lawyer's lawyer," well, U.S. magistrate judges are judges' judges. It isn't flashy. It's not political. They don't get to write soaring rhetoric.
But day-in, day-out, they do a lot of judging stuff that needs to get done. Like search warrants.
/3
aaaannnnd it turns out Musk's SEC disclosure (which claimed he was exempt from a 13D report because he's a "passive" investor) was both late and just plain false, as Twitter just disclosed he has an agreement to be appointed to their board: sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archiv…
Seems the "great value" Musk will provide is being restricted from owning more than 14.9% of Twitter, which I guess we can say is a win of sorts—damage mitigation—for the Board. The more he owns, the easier it is for him to exert control, such as by replacing board members.
So:
March 14 - Musk hits the 5% ownership line
March 24 - misses deadline for reporting purchases
March 25 - posts poll / tweets about Twitter operations
April 4 - first filing, wrong form, falsely claims passive investor exemption
April 5 - comes clean
It would be dysfunctional to "promote domestic oil/gas production." Production is at the level chosen by the industry based on market forces. If that's causing harm, we shouldn't subsidize it, we should admit private oil & gas markets are a failure and nationalize them.
/1
Bear in mind, domestic oil and gas prices bear no relation to domestic supply and demand. The U.S. does not have a shortage of oil or gas. We have a huge excess of natural gas that we export. We have a bit of an oil oversupply (compared to 2000-2014) which is winding down.
/2
Instead, we have a system in which private oil & gas companies can, for profit, drill on public lands, shift international price movements to U.S. consumers, and then transfer wealth upwards via dividends and stock buybacks instead of investing in production. Neat trick, huh?
/3
This thread is just strawmen. Progressive millennials don't "buy into American supremacy" at all. Their views aren't built on U.S. dominance, but on U.S. foreign policy's repeated failures in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. And they don't "tolerate imperialism." 1/4
Foreign policy views among progressives vary, but most believe some version of: U.S. "realpolitik" leaders like Kissinger and Rumsfeld weren't clear-eyed realists, they were clowns, ideologues, profiteers, and war criminals who made the world worse and the U.S. less safe. 2/4
The default posture of most progressives thus isn't to "buy into American supremacy," it's to be skeptical of it. It's to look at Yemen & Somalia and ask if we're helping or making things worse, recognizing that, historically, the answer was often the latter. 3/4