Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, this is Chuck and uh surprise, you get
Speaker 1: a bonus episode this week and every Saturday moving forward
Speaker 1: with our s Y s K Selects episode. So what
Speaker 1: we decided to do was um to kind of you know,
Speaker 1: not everyone knows we have all these back episodes laying
Speaker 1: in wait to the tune of nine plus. So each week, UM,
Speaker 1: Josh will pick one, I'll pick one. We're gonna curate these.
Speaker 1: It might be Newsy, it might just be one of
Speaker 1: our favorites, and we're gonna publish them on Saturday. So
Speaker 1: if you if you haven't heard this one before, enjoy it.
Speaker 1: If you have, maybe listen again. Uh And this week
Speaker 1: I picked out Filibusters, especially because of kind of what's
Speaker 1: going on in this country right now with the looming
Speaker 1: nomination of uh Mr Gorsych to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: the threatened democratic filibuster. So if you don't know what
Speaker 1: filibusters are all about, give this episode to listen and
Speaker 1: everything will be a lot more clear and we hope
Speaker 1: you enjoy it. Welcome to Stuff you should know the
Speaker 1: house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Josh Clark and with me is always at Charles Study,
Speaker 1: Chuck Bryant, and Jerry And that's the stuff you should know.
Speaker 1: I filibuster that you can't. I could talk for the
Speaker 1: next twenty four hours straight and not allow you to speak,
Speaker 1: and that would be filibuster in this podcast. Um, No,
Speaker 1: you'd actually be creating a podcast. Still, I guess we
Speaker 1: don't have any part elementary rules, So I mean, technically
Speaker 1: you could do that and it's a podcast. Still, upon
Speaker 1: reading this, it seems like the U. S. Government doesn't either,
Speaker 1: because one strategy is to just pick up your ball
Speaker 1: and go home. Yeah. I just sort of put the
Speaker 1: filibustering is, except you don't go home. No, you stand
Speaker 1: there and tell everybody else goes home. In the most
Speaker 1: classic example, which is what we're all about here at
Speaker 1: stuff you should know the classics, man, Um, Chuck. You
Speaker 1: know this year two thirteen, which is drawing to a close, Um,
Speaker 1: there were two very high profile filibusters. One was by
Speaker 1: Wendy Davis, member of the Texas State Senate, who filibustered
Speaker 1: against a proposed bill that would or a package of
Speaker 1: bills that would limit access to abortions. Did she actually
Speaker 1: do it like a solo filibuster? Yeah, the classic she
Speaker 1: had like on some snazzy pink magenta Mazzuno running shoes,
Speaker 1: back brace and I believe a catheter. Shut up. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding, I'm I'm almost positive shad a catheter
Speaker 1: and spoke for eleven hours straight. Um. There was also
Speaker 1: another one by in September by U S. Senator from
Speaker 1: Texas Ted Cruz, one of the founding people of the
Speaker 1: Tea Party, or at least one of the most prominent
Speaker 1: members of the Tea Party, who was um filibustering against
Speaker 1: a continuing resolution to keep the government open, okay, or
Speaker 1: to reopen the government. He went solo as well he did.
Speaker 1: One was real. One was fake. What do you mean,
Speaker 1: Cruises was fake? It wasn't a real filibuster. It was
Speaker 1: basically stage dressing that looked like filibuster. But at its core,
Speaker 1: as we'll soon find out, it wasn't a filibuster because
Speaker 1: it was the result of a deal with Harry Reid
Speaker 1: that Ted Cruise would be allowed to speak for twenty
Speaker 1: one hours and then at the end of his twenty
Speaker 1: one hours, this vote would go on. The whole purpose
Speaker 1: of a filibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place.
Speaker 1: Not make a deal to speak for a certain amount
Speaker 1: of time. Uh, and then let the vote go through
Speaker 1: and then cruise even further wild people by voting in
Speaker 1: favor of the motion after he supposedly filibustered it. So
Speaker 1: we have one, very very real one Wendy Davis. She
Speaker 1: wasn't allowed to take a simple water, She had to
Speaker 1: stay on on topic, spoke NonStop for eleven hours, catheter
Speaker 1: the whole she had to stay on topic. Is that
Speaker 1: a new thing, Well, it isn't. It's a Texas state rule.
Speaker 1: And then Crews just basically spoke for twenty one hours,
Speaker 1: handed the lecture and over to I think Ram Paul.
Speaker 1: For a little while it was this kind of meandering
Speaker 1: or whatever. It looked like a filipbuster, but as we'll
Speaker 1: find out, it wasn't really, even though Davis was very
Speaker 1: much filibuster. So let's talk filibusters, man. Yeah, it's one
Speaker 1: of these. Well, I was about to say uniquely American,
Speaker 1: but it does happen and has happened in other countries.
Speaker 1: Actually dates back to ancient room, but it is uniquely
Speaker 1: American in the way that we do it and how
Speaker 1: it's abused. So, um, it's history does go back to
Speaker 1: ancient room. Cato the younger was a master of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: And this is back at a time when you actually
Speaker 1: could make pretty good use of the filibuster because the
Speaker 1: Senate rule was that all business had to be concluded
Speaker 1: by dusk. If it wasn't, sorry, it's off the table.
Speaker 1: So all you had to do a stand there technically
Speaker 1: for one day, and you could filibuster anything. It's pretty
Speaker 1: when you think about it. Yeah, and a lot of people,
Speaker 1: I think assume that it's like part of like the
Speaker 1: Constitution maybe nope, Or that the founding father said, hey,
Speaker 1: we need this rule the filibuster. Nope. Uh that perhaps
Speaker 1: it was um brought up by Superman and the guys
Speaker 1: at Clark Kent. Yes, okay, we get there something alright.
Speaker 1: So filibuster is an actual it's any sort of action
Speaker 1: that you can take to um block or delay action
Speaker 1: in the Senate House can't do it, Senate can, right,
Speaker 1: And it's it's it exists because there are rules. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a really it's an odd thing with an odd
Speaker 1: accidental history. Um. I guess first we should say that
Speaker 1: the name they believe comes from the Dutch word that
Speaker 1: means pirate, and as pirates take things hostage, filibustering can
Speaker 1: also be looked at its taking things off very much. So,
Speaker 1: I mean like a vote or a bill that wants
Speaker 1: to be introduced, confirmation or a nomination. Yeah, for a
Speaker 1: confirmation for a judge. Let's say, yeah, you're holding it hostage. Um.
Speaker 1: A lot of people think a filibuster is a good
Speaker 1: thing because it allows the minority, meaning the minority in
Speaker 1: the Senate to still have a voice and not just
Speaker 1: have to get run rush shot over by the majority.
Speaker 1: And the Senate has very has a long storied history
Speaker 1: of giving a tremendous amount of say and rights to
Speaker 1: the minority whichever whichever party that might be at any
Speaker 1: given time. Um. And so as a result, the filibuster
Speaker 1: was allowed to exist for a while ever since it
Speaker 1: was accidentally created. But initially the Senate and the House
Speaker 1: had a rule UM that prevented filibustering. Yeah, the previous
Speaker 1: question motion which required a majority vote, and it was
Speaker 1: not used though apparently ever so in eighteen o six
Speaker 1: they got rid of it. Yeah, the Senate did, and
Speaker 1: um kind of didn't realize what they had created was
Speaker 1: a bit of a loophole. And that now, if you wanted,
Speaker 1: you could get up and speak endlessly about something, and
Speaker 1: that's basically what it is. And Mr Smith goes to Washington.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Stewart did it and everyone loved it. But these
Speaker 1: days it's kind of a different story. Well, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: definitely lost a lot of its um substance to you know. Well,
Speaker 1: they didn't used to use it very much. No, And
Speaker 1: and that previous question motion, um, that's what it was called, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that was basically like you could say, um, so
Speaker 1: is everybody ready for this guy to stop talking about
Speaker 1: this bill or can we be done with debate? And
Speaker 1: everybody says yeah, your nay? And then if it's yeah,
Speaker 1: then you just go on and and vote like it
Speaker 1: ends debate. But like you said, nobody was using it
Speaker 1: and so they just kind of threw it out because
Speaker 1: debate is Yeah, I guess it was Aaron Aaron Burr
Speaker 1: was saying, we need to simplify these rules. So the
Speaker 1: Senate did it. The House didn't, which is why you
Speaker 1: can't have a filibuster in the House because they never
Speaker 1: got rid of the previous question motion. But like you said,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Stewart did it. Everybody was just in awe of
Speaker 1: the idea of one all you need is one good
Speaker 1: senator and the rest of the Senate could be corrupt.
Speaker 1: But as long as you have Jimmy Stewart, one Jimmy
Speaker 1: Stewart in there. Yeah, and and a little bit of stamina, um,
Speaker 1: you the the truth justice in the American way can prevail. Um.
Speaker 1: And as you were saying, as a result, a lot
Speaker 1: of people think having a filibuster is a good thing
Speaker 1: because it prevents tyranny by the majority. Yeah. And in
Speaker 1: essence it is a good thing in a democracy. Um.
Speaker 1: And like I said, it wasn't used that much in
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century. The first one was not until eighteen
Speaker 1: thirty seven, and less than two dozen took place before
Speaker 1: the year nineteen hundred. Uh. In nineteen seventeen, things change
Speaker 1: with President Wilson got a little ticked off because there
Speaker 1: was a filibus for blocking a bill arming merchant ships
Speaker 1: in the Great War was being fought, and he said,
Speaker 1: we don't have time for this, so I'm gonna push
Speaker 1: to pass something called a culture rule, which means that
Speaker 1: we can cease this filibustering with the two thirds vote, right,
Speaker 1: And he didn't really have any say. I mean, the
Speaker 1: President is not the he's not involved in the Senate.
Speaker 1: That's the vice where he but he was. He was
Speaker 1: using all of his influence in public opinion against a
Speaker 1: quote a little group of willful men. Yeah. I mean
Speaker 1: he hated it, and he was a big champion of
Speaker 1: trying to limit it as much as possible. So the
Speaker 1: Senate passed this culture rule that said you can you
Speaker 1: can bring something to a vote with two thirds majority,
Speaker 1: which is sixty seven senators. That's right, that's still you know,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of people. That means that the will
Speaker 1: of the Senate, not just the majority. Uh, not just
Speaker 1: the majority party, I should say, but the actual Senate
Speaker 1: is like enough of this, Like, well, let's just we
Speaker 1: agree that we need to stop debating exactly. Uh. It
Speaker 1: has since been abused um or used depending on your viewpoint. UH.
Speaker 1: In the during the civil rights movement, racist senators used
Speaker 1: it to block all sorts of things, from anti lynching
Speaker 1: laws to civil rights UH bills and um successfully. Strom
Speaker 1: Thurman in n seven broke the record for speaking for
Speaker 1: twenty four hours and eighteen minutes. That's still the record straight.
Speaker 1: That's because no one else wants to do that, or
Speaker 1: has the stamina or the adult papers. We can't leave.
Speaker 1: We keep talking about that. We should explain you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to leave, even to pee. You have to keep talking. Well,
Speaker 1: that was the case until the seventies. Apparently, filibustering thanks
Speaker 1: to the um UH segregationists who are using it to
Speaker 1: prevent lynching, laws, to prevent the um UH, the Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Bill, UH, pretty much anything that had to do
Speaker 1: civil rights they were using the filibuster for. So by
Speaker 1: the time the seventies rolled around, the Senate passed a
Speaker 1: um A different rule that meant well, it said, if
Speaker 1: you want to bring a vote to cloture to end debate,
Speaker 1: no longer do you need sixty seven senators. You only
Speaker 1: need sixty, which is a little easier to get. But
Speaker 1: we're going to give the minority. Still. See, the Senate
Speaker 1: loves the minority, UM the ability to threaten a filibuster
Speaker 1: if they have forty one senators on board with that filipbuster,
Speaker 1: and you don't even have to stand up there anymore. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you still can if you're a loan senator like it.
Speaker 1: It didn't eliminate the loan filibuster. Speaker, no because if
Speaker 1: you have forty or thirty nine or thirty eight, or
Speaker 1: it's just you, you're just that one person, then you
Speaker 1: have to stand up there still. But the idea that, um,
Speaker 1: if you had forty one senators who would, if called upon,
Speaker 1: would vote um against that clture, you don't have to talk,
Speaker 1: right because by definition, you have that filibuster power. And
Speaker 1: the whole idea of adding this rule was not just
Speaker 1: to kind of give a little back to the minority
Speaker 1: when you were taking it away by dropping it from
Speaker 1: a two thirds to three fifths majority for culture Um.
Speaker 1: They were also trying to make it so that the
Speaker 1: Senate business was more streamlined and efficient. But it had
Speaker 1: the unintended consequence of people saying like, oh, well, I'm
Speaker 1: I threatened filibuster. I'm gonna sit over here and I
Speaker 1: don't have to talk. I'm gonna threaten filibuster. So that
Speaker 1: means take this bill out of consideration and let's move
Speaker 1: on with the other business. And that's when bills just
Speaker 1: started getting blocked the left and right. Yeah yeah, um.
Speaker 1: And back to Thurman. Supposedly with the whole bathroom thing,
Speaker 1: he h took a steam bath to hydrate himself so
Speaker 1: he wouldn't have to peat. That's the story. I can
Speaker 1: imagine that would take for maybe ten twelve hours, but
Speaker 1: then twenty four hours he peat himself. You think, I'll
Speaker 1: bet it's just one of those untold stories of the
Speaker 1: Senate strom Thurm and Pete all over himself. Okay, so
Speaker 1: that's the simple filibuster, the one you don't see as
Speaker 1: much anymore because the one guy standing up. Yeah, now
Speaker 1: now it's more about, hey, we we can just threaten
Speaker 1: it and no one has to waste their time speaking
Speaker 1: and debating. But Chuck, it's also it does. It does
Speaker 1: keep you from wasting time. But because it's easy to
Speaker 1: do and because all you need are forty one senators, um,
Speaker 1: it's created a backlog. It's a really easy way for
Speaker 1: the minority to hold anything they want hostage, which is
Speaker 1: one reason why while a lot of people say it's
Speaker 1: a good thing to have a filibuster because it protects
Speaker 1: the minority from majority tyranny. Um, but having a filibuster
Speaker 1: means that really just a fairly small group of senators
Speaker 1: less than half can hold anything they want up and
Speaker 1: just that that one simple filibuster, the presence of it
Speaker 1: means that you can have any crazy nut who's a
Speaker 1: senator hold anything up that he wants as long as
Speaker 1: he's willing to stand there and talk. Ye. So there's
Speaker 1: some people who say we need to get rid of
Speaker 1: the filibuster. There's others who say, no, the filibuster has
Speaker 1: to exist. It's this accidental thing that the Framers didn't
Speaker 1: put in there, but it was a happy accident that
Speaker 1: it came about, and it proved it's worth as a
Speaker 1: as a part of democracy. Uh. Well, you mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: how who was who was the lady that Davis? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Wendy Davis who you said she had to stay on
Speaker 1: point because in Texas they say you have to stay
Speaker 1: on point. But federally there are no laws, specifically are
Speaker 1: rules that say you have to do so you just
Speaker 1: have to talk, which is fairly ridiculous. Uh in hughe
Speaker 1: p Long did such things as read Shakespeare and talk
Speaker 1: about cooking fried oysters site recipes and I'll bet you
Speaker 1: we Long had a pretty good fried oyster. Uh. It's
Speaker 1: just crazy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: You know what, that you can say whatever you want. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that literally, that is what our government is doing they're
Speaker 1: up there talking about oyster recipes on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Senate to block a bill being introduced. Perhaps I've
Speaker 1: always equated filibusters with the senator standing up there reading
Speaker 1: from a phone book. I think that that was another
Speaker 1: common tactic too that Yeah, I don't know who did,
Speaker 1: but that's definitely been done USA, right, And yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it'should kind of should leave a it is, especially
Speaker 1: when it's not just at the very least, you should
Speaker 1: have to stand up there and debate your bill, debate
Speaker 1: your position and yes, and talk about what the issue
Speaker 1: is at hand. And if you're willing to do that,
Speaker 1: if you feel that passionate about that, then there's really
Speaker 1: not a lot of criticism that slong at you. But
Speaker 1: if you're staying out there talking oyster recipes, or in
Speaker 1: my opinion, if you're just saying they're in filibuster, that
Speaker 1: that that, to me is just that's hijacking. It is
Speaker 1: it's piracy. It is. Uh So that is not the
Speaker 1: only way you can waste time and block things from
Speaker 1: happening in Congress. Uh you can. There are all these
Speaker 1: little tactics that can be used. For instance, um, you
Speaker 1: can introduce a lot of amendments to a bill. UM,
Speaker 1: and instead of just saying waving the right and saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're introducing this amendment. Everyone knows it.
Speaker 1: We don't have to waste our time reading it, they
Speaker 1: can demand, well, I'm gonna introduce forty seven amendments to
Speaker 1: this bill, and we're gonna read each one in full.
Speaker 1: It's just a time wasting measure. You can also add
Speaker 1: on to that UM a roll call vote for each amendment,
Speaker 1: so you have an amendment read and then you have
Speaker 1: a role call taken for every senator to say whether
Speaker 1: they vote yeah your name for each amendment yeah, which
Speaker 1: would make it even more timely. Uh. Something called quorum calls.
Speaker 1: Apparently that UM ascertains a number of senators present. I
Speaker 1: don't know how that's different than a roll call. Role
Speaker 1: call is what what you're voting, like, like, how do
Speaker 1: you feel about this amendment? Are you present or not?
Speaker 1: Because you have to have a quorum. I can't remember
Speaker 1: how many makeup a quorum, but basically, like there has
Speaker 1: to be a certain amount of people present for Senate
Speaker 1: business to be conducted, So quorum would be to find
Speaker 1: out if there's enough people present and if you're just
Speaker 1: doing it delay time. They might be in their offices
Speaker 1: or whatever. They might be having dinner and they're still
Speaker 1: technically present. But if you call quorum call, then that
Speaker 1: means they have to come in and say present and
Speaker 1: then go back to dinner. Uh. There can be something
Speaker 1: called an anonymous hold, which allows someone to block a
Speaker 1: bill a man or woman in the Senate um when
Speaker 1: it requires unanimous consent in order to be voted on.
Speaker 1: But it's anonymous, which is kind of tricky because then
Speaker 1: you don't know who's holding up the gumming up the works, right,
Speaker 1: you know, then it turns into like a big game
Speaker 1: of clue. So, yeah, Harry read did it in the
Speaker 1: conservatory with the rope um. So filibuster reform surely something
Speaker 1: this weird and hanky should be looked at and reformed
Speaker 1: in order to retain the true spirit of of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: And over the years there's been a lot of talk
Speaker 1: about reform, a little bit of action about reform, but
Speaker 1: not a ton until recently. Uh. In the fifties there
Speaker 1: was but one filibuster procession, and in two thousand seven
Speaker 1: and two thousand eight there were one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: nine threatened filibusters affecting seventy of major legislation in two
Speaker 1: thousands to seven two thousand, Right, is that amazing? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it obviously got out of hand and people were
Speaker 1: abusing the power. I can't help but wonder also if
Speaker 1: the the concept that both groups are coming together to
Speaker 1: rule the country in a combined manner has become less
Speaker 1: and less of a concept over the last few decades
Speaker 1: as well. You know, is it? Is it? Or am
Speaker 1: I just like making that assumption and it's always been
Speaker 1: that way. There's always been that division. Is that the
Speaker 1: case or no? It seemed to be like my opinion
Speaker 1: is that it used to be checks and balances, and
Speaker 1: now it's not so much checks and balances as it
Speaker 1: in is just severe, severe digging in. It certainly seems
Speaker 1: that way, But maybe it was always like that. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I didn't grow up in the fifties. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know either. They probably felt the same way
Speaker 1: that American people, did, you know, those jerks in Washington.
Speaker 1: You know, Oh, I'm sure they did. But I wonder
Speaker 1: if they had as much cause to say that as
Speaker 1: we do today. Like it the way it's always actually worse.
Speaker 1: I mean, the numbers would suggest that, you know. But
Speaker 1: is it just that the numbers are showing that people
Speaker 1: figure it out how to use a filibuster better than
Speaker 1: they knew before, smarter, or they're they're more depth at
Speaker 1: using it, or is government broken that much more to
Speaker 1: where there was one a year each year during the
Speaker 1: fifties and then there's a hundred and thirty nine a
Speaker 1: year in two thousand eight. Yeah, it seems broken to me,
Speaker 1: but I'm definitely indicates that to me too. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: fairly cynical about the state of modern politics, though I
Speaker 1: am too. And the thing that gets me the most
Speaker 1: about this is the idea that the government is broken
Speaker 1: because the two sides can't agree, even though really, if
Speaker 1: you get down to it, there's almost no distinction between
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans Ideologically here they're a little bit, but
Speaker 1: as definitely between liberals and conservatives, but between the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the Republicans, I feel there's almost no difference any long,
Speaker 1: like where the rubber meets the road, and not ideologically speaking,
Speaker 1: And so the idea that the government still can't function
Speaker 1: even when you have virtually one large mega party um
Speaker 1: is I don't understand it. I don't understand what's going
Speaker 1: on there. It's sad. It seems like it would be
Speaker 1: functioning in a really smooth manner and steamrolling over us.
Speaker 1: Silly boy. Uh So we've talked a lot about this
Speaker 1: weird process, UM, but we should talk about reform right
Speaker 1: after this message, right, okay, So back to it. We
Speaker 1: were talking before we went off on some of our
Speaker 1: personally thinking's about that it stinks now about reforming filibusters.
Speaker 1: But problems arise when you try to reform filibustering because
Speaker 1: that can be filibustered. Yeah, you know, yeah, if you
Speaker 1: have a proposals to reform filibustering, it's still a measure
Speaker 1: and you exactly. UM. So that this this whole talk
Speaker 1: of how to reform filibustering, some proposals came up in
Speaker 1: two thousand ten. UM. There were three good ones. One was,
Speaker 1: if you're filibustering, you can't threaten to filibuster any longer.
Speaker 1: You have to get up there and you have to
Speaker 1: talk play the part. That one that was shot down.
Speaker 1: Another one was that UM over the length of a filipbuster,
Speaker 1: the UM required number of senators to invoke clture just decreases,
Speaker 1: so a filibuster could only go on for so long
Speaker 1: before you get to like a simple majority. Now that
Speaker 1: was that was shot down. The third one you got
Speaker 1: that one. Yeah, it would have banned filibusters on motions
Speaker 1: bringing a bill to the floor, so you couldn't filibuster
Speaker 1: like maybe something to perform filibustering. None of those were passed.
Speaker 1: And the reason why, like you would think that one
Speaker 1: party would be like, well, we don't want filipbusters were
Speaker 1: in charge. They you have to remember that eventually you're
Speaker 1: not going to be in charge and you're gonna want
Speaker 1: a filibuster. Both parties filibuster. The Democrats filibuster Reagan's appointments
Speaker 1: and nominees in the eighties, just like the Republicans are
Speaker 1: filibustering Obama's right now. Yeah, I will say though, in fairness,
Speaker 1: it's record numbers now compared to even what Democrats did,
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying one is better than the other. No, No,
Speaker 1: it's much more highly evoked in recent years, and it's
Speaker 1: definitely been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been since the Tea Party started to get some um,
Speaker 1: some major seats for instance, I got a number for you. Uh.
Speaker 1: It used to be fairly rare to filibuster a judicial
Speaker 1: um presidential appointment. Like, it wasn't used that much for that.
Speaker 1: It was more for like bills and things. Uh. And
Speaker 1: there have been only about a hundred and eighty something
Speaker 1: times in the history of this country that that's been
Speaker 1: done and more than half of those have happened during
Speaker 1: the past seven years. Wow. So it wasn't used that
Speaker 1: much in the past, but in the past it's been
Speaker 1: happened I think more than ninety two times in the
Speaker 1: past seven years. Well you know what that suggests. That
Speaker 1: suggests that before those things were used, um, like a scalpel,
Speaker 1: and now they're just basically arbitrary. That's exactly what it was.
Speaker 1: In the eight years that um Bush Jr. Was in office,
Speaker 1: there was about a dozen of those nominees that were filibustered,
Speaker 1: as opposed to ninety two. And since Obama has been
Speaker 1: in there, so it's definitely not surgical anymore. And again,
Speaker 1: both parties use it, but it's being misused and has
Speaker 1: been for a while. Yes, And if you if you
Speaker 1: listen to the GOP, they're saying that Obama is trying
Speaker 1: to pack the courts. If you listen to the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they're saying, dude, nobody does this come on? Cool. So
Speaker 1: the reason that all those bills failed, um or the
Speaker 1: the reform failed in two thousand ten was because they
Speaker 1: basically did a little handshake deal where they said, um,
Speaker 1: all right, don't use filibustering so much to prevent these
Speaker 1: bills from being introduced. All right, I won't do that.
Speaker 1: And hey, you guys can add a bunch of amendments
Speaker 1: if you want to. And no one's gonna use the
Speaker 1: nuclear option. Are we all cool with that? Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: all cool with that. And then the GOP went back
Speaker 1: and started filibustering against so and so the Democrats use
Speaker 1: a nuclear option, Yeah, they did, which was huge. I
Speaker 1: remember Harry Reid threatened it and everybody's like, oh my gosh, okay,
Speaker 1: all right, UM, I can't remember what it was. There
Speaker 1: was the GOP was blocking something that Harry Reid really
Speaker 1: wanted to push through, and he said, I'm going to
Speaker 1: use the nuclear option and it works. Have we even
Speaker 1: said what that is? I don't think we have no.
Speaker 1: So the nuclear option is, uh, it's the power of
Speaker 1: the majority to use parliamentary procedures to change major rules,
Speaker 1: in this case, specifically to remove the ability to filibuster. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just for that session. Just for that Yeah, just for
Speaker 1: that session. I think. So I saw that in this article,
Speaker 1: but I didn't see it elsewhere. Well, so, so here's
Speaker 1: the thing. The majority holds the power to say, um,
Speaker 1: we're all we need is a simple majority senators, which
Speaker 1: we have as Democrats. Two change your rule, right, and
Speaker 1: that rule that we're going to change is that you
Speaker 1: don't need sixty senators to block a sixty one senators
Speaker 1: to block a filibuster or sixty sentators. I'm sorry, you
Speaker 1: only need which we the Democrats have simple majority. Yes,
Speaker 1: so that this has been in the power of whoever
Speaker 1: has been in the majority the whole time. But it's
Speaker 1: such a polarizing thing. It's saying like, we're we're taking
Speaker 1: away your ability to block what we want to push
Speaker 1: through through filibustering because we're taking away your ability to filibuster.
Speaker 1: We're gonna pass this rule with a simple majority, saying
Speaker 1: it just takes a simple majority to invoke culture and
Speaker 1: and debate and bring something to the floor. It's not saying, um,
Speaker 1: it only takes a simple majority to confirm this nominee,
Speaker 1: because that's already the case. So if you follow it backwards,
Speaker 1: it takes a simple majority confirmed a nominee. Now it
Speaker 1: just takes a simple majority to bring that nominee's confirmation
Speaker 1: to a vote. And they did that by passing a
Speaker 1: rule with a simple majority saying that we're going to
Speaker 1: end filibustering. Yeah, and that was just a few weeks
Speaker 1: ago on November twenty one, and it passed fifty eight
Speaker 1: all Republicans and three Democrats hopped to the other side
Speaker 1: and voted against it. And it was not for all filibustering.
Speaker 1: It was just filibustering on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees,
Speaker 1: but not Supreme Court, not yet other than the Supreme Court. Um.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't like, you know, for introducing a bill
Speaker 1: or whatever. But earlier this year they reached a compromise
Speaker 1: on some reform. Both sides worked out a bunch of
Speaker 1: new rules that changed the process somewhat. But I guess
Speaker 1: that wasn't enough in the case of Member twenty feet
Speaker 1: Harry Reid, because I kind of threw down the gauntlet
Speaker 1: which no one thought would ever happen. No, it's been
Speaker 1: an option for many, many years and no one's ever
Speaker 1: exercised it. So Harry read either said this is this
Speaker 1: is ridiculous, is out of control, or government's broken or
Speaker 1: Harry Reid was drunk with power, depending on who you
Speaker 1: talk to. Well, it kind of came down to the
Speaker 1: um or. This particular sticking point was about nominating UH
Speaker 1: judges to the United States Court of Appeals for DC,
Speaker 1: and Republicans said that, you know what, the d C
Speaker 1: circuit has really underworked, and they said that they could
Speaker 1: save a million dollars a year cut costs basically um,
Speaker 1: which is pretty preposterous considering the amount of money that's
Speaker 1: leaked away every second in Washington. Just that a is
Speaker 1: the argument makes the whole thing smell fishy to me.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit shallow um. And then Democrats said, no,
Speaker 1: you know what, you guys didn't have these concerns when
Speaker 1: Bush was appointing these nominees, and we need to maintain
Speaker 1: this court because in the size of it, because it's
Speaker 1: UH really complex, like this particular court is so I
Speaker 1: heard um. The Democrats tried to block appointments to that
Speaker 1: same court when Bush was in office, sure did string Yeah,
Speaker 1: So like apparently both sides just completely flip flop the
Speaker 1: same point. Yeah, and and took entirely one another's point
Speaker 1: when the when the presidency was well, it depends on
Speaker 1: who's in office and who has the majority on what
Speaker 1: your beliefs are. It seems like ye wishy washy is
Speaker 1: what I call that USA so um. As of November
Speaker 1: of this year, Obama presented seventy nine nominees who received
Speaker 1: culture votes. Bush had thirty eight in the eight years
Speaker 1: that he was in office. But we should say that
Speaker 1: most of those culture votes UM ended the debate and
Speaker 1: most of those nominees did clear the filibuster, right be
Speaker 1: You used to have a filibuster that required sixty senators,
Speaker 1: but a confirmation only required fifty one. So now it's
Speaker 1: fifty one and fifty one. And in the meantime, regular
Speaker 1: old Americans are out there like having real troubles and
Speaker 1: senators are on the floor talking. Actually that was I
Speaker 1: can't keep talking about the oyster thing, but still cathetering
Speaker 1: up in some cases. I'm pretty sure she had a catheter. Really,
Speaker 1: that's crazy, uh and uniquely American, I guess. So you
Speaker 1: got anything else. I got nothing else. I hate to
Speaker 1: sound so jaded about all this stuff, but it's kind
Speaker 1: of hard not to. I don't. I think you would
Speaker 1: be a drooling automaton if you didn't like get worked
Speaker 1: up about and just say it like this is how
Speaker 1: government should work. Yeah, if this didn't make you cynical,
Speaker 1: you know, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with
Speaker 1: or whether you're conservative or liberal. If you think things
Speaker 1: are working right now, there's you need to completely reevaluate
Speaker 1: your life. Yeah, it's hard. Did you hear Russell Brand
Speaker 1: go off a few weeks ago in the interview It's
Speaker 1: it's interesting, it's an interesting take, But don't go vote. Yeah, Like,
Speaker 1: it's hard to make an argument that your vote really
Speaker 1: matters these days. And I mean, like, if you're in
Speaker 1: a red state, deeply read state, and you're a Democrat,
Speaker 1: like there's really no reason for you to go vote
Speaker 1: states your vote might matter. And then and then and
Speaker 1: then those are the states that the the candidates go
Speaker 1: to and that the senators have more power than others.
Speaker 1: It's it is a broken system. But how many politicians
Speaker 1: in this country are out there truly like pure and
Speaker 1: chaste in their and their motives. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: a single one that's pure and chasing their motives, but
Speaker 1: I think some there are still some good ones out
Speaker 1: there now there are, and I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: They believe in their own side. Things that go on
Speaker 1: behind closed doors you have to look out for. Are
Speaker 1: the ones that don't believe in their own side. They're
Speaker 1: just exploiting one side to get themselves into power. Those
Speaker 1: are the ones that are truly bad. At least, if
Speaker 1: you believe in your own side, you have conviction. Whether
Speaker 1: I agree with your convictions or not, at the very
Speaker 1: least respect the fact that you are convinced of your convictions,
Speaker 1: you know. But if you're just like, if you don't
Speaker 1: have any convictions and you're just out for power, then
Speaker 1: to tell with you, pal, buddy, lady, all of you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna move to Costa Rica. Do they have
Speaker 1: government there? Yeah? Government? There are there any islands, tropical
Speaker 1: islands that have no government. There's tons of uninhabited islands. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's what we need. And I'm not going to believe
Speaker 1: in anarchy. Would just be nice to move to an island. Well,
Speaker 1: there's not a bunch of jerks wasting your time and
Speaker 1: taking your money. Yeah, I don't know. Anarchies looking more
Speaker 1: and more attractively. We should do a podcast on anarchy.
Speaker 1: We really should. Uh. If you want to know more
Speaker 1: about filibustering, you can type that word into the search
Speaker 1: bar how stuff works dot com. And since I said
Speaker 1: search bar, that means it's time for listener mayl. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call this one. Uh, let's see if we
Speaker 1: can help out some heroin addicts. It's not funny, that's
Speaker 1: funny how I said it though. Hey, there, guys, thanks
Speaker 1: for keeping me entertained insane. Um, I'll explain the same part.
Speaker 1: I will let you know what's been up with me
Speaker 1: and how you guys have helped me in the past
Speaker 1: few months. I am a twenty five year old living
Speaker 1: in Santa Monica, California, and I'm a part of the
Speaker 1: huge homeless population there. Most nights of my girlfriend I
Speaker 1: end up staying in a motel in Venice, in l A,
Speaker 1: where we are both homeless. It is my fault we
Speaker 1: ended up this way. We were both addicted to heroin
Speaker 1: and it was because of me. Each day my girlfriend
Speaker 1: I have to go out and come up with a
Speaker 1: hundred and ten dollars in order to afford our heroine
Speaker 1: and our room since their daily habit each day, we
Speaker 1: have to do this. It is an awful way of
Speaker 1: life and we both feel horrible to been to get
Speaker 1: detox meds through the county clinics. But the waiting list
Speaker 1: to see a doctor to get into rehab like that
Speaker 1: has uh is a very long list. Indeed, unfortunately, there
Speaker 1: are not a lot of resources out there for drug
Speaker 1: addicts as far as detox is concerned. Um, what is
Speaker 1: that Switzerland? And actually there are not a lot of
Speaker 1: people are institutions that are willing to help unless the
Speaker 1: addictive person has insurance or money to pay for treatment.
Speaker 1: We're not bad people, um, just looking at it. In fact,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't know that we were addicted to heroin. We
Speaker 1: both have had jobs in the past and homes in
Speaker 1: the past, and she is even a college graduate and
Speaker 1: is certified to do special effects makeup. The reason why
Speaker 1: why I'm writing you guys, is because you can imagine
Speaker 1: this lifestyle is very stressful. It's a lot of pain,
Speaker 1: shame and guilt on a daily basis. Uh. In about
Speaker 1: three or four months ago, I came across your podcast,
Speaker 1: and it's really helped me get through some of the
Speaker 1: tough times. I found that listening to you when I'm
Speaker 1: gonna fight with my girlfriend or stressed or sad really
Speaker 1: helps me turn around my mood. So thanks for this,
Speaker 1: and thank Jerry as well. And this is from t J.
Speaker 1: And I told t J that we would put a
Speaker 1: call out, and I don't know if it will work
Speaker 1: or not, but if anyone in southern California has a
Speaker 1: resource for t J and his girlfriend to kick heroin,
Speaker 1: then we'd love to hear from you and we will
Speaker 1: put you in touch the email. Uh, t J, if
Speaker 1: you're listening. I don't know if this is gonna work,
Speaker 1: and this is about as far as we can take it,
Speaker 1: but um, if someone writes in, we will definitely put
Speaker 1: them in touch and uh see if we can get
Speaker 1: you guys off the junk. Yeah. So thanks for writing,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad we can help in some small way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm glad we're doing something to help out you know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll see. Um well, I mean like also turning his
Speaker 1: mood around. Yeah. True. But if you are a resource
Speaker 1: and can help these guys, email us um at our
Speaker 1: stuff podcast at Discovery dot com email just putting the
Speaker 1: subject line I can help the heroin addict. I think
Speaker 1: that's a great subject line. Uh. And until then, t
Speaker 1: J and girlfriends stay safe. Please, if you need some
Speaker 1: help that you think Chuck and I can help you
Speaker 1: out with, you should get in touch with us. You
Speaker 1: can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
Speaker 1: That's on Twitter. You can join us on Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash stuff you Should Know. You can send us
Speaker 1: an email to Stuff Podcasts at Discovery dot com, and
Speaker 1: you can join us at our home on the web,
Speaker 1: it's Stuff you Should Know dot com. For more on
Speaker 1: this and thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works
Speaker 1: dot com.