April 1, 2017 • 36 mins
In this week's SYSK Select episode, although lots of people incorrectly believe the filibuster was an intentional rule created by the founders of the U.S., this ancient method of stalling legislation was actually brought about in America by accident. Learn the ins and outs of this contentious quirk of parliamentary rules that allows a single senator to hijack the proceedings of the entire legislative body in this episode.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, everybody, this is Chuck and uh surprise, you get
a bonus episode this week and every Saturday moving forward
with our s Y s K Selects episode. So what
we decided to do was um to kind of you know,
not everyone knows we have all these back episodes laying
in wait to the tune of nine plus. So each week, UM,
(00:22):
Josh will pick one, I'll pick one. We're gonna curate these.
It might be Newsy, it might just be one of
our favorites, and we're gonna publish them on Saturday. So
if you if you haven't heard this one before, enjoy it.
If you have, maybe listen again. Uh And this week
I picked out Filibusters, especially because of kind of what's
going on in this country right now with the looming
(00:42):
nomination of uh Mr Gorsych to the Supreme Court and
the threatened democratic filibuster. So if you don't know what
filibusters are all about, give this episode to listen and
everything will be a lot more clear and we hope
you enjoy it. Welcome to Stuff you should know the
house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
(01:08):
I'm Josh Clark and with me is always at Charles Study,
Chuck Bryant, and Jerry And that's the stuff you should know.
I filibuster that you can't. I could talk for the
next twenty four hours straight and not allow you to speak,
and that would be filibuster in this podcast. Um, No,
you'd actually be creating a podcast. Still, I guess we
don't have any part elementary rules, So I mean, technically
(01:31):
you could do that and it's a podcast. Still, upon
reading this, it seems like the U. S. Government doesn't either,
because one strategy is to just pick up your ball
and go home. Yeah. I just sort of put the
filibustering is, except you don't go home. No, you stand
there and tell everybody else goes home. In the most
classic example, which is what we're all about here at
(01:52):
stuff you should know the classics, man, Um, Chuck. You
know this year two thirteen, which is drawing to a close, Um,
there were two very high profile filibusters. One was by
Wendy Davis, member of the Texas State Senate, who filibustered
against a proposed bill that would or a package of
(02:13):
bills that would limit access to abortions. Did she actually
do it like a solo filibuster? Yeah, the classic she
had like on some snazzy pink magenta Mazzuno running shoes,
back brace and I believe a catheter. Shut up. No,
I'm not kidding, I'm I'm almost positive shad a catheter
and spoke for eleven hours straight. Um. There was also
(02:37):
another one by in September by U S. Senator from
Texas Ted Cruz, one of the founding people of the
Tea Party, or at least one of the most prominent
members of the Tea Party, who was um filibustering against
a continuing resolution to keep the government open, okay, or
(02:58):
to reopen the government. He went solo as well he did.
One was real. One was fake. What do you mean,
Cruises was fake? It wasn't a real filibuster. It was
basically stage dressing that looked like filibuster. But at its core,
as we'll soon find out, it wasn't a filibuster because
it was the result of a deal with Harry Reid
(03:18):
that Ted Cruise would be allowed to speak for twenty
one hours and then at the end of his twenty
one hours, this vote would go on. The whole purpose
of a filibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place.
Not make a deal to speak for a certain amount
of time. Uh, and then let the vote go through
(03:39):
and then cruise even further wild people by voting in
favor of the motion after he supposedly filibustered it. So
we have one, very very real one Wendy Davis. She
wasn't allowed to take a simple water, She had to
stay on on topic, spoke NonStop for eleven hours, catheter
the whole she had to stay on topic. Is that
a new thing, Well, it isn't. It's a Texas state rule.
(04:03):
And then Crews just basically spoke for twenty one hours,
handed the lecture and over to I think Ram Paul.
For a little while it was this kind of meandering
or whatever. It looked like a filipbuster, but as we'll
find out, it wasn't really, even though Davis was very
much filibuster. So let's talk filibusters, man. Yeah, it's one
of these. Well, I was about to say uniquely American,
but it does happen and has happened in other countries.
(04:26):
Actually dates back to ancient room, but it is uniquely
American in the way that we do it and how
it's abused. So, um, it's history does go back to
ancient room. Cato the younger was a master of the filibuster.
And this is back at a time when you actually
could make pretty good use of the filibuster because the
(04:47):
Senate rule was that all business had to be concluded
by dusk. If it wasn't, sorry, it's off the table.
So all you had to do a stand there technically
for one day, and you could filibuster anything. It's pretty
when you think about it. Yeah, and a lot of people,
I think assume that it's like part of like the
(05:08):
Constitution maybe nope, Or that the founding father said, hey,
we need this rule the filibuster. Nope. Uh that perhaps
it was um brought up by Superman and the guys
at Clark Kent. Yes, okay, we get there something alright.
So filibuster is an actual it's any sort of action
(05:29):
that you can take to um block or delay action
in the Senate House can't do it, Senate can, right,
And it's it's it exists because there are rules. Yeah,
it's a really it's an odd thing with an odd
accidental history. Um. I guess first we should say that
the name they believe comes from the Dutch word that
(05:51):
means pirate, and as pirates take things hostage, filibustering can
also be looked at its taking things off very much. So,
I mean like a vote or a bill that wants
to be introduced, confirmation or a nomination. Yeah, for a
confirmation for a judge. Let's say, yeah, you're holding it hostage. Um.
A lot of people think a filibuster is a good
(06:12):
thing because it allows the minority, meaning the minority in
the Senate to still have a voice and not just
have to get run rush shot over by the majority.
And the Senate has very has a long storied history
of giving a tremendous amount of say and rights to
the minority whichever whichever party that might be at any
(06:33):
given time. Um. And so as a result, the filibuster
was allowed to exist for a while ever since it
was accidentally created. But initially the Senate and the House
had a rule UM that prevented filibustering. Yeah, the previous
question motion which required a majority vote, and it was
(06:57):
not used though apparently ever so in eighteen o six
they got rid of it. Yeah, the Senate did, and
um kind of didn't realize what they had created was
a bit of a loophole. And that now, if you wanted,
you could get up and speak endlessly about something, and
that's basically what it is. And Mr Smith goes to Washington.
(07:17):
Jimmy Stewart did it and everyone loved it. But these
days it's kind of a different story. Well, yeah, it's
definitely lost a lot of its um substance to you know. Well,
they didn't used to use it very much. No, And
and that previous question motion, um, that's what it was called, right, Yeah,
so that was basically like you could say, um, so
is everybody ready for this guy to stop talking about
(07:40):
this bill or can we be done with debate? And
everybody says yeah, your nay? And then if it's yeah,
then you just go on and and vote like it
ends debate. But like you said, nobody was using it
and so they just kind of threw it out because
debate is Yeah, I guess it was Aaron Aaron Burr
was saying, we need to simplify these rules. So the
Senate did it. The House didn't, which is why you
can't have a filibuster in the House because they never
(08:02):
got rid of the previous question motion. But like you said,
Jimmy Stewart did it. Everybody was just in awe of
the idea of one all you need is one good
senator and the rest of the Senate could be corrupt.
But as long as you have Jimmy Stewart, one Jimmy
Stewart in there. Yeah, and and a little bit of stamina, um,
(08:24):
you the the truth justice in the American way can prevail. Um.
And as you were saying, as a result, a lot
of people think having a filibuster is a good thing
because it prevents tyranny by the majority. Yeah. And in
essence it is a good thing in a democracy. Um.
And like I said, it wasn't used that much in
the nineteenth century. The first one was not until eighteen
(08:46):
thirty seven, and less than two dozen took place before
the year nineteen hundred. Uh. In nineteen seventeen, things change
with President Wilson got a little ticked off because there
was a filibus for blocking a bill arming merchant ships
in the Great War was being fought, and he said,
we don't have time for this, so I'm gonna push
(09:08):
to pass something called a culture rule, which means that
we can cease this filibustering with the two thirds vote, right,
And he didn't really have any say. I mean, the
President is not the he's not involved in the Senate.
That's the vice where he but he was. He was
using all of his influence in public opinion against a
quote a little group of willful men. Yeah. I mean
(09:29):
he hated it, and he was a big champion of
trying to limit it as much as possible. So the
Senate passed this culture rule that said you can you
can bring something to a vote with two thirds majority,
which is sixty seven senators. That's right, that's still you know,
that's a lot of people. That means that the will
of the Senate, not just the majority. Uh, not just
(09:51):
the majority party, I should say, but the actual Senate
is like enough of this, Like, well, let's just we
agree that we need to stop debating exactly. Uh. It
has since been abused um or used depending on your viewpoint. UH.
In the during the civil rights movement, racist senators used
(10:11):
it to block all sorts of things, from anti lynching
laws to civil rights UH bills and um successfully. Strom
Thurman in n seven broke the record for speaking for
twenty four hours and eighteen minutes. That's still the record straight.
That's because no one else wants to do that, or
(10:33):
has the stamina or the adult papers. We can't leave.
We keep talking about that. We should explain you're not
allowed to leave, even to pee. You have to keep talking. Well,
that was the case until the seventies. Apparently, filibustering thanks
to the um UH segregationists who are using it to
(10:54):
prevent lynching, laws, to prevent the um UH, the Civil
Rights Bill, UH, pretty much anything that had to do
civil rights they were using the filibuster for. So by
the time the seventies rolled around, the Senate passed a
um A different rule that meant well, it said, if
you want to bring a vote to cloture to end debate,
(11:14):
no longer do you need sixty seven senators. You only
need sixty, which is a little easier to get. But
we're going to give the minority. Still. See, the Senate
loves the minority, UM the ability to threaten a filibuster
if they have forty one senators on board with that filipbuster,
and you don't even have to stand up there anymore. Yeah,
(11:36):
but you still can if you're a loan senator like it.
It didn't eliminate the loan filibuster. Speaker, no because if
you have forty or thirty nine or thirty eight, or
it's just you, you're just that one person, then you
have to stand up there still. But the idea that, um,
if you had forty one senators who would, if called upon,
(11:58):
would vote um against that clture, you don't have to talk,
right because by definition, you have that filibuster power. And
the whole idea of adding this rule was not just
to kind of give a little back to the minority
when you were taking it away by dropping it from
a two thirds to three fifths majority for culture Um.
(12:19):
They were also trying to make it so that the
Senate business was more streamlined and efficient. But it had
the unintended consequence of people saying like, oh, well, I'm
I threatened filibuster. I'm gonna sit over here and I
don't have to talk. I'm gonna threaten filibuster. So that
means take this bill out of consideration and let's move
on with the other business. And that's when bills just
started getting blocked the left and right. Yeah yeah, um.
(12:42):
And back to Thurman. Supposedly with the whole bathroom thing,
he h took a steam bath to hydrate himself so
he wouldn't have to peat. That's the story. I can
imagine that would take for maybe ten twelve hours, but
then twenty four hours he peat himself. You think, I'll
bet it's just one of those untold stories of the
Senate strom Thurm and Pete all over himself. Okay, so
(13:04):
that's the simple filibuster, the one you don't see as
much anymore because the one guy standing up. Yeah, now
now it's more about, hey, we we can just threaten
it and no one has to waste their time speaking
and debating. But Chuck, it's also it does. It does
keep you from wasting time. But because it's easy to
do and because all you need are forty one senators, um,
(13:29):
it's created a backlog. It's a really easy way for
the minority to hold anything they want hostage, which is
one reason why while a lot of people say it's
a good thing to have a filibuster because it protects
the minority from majority tyranny. Um, but having a filibuster
(13:49):
means that really just a fairly small group of senators
less than half can hold anything they want up and
just that that one simple filibuster, the presence of it
means that you can have any crazy nut who's a
senator hold anything up that he wants as long as
he's willing to stand there and talk. Ye. So there's
(14:11):
some people who say we need to get rid of
the filibuster. There's others who say, no, the filibuster has
to exist. It's this accidental thing that the Framers didn't
put in there, but it was a happy accident that
it came about, and it proved it's worth as a
as a part of democracy. Uh. Well, you mentioned earlier
how who was who was the lady that Davis? Yeah,
Wendy Davis who you said she had to stay on
(14:32):
point because in Texas they say you have to stay
on point. But federally there are no laws, specifically are
rules that say you have to do so you just
have to talk, which is fairly ridiculous. Uh in hughe
p Long did such things as read Shakespeare and talk
about cooking fried oysters site recipes and I'll bet you
(14:54):
we Long had a pretty good fried oyster. Uh. It's
just crazy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
You know what, that you can say whatever you want. Yeah,
that literally, that is what our government is doing they're
up there talking about oyster recipes on the floor of
the Senate to block a bill being introduced. Perhaps I've
always equated filibusters with the senator standing up there reading
(15:15):
from a phone book. I think that that was another
common tactic too that Yeah, I don't know who did,
but that's definitely been done USA, right, And yeah, I
think it'should kind of should leave a it is, especially
when it's not just at the very least, you should
have to stand up there and debate your bill, debate
(15:36):
your position and yes, and talk about what the issue
is at hand. And if you're willing to do that,
if you feel that passionate about that, then there's really
not a lot of criticism that slong at you. But
if you're staying out there talking oyster recipes, or in
my opinion, if you're just saying they're in filibuster, that
that that, to me is just that's hijacking. It is
(15:57):
it's piracy. It is. Uh So that is not the
only way you can waste time and block things from
happening in Congress. Uh you can. There are all these
little tactics that can be used. For instance, um, you
can introduce a lot of amendments to a bill. UM,
and instead of just saying waving the right and saying,
(16:20):
you know what, we're introducing this amendment. Everyone knows it.
We don't have to waste our time reading it, they
can demand, well, I'm gonna introduce forty seven amendments to
this bill, and we're gonna read each one in full.
It's just a time wasting measure. You can also add
on to that UM a roll call vote for each amendment,
so you have an amendment read and then you have
a role call taken for every senator to say whether
(16:43):
they vote yeah your name for each amendment yeah, which
would make it even more timely. Uh. Something called quorum calls.
Apparently that UM ascertains a number of senators present. I
don't know how that's different than a roll call. Role
call is what what you're voting, like, like, how do
you feel about this amendment? Are you present or not?
(17:06):
Because you have to have a quorum. I can't remember
how many makeup a quorum, but basically, like there has
to be a certain amount of people present for Senate
business to be conducted, So quorum would be to find
out if there's enough people present and if you're just
doing it delay time. They might be in their offices
or whatever. They might be having dinner and they're still
technically present. But if you call quorum call, then that
(17:28):
means they have to come in and say present and
then go back to dinner. Uh. There can be something
called an anonymous hold, which allows someone to block a
bill a man or woman in the Senate um when
it requires unanimous consent in order to be voted on.
But it's anonymous, which is kind of tricky because then
(17:49):
you don't know who's holding up the gumming up the works, right,
you know, then it turns into like a big game
of clue. So, yeah, Harry read did it in the
conservatory with the rope um. So filibuster reform surely something
this weird and hanky should be looked at and reformed
in order to retain the true spirit of of the filibuster.
(18:13):
And over the years there's been a lot of talk
about reform, a little bit of action about reform, but
not a ton until recently. Uh. In the fifties there
was but one filibuster procession, and in two thousand seven
and two thousand eight there were one hundred and thirty
nine threatened filibusters affecting seventy of major legislation in two
(18:38):
thousands to seven two thousand, Right, is that amazing? Yeah,
so it obviously got out of hand and people were
abusing the power. I can't help but wonder also if
the the concept that both groups are coming together to
(18:58):
rule the country in a combined manner has become less
and less of a concept over the last few decades
as well. You know, is it? Is it? Or am
I just like making that assumption and it's always been
that way. There's always been that division. Is that the
case or no? It seemed to be like my opinion
(19:19):
is that it used to be checks and balances, and
now it's not so much checks and balances as it
in is just severe, severe digging in. It certainly seems
that way, But maybe it was always like that. I
don't know. I didn't grow up in the fifties. Yeah,
I don't know either. They probably felt the same way
that American people, did, you know, those jerks in Washington.
You know, Oh, I'm sure they did. But I wonder
(19:41):
if they had as much cause to say that as
we do today. Like it the way it's always actually worse.
I mean, the numbers would suggest that, you know. But
is it just that the numbers are showing that people
figure it out how to use a filibuster better than
they knew before, smarter, or they're they're more depth at
using it, or is government broken that much more to
(20:05):
where there was one a year each year during the
fifties and then there's a hundred and thirty nine a
year in two thousand eight. Yeah, it seems broken to me,
but I'm definitely indicates that to me too. Yeah, I'm
fairly cynical about the state of modern politics, though I
am too. And the thing that gets me the most
about this is the idea that the government is broken
(20:26):
because the two sides can't agree, even though really, if
you get down to it, there's almost no distinction between
Democrats and Republicans Ideologically here they're a little bit, but
as definitely between liberals and conservatives, but between the Democrats
(20:47):
and the Republicans, I feel there's almost no difference any long,
like where the rubber meets the road, and not ideologically speaking,
And so the idea that the government still can't function
even when you have virtually one large mega party um
is I don't understand it. I don't understand what's going
on there. It's sad. It seems like it would be
functioning in a really smooth manner and steamrolling over us.
(21:11):
Silly boy. Uh So we've talked a lot about this
weird process, UM, but we should talk about reform right
after this message, right, okay, So back to it. We
were talking before we went off on some of our
personally thinking's about that it stinks now about reforming filibusters.
(21:32):
But problems arise when you try to reform filibustering because
that can be filibustered. Yeah, you know, yeah, if you
have a proposals to reform filibustering, it's still a measure
and you exactly. UM. So that this this whole talk
of how to reform filibustering, some proposals came up in
(21:55):
two thousand ten. UM. There were three good ones. One was,
if you're filibustering, you can't threaten to filibuster any longer.
You have to get up there and you have to
talk play the part. That one that was shot down.
Another one was that UM over the length of a filipbuster,
the UM required number of senators to invoke clture just decreases,
(22:18):
so a filibuster could only go on for so long
before you get to like a simple majority. Now that
was that was shot down. The third one you got
that one. Yeah, it would have banned filibusters on motions
bringing a bill to the floor, so you couldn't filibuster
like maybe something to perform filibustering. None of those were passed.
(22:40):
And the reason why, like you would think that one
party would be like, well, we don't want filipbusters were
in charge. They you have to remember that eventually you're
not going to be in charge and you're gonna want
a filibuster. Both parties filibuster. The Democrats filibuster Reagan's appointments
and nominees in the eighties, just like the Republicans are
(23:01):
filibustering Obama's right now. Yeah, I will say though, in fairness,
it's record numbers now compared to even what Democrats did,
And I'm not saying one is better than the other. No, No,
it's much more highly evoked in recent years, and it's
definitely been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party too. Yeah,
it's been since the Tea Party started to get some um,
(23:23):
some major seats for instance, I got a number for you. Uh.
It used to be fairly rare to filibuster a judicial
um presidential appointment. Like, it wasn't used that much for that.
It was more for like bills and things. Uh. And
there have been only about a hundred and eighty something
times in the history of this country that that's been
done and more than half of those have happened during
(23:45):
the past seven years. Wow. So it wasn't used that
much in the past, but in the past it's been
happened I think more than ninety two times in the
past seven years. Well you know what that suggests. That
suggests that before those things were used, um, like a scalpel,
and now they're just basically arbitrary. That's exactly what it was.
In the eight years that um Bush Jr. Was in office,
(24:08):
there was about a dozen of those nominees that were filibustered,
as opposed to ninety two. And since Obama has been
in there, so it's definitely not surgical anymore. And again,
both parties use it, but it's being misused and has
been for a while. Yes, And if you if you
listen to the GOP, they're saying that Obama is trying
to pack the courts. If you listen to the Democrats,
(24:31):
they're saying, dude, nobody does this come on? Cool. So
the reason that all those bills failed, um or the
the reform failed in two thousand ten was because they
basically did a little handshake deal where they said, um,
all right, don't use filibustering so much to prevent these
bills from being introduced. All right, I won't do that.
(24:53):
And hey, you guys can add a bunch of amendments
if you want to. And no one's gonna use the
nuclear option. Are we all cool with that? Yeah, we're
all cool with that. And then the GOP went back
and started filibustering against so and so the Democrats use
a nuclear option, Yeah, they did, which was huge. I
remember Harry Reid threatened it and everybody's like, oh my gosh, okay,
(25:14):
all right, UM, I can't remember what it was. There
was the GOP was blocking something that Harry Reid really
wanted to push through, and he said, I'm going to
use the nuclear option and it works. Have we even
said what that is? I don't think we have no.
So the nuclear option is, uh, it's the power of
the majority to use parliamentary procedures to change major rules,
(25:39):
in this case, specifically to remove the ability to filibuster. Yeah,
just for that session. Just for that Yeah, just for
that session. I think. So I saw that in this article,
but I didn't see it elsewhere. Well, so, so here's
the thing. The majority holds the power to say, um,
(26:00):
we're all we need is a simple majority senators, which
we have as Democrats. Two change your rule, right, and
that rule that we're going to change is that you
don't need sixty senators to block a sixty one senators
to block a filibuster or sixty sentators. I'm sorry, you
(26:21):
only need which we the Democrats have simple majority. Yes,
so that this has been in the power of whoever
has been in the majority the whole time. But it's
such a polarizing thing. It's saying like, we're we're taking
away your ability to block what we want to push
(26:42):
through through filibustering because we're taking away your ability to filibuster.
We're gonna pass this rule with a simple majority, saying
it just takes a simple majority to invoke culture and
and debate and bring something to the floor. It's not saying, um,
it only takes a simple majority to confirm this nominee,
(27:02):
because that's already the case. So if you follow it backwards,
it takes a simple majority confirmed a nominee. Now it
just takes a simple majority to bring that nominee's confirmation
to a vote. And they did that by passing a
rule with a simple majority saying that we're going to
end filibustering. Yeah, and that was just a few weeks
(27:24):
ago on November twenty one, and it passed fifty eight
all Republicans and three Democrats hopped to the other side
and voted against it. And it was not for all filibustering.
It was just filibustering on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees,
but not Supreme Court, not yet other than the Supreme Court. Um.
So it wasn't like, you know, for introducing a bill
(27:46):
or whatever. But earlier this year they reached a compromise
on some reform. Both sides worked out a bunch of
new rules that changed the process somewhat. But I guess
that wasn't enough in the case of Member twenty feet
Harry Reid, because I kind of threw down the gauntlet
which no one thought would ever happen. No, it's been
an option for many, many years and no one's ever
(28:08):
exercised it. So Harry read either said this is this
is ridiculous, is out of control, or government's broken or
Harry Reid was drunk with power, depending on who you
talk to. Well, it kind of came down to the
um or. This particular sticking point was about nominating UH
judges to the United States Court of Appeals for DC,
(28:31):
and Republicans said that, you know what, the d C
circuit has really underworked, and they said that they could
save a million dollars a year cut costs basically um,
which is pretty preposterous considering the amount of money that's
leaked away every second in Washington. Just that a is
the argument makes the whole thing smell fishy to me.
It's a little bit shallow um. And then Democrats said, no,
(28:54):
you know what, you guys didn't have these concerns when
Bush was appointing these nominees, and we need to maintain
this court because in the size of it, because it's
UH really complex, like this particular court is so I
heard um. The Democrats tried to block appointments to that
same court when Bush was in office, sure did string Yeah,
(29:16):
So like apparently both sides just completely flip flop the
same point. Yeah, and and took entirely one another's point
when the when the presidency was well, it depends on
who's in office and who has the majority on what
your beliefs are. It seems like ye wishy washy is
what I call that USA so um. As of November
(29:41):
of this year, Obama presented seventy nine nominees who received
culture votes. Bush had thirty eight in the eight years
that he was in office. But we should say that
most of those culture votes UM ended the debate and
most of those nominees did clear the filibuster, right be
You used to have a filibuster that required sixty senators,
(30:04):
but a confirmation only required fifty one. So now it's
fifty one and fifty one. And in the meantime, regular
old Americans are out there like having real troubles and
senators are on the floor talking. Actually that was I
can't keep talking about the oyster thing, but still cathetering
(30:25):
up in some cases. I'm pretty sure she had a catheter. Really,
that's crazy, uh and uniquely American, I guess. So you
got anything else. I got nothing else. I hate to
sound so jaded about all this stuff, but it's kind
of hard not to. I don't. I think you would
be a drooling automaton if you didn't like get worked
(30:47):
up about and just say it like this is how
government should work. Yeah, if this didn't make you cynical,
you know, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with
or whether you're conservative or liberal. If you think things
are working right now, there's you need to completely reevaluate
your life. Yeah, it's hard. Did you hear Russell Brand
go off a few weeks ago in the interview It's
it's interesting, it's an interesting take, But don't go vote. Yeah, Like,
(31:11):
it's hard to make an argument that your vote really
matters these days. And I mean, like, if you're in
a red state, deeply read state, and you're a Democrat,
like there's really no reason for you to go vote
states your vote might matter. And then and then and
then those are the states that the the candidates go
to and that the senators have more power than others.
(31:34):
It's it is a broken system. But how many politicians
in this country are out there truly like pure and
chaste in their and their motives. I don't think there's
a single one that's pure and chasing their motives, but
I think some there are still some good ones out
there now there are, and I guess I don't know.
They believe in their own side. Things that go on
(31:58):
behind closed doors you have to look out for. Are
the ones that don't believe in their own side. They're
just exploiting one side to get themselves into power. Those
are the ones that are truly bad. At least, if
you believe in your own side, you have conviction. Whether
I agree with your convictions or not, at the very
least respect the fact that you are convinced of your convictions,
(32:19):
you know. But if you're just like, if you don't
have any convictions and you're just out for power, then
to tell with you, pal, buddy, lady, all of you. Yeah,
so we're gonna move to Costa Rica. Do they have
government there? Yeah? Government? There are there any islands, tropical
(32:39):
islands that have no government. There's tons of uninhabited islands. Okay,
that's what we need. And I'm not going to believe
in anarchy. Would just be nice to move to an island. Well,
there's not a bunch of jerks wasting your time and
taking your money. Yeah, I don't know. Anarchies looking more
and more attractively. We should do a podcast on anarchy.
We really should. Uh. If you want to know more
(33:00):
about filibustering, you can type that word into the search
bar how stuff works dot com. And since I said
search bar, that means it's time for listener mayl. All right,
I'm gonna call this one. Uh, let's see if we
can help out some heroin addicts. It's not funny, that's
funny how I said it though. Hey, there, guys, thanks
for keeping me entertained insane. Um, I'll explain the same part.
(33:23):
I will let you know what's been up with me
and how you guys have helped me in the past
few months. I am a twenty five year old living
in Santa Monica, California, and I'm a part of the
huge homeless population there. Most nights of my girlfriend I
end up staying in a motel in Venice, in l A,
where we are both homeless. It is my fault we
ended up this way. We were both addicted to heroin
(33:45):
and it was because of me. Each day my girlfriend
I have to go out and come up with a
hundred and ten dollars in order to afford our heroine
and our room since their daily habit each day, we
have to do this. It is an awful way of
life and we both feel horrible to been to get
detox meds through the county clinics. But the waiting list
to see a doctor to get into rehab like that
(34:06):
has uh is a very long list. Indeed, unfortunately, there
are not a lot of resources out there for drug
addicts as far as detox is concerned. Um, what is
that Switzerland? And actually there are not a lot of
people are institutions that are willing to help unless the
addictive person has insurance or money to pay for treatment.
We're not bad people, um, just looking at it. In fact,
you wouldn't know that we were addicted to heroin. We
(34:27):
both have had jobs in the past and homes in
the past, and she is even a college graduate and
is certified to do special effects makeup. The reason why
why I'm writing you guys, is because you can imagine
this lifestyle is very stressful. It's a lot of pain,
shame and guilt on a daily basis. Uh. In about
three or four months ago, I came across your podcast,
and it's really helped me get through some of the
(34:47):
tough times. I found that listening to you when I'm
gonna fight with my girlfriend or stressed or sad really
helps me turn around my mood. So thanks for this,
and thank Jerry as well. And this is from t J.
And I told t J that we would put a
call out, and I don't know if it will work
or not, but if anyone in southern California has a
(35:08):
resource for t J and his girlfriend to kick heroin,
then we'd love to hear from you and we will
put you in touch the email. Uh, t J, if
you're listening. I don't know if this is gonna work,
and this is about as far as we can take it,
but um, if someone writes in, we will definitely put
them in touch and uh see if we can get
you guys off the junk. Yeah. So thanks for writing,
(35:30):
and I'm glad we can help in some small way. Yeah,
I'm glad we're doing something to help out you know. Yeah,
we'll see. Um well, I mean like also turning his
mood around. Yeah. True. But if you are a resource
and can help these guys, email us um at our
stuff podcast at Discovery dot com email just putting the
subject line I can help the heroin addict. I think
(35:50):
that's a great subject line. Uh. And until then, t
J and girlfriends stay safe. Please, if you need some
help that you think Chuck and I can help you
out with, you should get in touch with us. You
can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
That's on Twitter. You can join us on Facebook dot
com slash stuff you Should Know. You can send us
(36:12):
an email to Stuff Podcasts at Discovery dot com, and
you can join us at our home on the web,
it's Stuff you Should Know dot com. For more on
this and thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works
dot com.
Hey, everybody, this is Chuck and uh surprise, you get
a bonus episode this week and every Saturday moving forward
with our s Y s K Selects episode. So what
we decided to do was um to kind of you know,
not everyone knows we have all these back episodes laying
in wait to the tune of nine plus. So each week, UM,
(00:22):
Josh will pick one, I'll pick one. We're gonna curate these.
It might be Newsy, it might just be one of
our favorites, and we're gonna publish them on Saturday. So
if you if you haven't heard this one before, enjoy it.
If you have, maybe listen again. Uh And this week
I picked out Filibusters, especially because of kind of what's
going on in this country right now with the looming
(00:42):
nomination of uh Mr Gorsych to the Supreme Court and
the threatened democratic filibuster. So if you don't know what
filibusters are all about, give this episode to listen and
everything will be a lot more clear and we hope
you enjoy it. Welcome to Stuff you should know the
house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
(01:08):
I'm Josh Clark and with me is always at Charles Study,
Chuck Bryant, and Jerry And that's the stuff you should know.
I filibuster that you can't. I could talk for the
next twenty four hours straight and not allow you to speak,
and that would be filibuster in this podcast. Um, No,
you'd actually be creating a podcast. Still, I guess we
don't have any part elementary rules, So I mean, technically
(01:31):
you could do that and it's a podcast. Still, upon
reading this, it seems like the U. S. Government doesn't either,
because one strategy is to just pick up your ball
and go home. Yeah. I just sort of put the
filibustering is, except you don't go home. No, you stand
there and tell everybody else goes home. In the most
classic example, which is what we're all about here at
(01:52):
stuff you should know the classics, man, Um, Chuck. You
know this year two thirteen, which is drawing to a close, Um,
there were two very high profile filibusters. One was by
Wendy Davis, member of the Texas State Senate, who filibustered
against a proposed bill that would or a package of
(02:13):
bills that would limit access to abortions. Did she actually
do it like a solo filibuster? Yeah, the classic she
had like on some snazzy pink magenta Mazzuno running shoes,
back brace and I believe a catheter. Shut up. No,
I'm not kidding, I'm I'm almost positive shad a catheter
and spoke for eleven hours straight. Um. There was also
(02:37):
another one by in September by U S. Senator from
Texas Ted Cruz, one of the founding people of the
Tea Party, or at least one of the most prominent
members of the Tea Party, who was um filibustering against
a continuing resolution to keep the government open, okay, or
(02:58):
to reopen the government. He went solo as well he did.
One was real. One was fake. What do you mean,
Cruises was fake? It wasn't a real filibuster. It was
basically stage dressing that looked like filibuster. But at its core,
as we'll soon find out, it wasn't a filibuster because
it was the result of a deal with Harry Reid
(03:18):
that Ted Cruise would be allowed to speak for twenty
one hours and then at the end of his twenty
one hours, this vote would go on. The whole purpose
of a filibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place.
Not make a deal to speak for a certain amount
of time. Uh, and then let the vote go through
(03:39):
and then cruise even further wild people by voting in
favor of the motion after he supposedly filibustered it. So
we have one, very very real one Wendy Davis. She
wasn't allowed to take a simple water, She had to
stay on on topic, spoke NonStop for eleven hours, catheter
the whole she had to stay on topic. Is that
a new thing, Well, it isn't. It's a Texas state rule.
(04:03):
And then Crews just basically spoke for twenty one hours,
handed the lecture and over to I think Ram Paul.
For a little while it was this kind of meandering
or whatever. It looked like a filipbuster, but as we'll
find out, it wasn't really, even though Davis was very
much filibuster. So let's talk filibusters, man. Yeah, it's one
of these. Well, I was about to say uniquely American,
but it does happen and has happened in other countries.
(04:26):
Actually dates back to ancient room, but it is uniquely
American in the way that we do it and how
it's abused. So, um, it's history does go back to
ancient room. Cato the younger was a master of the filibuster.
And this is back at a time when you actually
could make pretty good use of the filibuster because the
(04:47):
Senate rule was that all business had to be concluded
by dusk. If it wasn't, sorry, it's off the table.
So all you had to do a stand there technically
for one day, and you could filibuster anything. It's pretty
when you think about it. Yeah, and a lot of people,
I think assume that it's like part of like the
(05:08):
Constitution maybe nope, Or that the founding father said, hey,
we need this rule the filibuster. Nope. Uh that perhaps
it was um brought up by Superman and the guys
at Clark Kent. Yes, okay, we get there something alright.
So filibuster is an actual it's any sort of action
(05:29):
that you can take to um block or delay action
in the Senate House can't do it, Senate can, right,
And it's it's it exists because there are rules. Yeah,
it's a really it's an odd thing with an odd
accidental history. Um. I guess first we should say that
the name they believe comes from the Dutch word that
(05:51):
means pirate, and as pirates take things hostage, filibustering can
also be looked at its taking things off very much. So,
I mean like a vote or a bill that wants
to be introduced, confirmation or a nomination. Yeah, for a
confirmation for a judge. Let's say, yeah, you're holding it hostage. Um.
A lot of people think a filibuster is a good
(06:12):
thing because it allows the minority, meaning the minority in
the Senate to still have a voice and not just
have to get run rush shot over by the majority.
And the Senate has very has a long storied history
of giving a tremendous amount of say and rights to
the minority whichever whichever party that might be at any
(06:33):
given time. Um. And so as a result, the filibuster
was allowed to exist for a while ever since it
was accidentally created. But initially the Senate and the House
had a rule UM that prevented filibustering. Yeah, the previous
question motion which required a majority vote, and it was
(06:57):
not used though apparently ever so in eighteen o six
they got rid of it. Yeah, the Senate did, and
um kind of didn't realize what they had created was
a bit of a loophole. And that now, if you wanted,
you could get up and speak endlessly about something, and
that's basically what it is. And Mr Smith goes to Washington.
(07:17):
Jimmy Stewart did it and everyone loved it. But these
days it's kind of a different story. Well, yeah, it's
definitely lost a lot of its um substance to you know. Well,
they didn't used to use it very much. No, And
and that previous question motion, um, that's what it was called, right, Yeah,
so that was basically like you could say, um, so
is everybody ready for this guy to stop talking about
(07:40):
this bill or can we be done with debate? And
everybody says yeah, your nay? And then if it's yeah,
then you just go on and and vote like it
ends debate. But like you said, nobody was using it
and so they just kind of threw it out because
debate is Yeah, I guess it was Aaron Aaron Burr
was saying, we need to simplify these rules. So the
Senate did it. The House didn't, which is why you
can't have a filibuster in the House because they never
(08:02):
got rid of the previous question motion. But like you said,
Jimmy Stewart did it. Everybody was just in awe of
the idea of one all you need is one good
senator and the rest of the Senate could be corrupt.
But as long as you have Jimmy Stewart, one Jimmy
Stewart in there. Yeah, and and a little bit of stamina, um,
(08:24):
you the the truth justice in the American way can prevail. Um.
And as you were saying, as a result, a lot
of people think having a filibuster is a good thing
because it prevents tyranny by the majority. Yeah. And in
essence it is a good thing in a democracy. Um.
And like I said, it wasn't used that much in
the nineteenth century. The first one was not until eighteen
(08:46):
thirty seven, and less than two dozen took place before
the year nineteen hundred. Uh. In nineteen seventeen, things change
with President Wilson got a little ticked off because there
was a filibus for blocking a bill arming merchant ships
in the Great War was being fought, and he said,
we don't have time for this, so I'm gonna push
(09:08):
to pass something called a culture rule, which means that
we can cease this filibustering with the two thirds vote, right,
And he didn't really have any say. I mean, the
President is not the he's not involved in the Senate.
That's the vice where he but he was. He was
using all of his influence in public opinion against a
quote a little group of willful men. Yeah. I mean
(09:29):
he hated it, and he was a big champion of
trying to limit it as much as possible. So the
Senate passed this culture rule that said you can you
can bring something to a vote with two thirds majority,
which is sixty seven senators. That's right, that's still you know,
that's a lot of people. That means that the will
of the Senate, not just the majority. Uh, not just
(09:51):
the majority party, I should say, but the actual Senate
is like enough of this, Like, well, let's just we
agree that we need to stop debating exactly. Uh. It
has since been abused um or used depending on your viewpoint. UH.
In the during the civil rights movement, racist senators used
(10:11):
it to block all sorts of things, from anti lynching
laws to civil rights UH bills and um successfully. Strom
Thurman in n seven broke the record for speaking for
twenty four hours and eighteen minutes. That's still the record straight.
That's because no one else wants to do that, or
(10:33):
has the stamina or the adult papers. We can't leave.
We keep talking about that. We should explain you're not
allowed to leave, even to pee. You have to keep talking. Well,
that was the case until the seventies. Apparently, filibustering thanks
to the um UH segregationists who are using it to
(10:54):
prevent lynching, laws, to prevent the um UH, the Civil
Rights Bill, UH, pretty much anything that had to do
civil rights they were using the filibuster for. So by
the time the seventies rolled around, the Senate passed a
um A different rule that meant well, it said, if
you want to bring a vote to cloture to end debate,
(11:14):
no longer do you need sixty seven senators. You only
need sixty, which is a little easier to get. But
we're going to give the minority. Still. See, the Senate
loves the minority, UM the ability to threaten a filibuster
if they have forty one senators on board with that filipbuster,
and you don't even have to stand up there anymore. Yeah,
(11:36):
but you still can if you're a loan senator like it.
It didn't eliminate the loan filibuster. Speaker, no because if
you have forty or thirty nine or thirty eight, or
it's just you, you're just that one person, then you
have to stand up there still. But the idea that, um,
if you had forty one senators who would, if called upon,
(11:58):
would vote um against that clture, you don't have to talk,
right because by definition, you have that filibuster power. And
the whole idea of adding this rule was not just
to kind of give a little back to the minority
when you were taking it away by dropping it from
a two thirds to three fifths majority for culture Um.
(12:19):
They were also trying to make it so that the
Senate business was more streamlined and efficient. But it had
the unintended consequence of people saying like, oh, well, I'm
I threatened filibuster. I'm gonna sit over here and I
don't have to talk. I'm gonna threaten filibuster. So that
means take this bill out of consideration and let's move
on with the other business. And that's when bills just
started getting blocked the left and right. Yeah yeah, um.
(12:42):
And back to Thurman. Supposedly with the whole bathroom thing,
he h took a steam bath to hydrate himself so
he wouldn't have to peat. That's the story. I can
imagine that would take for maybe ten twelve hours, but
then twenty four hours he peat himself. You think, I'll
bet it's just one of those untold stories of the
Senate strom Thurm and Pete all over himself. Okay, so
(13:04):
that's the simple filibuster, the one you don't see as
much anymore because the one guy standing up. Yeah, now
now it's more about, hey, we we can just threaten
it and no one has to waste their time speaking
and debating. But Chuck, it's also it does. It does
keep you from wasting time. But because it's easy to
do and because all you need are forty one senators, um,
(13:29):
it's created a backlog. It's a really easy way for
the minority to hold anything they want hostage, which is
one reason why while a lot of people say it's
a good thing to have a filibuster because it protects
the minority from majority tyranny. Um, but having a filibuster
(13:49):
means that really just a fairly small group of senators
less than half can hold anything they want up and
just that that one simple filibuster, the presence of it
means that you can have any crazy nut who's a
senator hold anything up that he wants as long as
he's willing to stand there and talk. Ye. So there's
(14:11):
some people who say we need to get rid of
the filibuster. There's others who say, no, the filibuster has
to exist. It's this accidental thing that the Framers didn't
put in there, but it was a happy accident that
it came about, and it proved it's worth as a
as a part of democracy. Uh. Well, you mentioned earlier
how who was who was the lady that Davis? Yeah,
Wendy Davis who you said she had to stay on
(14:32):
point because in Texas they say you have to stay
on point. But federally there are no laws, specifically are
rules that say you have to do so you just
have to talk, which is fairly ridiculous. Uh in hughe
p Long did such things as read Shakespeare and talk
about cooking fried oysters site recipes and I'll bet you
(14:54):
we Long had a pretty good fried oyster. Uh. It's
just crazy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
You know what, that you can say whatever you want. Yeah,
that literally, that is what our government is doing they're
up there talking about oyster recipes on the floor of
the Senate to block a bill being introduced. Perhaps I've
always equated filibusters with the senator standing up there reading
(15:15):
from a phone book. I think that that was another
common tactic too that Yeah, I don't know who did,
but that's definitely been done USA, right, And yeah, I
think it'should kind of should leave a it is, especially
when it's not just at the very least, you should
have to stand up there and debate your bill, debate
(15:36):
your position and yes, and talk about what the issue
is at hand. And if you're willing to do that,
if you feel that passionate about that, then there's really
not a lot of criticism that slong at you. But
if you're staying out there talking oyster recipes, or in
my opinion, if you're just saying they're in filibuster, that
that that, to me is just that's hijacking. It is
(15:57):
it's piracy. It is. Uh So that is not the
only way you can waste time and block things from
happening in Congress. Uh you can. There are all these
little tactics that can be used. For instance, um, you
can introduce a lot of amendments to a bill. UM,
and instead of just saying waving the right and saying,
(16:20):
you know what, we're introducing this amendment. Everyone knows it.
We don't have to waste our time reading it, they
can demand, well, I'm gonna introduce forty seven amendments to
this bill, and we're gonna read each one in full.
It's just a time wasting measure. You can also add
on to that UM a roll call vote for each amendment,
so you have an amendment read and then you have
a role call taken for every senator to say whether
(16:43):
they vote yeah your name for each amendment yeah, which
would make it even more timely. Uh. Something called quorum calls.
Apparently that UM ascertains a number of senators present. I
don't know how that's different than a roll call. Role
call is what what you're voting, like, like, how do
you feel about this amendment? Are you present or not?
(17:06):
Because you have to have a quorum. I can't remember
how many makeup a quorum, but basically, like there has
to be a certain amount of people present for Senate
business to be conducted, So quorum would be to find
out if there's enough people present and if you're just
doing it delay time. They might be in their offices
or whatever. They might be having dinner and they're still
technically present. But if you call quorum call, then that
(17:28):
means they have to come in and say present and
then go back to dinner. Uh. There can be something
called an anonymous hold, which allows someone to block a
bill a man or woman in the Senate um when
it requires unanimous consent in order to be voted on.
But it's anonymous, which is kind of tricky because then
(17:49):
you don't know who's holding up the gumming up the works, right,
you know, then it turns into like a big game
of clue. So, yeah, Harry read did it in the
conservatory with the rope um. So filibuster reform surely something
this weird and hanky should be looked at and reformed
in order to retain the true spirit of of the filibuster.
(18:13):
And over the years there's been a lot of talk
about reform, a little bit of action about reform, but
not a ton until recently. Uh. In the fifties there
was but one filibuster procession, and in two thousand seven
and two thousand eight there were one hundred and thirty
nine threatened filibusters affecting seventy of major legislation in two
(18:38):
thousands to seven two thousand, Right, is that amazing? Yeah,
so it obviously got out of hand and people were
abusing the power. I can't help but wonder also if
the the concept that both groups are coming together to
(18:58):
rule the country in a combined manner has become less
and less of a concept over the last few decades
as well. You know, is it? Is it? Or am
I just like making that assumption and it's always been
that way. There's always been that division. Is that the
case or no? It seemed to be like my opinion
(19:19):
is that it used to be checks and balances, and
now it's not so much checks and balances as it
in is just severe, severe digging in. It certainly seems
that way, But maybe it was always like that. I
don't know. I didn't grow up in the fifties. Yeah,
I don't know either. They probably felt the same way
that American people, did, you know, those jerks in Washington.
You know, Oh, I'm sure they did. But I wonder
(19:41):
if they had as much cause to say that as
we do today. Like it the way it's always actually worse.
I mean, the numbers would suggest that, you know. But
is it just that the numbers are showing that people
figure it out how to use a filibuster better than
they knew before, smarter, or they're they're more depth at
using it, or is government broken that much more to
(20:05):
where there was one a year each year during the
fifties and then there's a hundred and thirty nine a
year in two thousand eight. Yeah, it seems broken to me,
but I'm definitely indicates that to me too. Yeah, I'm
fairly cynical about the state of modern politics, though I
am too. And the thing that gets me the most
about this is the idea that the government is broken
(20:26):
because the two sides can't agree, even though really, if
you get down to it, there's almost no distinction between
Democrats and Republicans Ideologically here they're a little bit, but
as definitely between liberals and conservatives, but between the Democrats
(20:47):
and the Republicans, I feel there's almost no difference any long,
like where the rubber meets the road, and not ideologically speaking,
And so the idea that the government still can't function
even when you have virtually one large mega party um
is I don't understand it. I don't understand what's going
on there. It's sad. It seems like it would be
functioning in a really smooth manner and steamrolling over us.
(21:11):
Silly boy. Uh So we've talked a lot about this
weird process, UM, but we should talk about reform right
after this message, right, okay, So back to it. We
were talking before we went off on some of our
personally thinking's about that it stinks now about reforming filibusters.
(21:32):
But problems arise when you try to reform filibustering because
that can be filibustered. Yeah, you know, yeah, if you
have a proposals to reform filibustering, it's still a measure
and you exactly. UM. So that this this whole talk
of how to reform filibustering, some proposals came up in
(21:55):
two thousand ten. UM. There were three good ones. One was,
if you're filibustering, you can't threaten to filibuster any longer.
You have to get up there and you have to
talk play the part. That one that was shot down.
Another one was that UM over the length of a filipbuster,
the UM required number of senators to invoke clture just decreases,
(22:18):
so a filibuster could only go on for so long
before you get to like a simple majority. Now that
was that was shot down. The third one you got
that one. Yeah, it would have banned filibusters on motions
bringing a bill to the floor, so you couldn't filibuster
like maybe something to perform filibustering. None of those were passed.
(22:40):
And the reason why, like you would think that one
party would be like, well, we don't want filipbusters were
in charge. They you have to remember that eventually you're
not going to be in charge and you're gonna want
a filibuster. Both parties filibuster. The Democrats filibuster Reagan's appointments
and nominees in the eighties, just like the Republicans are
(23:01):
filibustering Obama's right now. Yeah, I will say though, in fairness,
it's record numbers now compared to even what Democrats did,
And I'm not saying one is better than the other. No, No,
it's much more highly evoked in recent years, and it's
definitely been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party too. Yeah,
it's been since the Tea Party started to get some um,
(23:23):
some major seats for instance, I got a number for you. Uh.
It used to be fairly rare to filibuster a judicial
um presidential appointment. Like, it wasn't used that much for that.
It was more for like bills and things. Uh. And
there have been only about a hundred and eighty something
times in the history of this country that that's been
done and more than half of those have happened during
(23:45):
the past seven years. Wow. So it wasn't used that
much in the past, but in the past it's been
happened I think more than ninety two times in the
past seven years. Well you know what that suggests. That
suggests that before those things were used, um, like a scalpel,
and now they're just basically arbitrary. That's exactly what it was.
In the eight years that um Bush Jr. Was in office,
(24:08):
there was about a dozen of those nominees that were filibustered,
as opposed to ninety two. And since Obama has been
in there, so it's definitely not surgical anymore. And again,
both parties use it, but it's being misused and has
been for a while. Yes, And if you if you
listen to the GOP, they're saying that Obama is trying
to pack the courts. If you listen to the Democrats,
(24:31):
they're saying, dude, nobody does this come on? Cool. So
the reason that all those bills failed, um or the
the reform failed in two thousand ten was because they
basically did a little handshake deal where they said, um,
all right, don't use filibustering so much to prevent these
bills from being introduced. All right, I won't do that.
(24:53):
And hey, you guys can add a bunch of amendments
if you want to. And no one's gonna use the
nuclear option. Are we all cool with that? Yeah, we're
all cool with that. And then the GOP went back
and started filibustering against so and so the Democrats use
a nuclear option, Yeah, they did, which was huge. I
remember Harry Reid threatened it and everybody's like, oh my gosh, okay,
(25:14):
all right, UM, I can't remember what it was. There
was the GOP was blocking something that Harry Reid really
wanted to push through, and he said, I'm going to
use the nuclear option and it works. Have we even
said what that is? I don't think we have no.
So the nuclear option is, uh, it's the power of
the majority to use parliamentary procedures to change major rules,
(25:39):
in this case, specifically to remove the ability to filibuster. Yeah,
just for that session. Just for that Yeah, just for
that session. I think. So I saw that in this article,
but I didn't see it elsewhere. Well, so, so here's
the thing. The majority holds the power to say, um,
(26:00):
we're all we need is a simple majority senators, which
we have as Democrats. Two change your rule, right, and
that rule that we're going to change is that you
don't need sixty senators to block a sixty one senators
to block a filibuster or sixty sentators. I'm sorry, you
(26:21):
only need which we the Democrats have simple majority. Yes,
so that this has been in the power of whoever
has been in the majority the whole time. But it's
such a polarizing thing. It's saying like, we're we're taking
away your ability to block what we want to push
(26:42):
through through filibustering because we're taking away your ability to filibuster.
We're gonna pass this rule with a simple majority, saying
it just takes a simple majority to invoke culture and
and debate and bring something to the floor. It's not saying, um,
it only takes a simple majority to confirm this nominee,
(27:02):
because that's already the case. So if you follow it backwards,
it takes a simple majority confirmed a nominee. Now it
just takes a simple majority to bring that nominee's confirmation
to a vote. And they did that by passing a
rule with a simple majority saying that we're going to
end filibustering. Yeah, and that was just a few weeks
(27:24):
ago on November twenty one, and it passed fifty eight
all Republicans and three Democrats hopped to the other side
and voted against it. And it was not for all filibustering.
It was just filibustering on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees,
but not Supreme Court, not yet other than the Supreme Court. Um.
So it wasn't like, you know, for introducing a bill
(27:46):
or whatever. But earlier this year they reached a compromise
on some reform. Both sides worked out a bunch of
new rules that changed the process somewhat. But I guess
that wasn't enough in the case of Member twenty feet
Harry Reid, because I kind of threw down the gauntlet
which no one thought would ever happen. No, it's been
an option for many, many years and no one's ever
(28:08):
exercised it. So Harry read either said this is this
is ridiculous, is out of control, or government's broken or
Harry Reid was drunk with power, depending on who you
talk to. Well, it kind of came down to the
um or. This particular sticking point was about nominating UH
judges to the United States Court of Appeals for DC,
(28:31):
and Republicans said that, you know what, the d C
circuit has really underworked, and they said that they could
save a million dollars a year cut costs basically um,
which is pretty preposterous considering the amount of money that's
leaked away every second in Washington. Just that a is
the argument makes the whole thing smell fishy to me.
It's a little bit shallow um. And then Democrats said, no,
(28:54):
you know what, you guys didn't have these concerns when
Bush was appointing these nominees, and we need to maintain
this court because in the size of it, because it's
UH really complex, like this particular court is so I
heard um. The Democrats tried to block appointments to that
same court when Bush was in office, sure did string Yeah,
(29:16):
So like apparently both sides just completely flip flop the
same point. Yeah, and and took entirely one another's point
when the when the presidency was well, it depends on
who's in office and who has the majority on what
your beliefs are. It seems like ye wishy washy is
what I call that USA so um. As of November
(29:41):
of this year, Obama presented seventy nine nominees who received
culture votes. Bush had thirty eight in the eight years
that he was in office. But we should say that
most of those culture votes UM ended the debate and
most of those nominees did clear the filibuster, right be
You used to have a filibuster that required sixty senators,
(30:04):
but a confirmation only required fifty one. So now it's
fifty one and fifty one. And in the meantime, regular
old Americans are out there like having real troubles and
senators are on the floor talking. Actually that was I
can't keep talking about the oyster thing, but still cathetering
(30:25):
up in some cases. I'm pretty sure she had a catheter. Really,
that's crazy, uh and uniquely American, I guess. So you
got anything else. I got nothing else. I hate to
sound so jaded about all this stuff, but it's kind
of hard not to. I don't. I think you would
be a drooling automaton if you didn't like get worked
(30:47):
up about and just say it like this is how
government should work. Yeah, if this didn't make you cynical,
you know, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with
or whether you're conservative or liberal. If you think things
are working right now, there's you need to completely reevaluate
your life. Yeah, it's hard. Did you hear Russell Brand
go off a few weeks ago in the interview It's
it's interesting, it's an interesting take, But don't go vote. Yeah, Like,
(31:11):
it's hard to make an argument that your vote really
matters these days. And I mean, like, if you're in
a red state, deeply read state, and you're a Democrat,
like there's really no reason for you to go vote
states your vote might matter. And then and then and
then those are the states that the the candidates go
to and that the senators have more power than others.
(31:34):
It's it is a broken system. But how many politicians
in this country are out there truly like pure and
chaste in their and their motives. I don't think there's
a single one that's pure and chasing their motives, but
I think some there are still some good ones out
there now there are, and I guess I don't know.
They believe in their own side. Things that go on
(31:58):
behind closed doors you have to look out for. Are
the ones that don't believe in their own side. They're
just exploiting one side to get themselves into power. Those
are the ones that are truly bad. At least, if
you believe in your own side, you have conviction. Whether
I agree with your convictions or not, at the very
least respect the fact that you are convinced of your convictions,
(32:19):
you know. But if you're just like, if you don't
have any convictions and you're just out for power, then
to tell with you, pal, buddy, lady, all of you. Yeah,
so we're gonna move to Costa Rica. Do they have
government there? Yeah? Government? There are there any islands, tropical
(32:39):
islands that have no government. There's tons of uninhabited islands. Okay,
that's what we need. And I'm not going to believe
in anarchy. Would just be nice to move to an island. Well,
there's not a bunch of jerks wasting your time and
taking your money. Yeah, I don't know. Anarchies looking more
and more attractively. We should do a podcast on anarchy.
We really should. Uh. If you want to know more
(33:00):
about filibustering, you can type that word into the search
bar how stuff works dot com. And since I said
search bar, that means it's time for listener mayl. All right,
I'm gonna call this one. Uh, let's see if we
can help out some heroin addicts. It's not funny, that's
funny how I said it though. Hey, there, guys, thanks
for keeping me entertained insane. Um, I'll explain the same part.
(33:23):
I will let you know what's been up with me
and how you guys have helped me in the past
few months. I am a twenty five year old living
in Santa Monica, California, and I'm a part of the
huge homeless population there. Most nights of my girlfriend I
end up staying in a motel in Venice, in l A,
where we are both homeless. It is my fault we
ended up this way. We were both addicted to heroin
(33:45):
and it was because of me. Each day my girlfriend
I have to go out and come up with a
hundred and ten dollars in order to afford our heroine
and our room since their daily habit each day, we
have to do this. It is an awful way of
life and we both feel horrible to been to get
detox meds through the county clinics. But the waiting list
to see a doctor to get into rehab like that
(34:06):
has uh is a very long list. Indeed, unfortunately, there
are not a lot of resources out there for drug
addicts as far as detox is concerned. Um, what is
that Switzerland? And actually there are not a lot of
people are institutions that are willing to help unless the
addictive person has insurance or money to pay for treatment.
We're not bad people, um, just looking at it. In fact,
you wouldn't know that we were addicted to heroin. We
(34:27):
both have had jobs in the past and homes in
the past, and she is even a college graduate and
is certified to do special effects makeup. The reason why
why I'm writing you guys, is because you can imagine
this lifestyle is very stressful. It's a lot of pain,
shame and guilt on a daily basis. Uh. In about
three or four months ago, I came across your podcast,
and it's really helped me get through some of the
(34:47):
tough times. I found that listening to you when I'm
gonna fight with my girlfriend or stressed or sad really
helps me turn around my mood. So thanks for this,
and thank Jerry as well. And this is from t J.
And I told t J that we would put a
call out, and I don't know if it will work
or not, but if anyone in southern California has a
(35:08):
resource for t J and his girlfriend to kick heroin,
then we'd love to hear from you and we will
put you in touch the email. Uh, t J, if
you're listening. I don't know if this is gonna work,
and this is about as far as we can take it,
but um, if someone writes in, we will definitely put
them in touch and uh see if we can get
you guys off the junk. Yeah. So thanks for writing,
(35:30):
and I'm glad we can help in some small way. Yeah,
I'm glad we're doing something to help out you know. Yeah,
we'll see. Um well, I mean like also turning his
mood around. Yeah. True. But if you are a resource
and can help these guys, email us um at our
stuff podcast at Discovery dot com email just putting the
subject line I can help the heroin addict. I think
(35:50):
that's a great subject line. Uh. And until then, t
J and girlfriends stay safe. Please, if you need some
help that you think Chuck and I can help you
out with, you should get in touch with us. You
can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
That's on Twitter. You can join us on Facebook dot
com slash stuff you Should Know. You can send us
(36:12):
an email to Stuff Podcasts at Discovery dot com, and
you can join us at our home on the web,
it's Stuff you Should Know dot com. For more on
this and thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works
dot com.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!