I wish for everyone who is alive and is for the use of condoms, would have been jizzed into a condom, and then come back with their opinion.
Hey, Bricker. I actually have a legal answer for you. I and my MS in poli sci buddy spent the evening going over the last few hours of Senate whackadoodleness. Also the Senate rule book, found here: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/rules/SenateRules83.pdf
Filibusters are (as you know) defined by the senator holding the floor until the time runs out. A senator holding the floor cannot leave the floor; indeed, s/he cannot leave his/her desk. Food and water are not allowed on the floor, so no eating or drinking. Under the rules of the filibuster, it is further stated that the senator may not lean on his/her desk or sit down, nor may they use another senator’s desk for any purpose. They must speak on a topic germane to the bill at hand. We’ll talk about the definition of ‘germane’ later.
It further states one way and only one way that the floor can be taken away from a senator holding it in a filibuster: they must stray from a germane topic three times. After the third time, the presiding officer may, if he chooses, put the vote to the body as to whether the filibuster should be ended. A simple majority wins.
While it is a matter of senate decorum not to eat or drink and while it is a part of the rules that the senator may not sit, lean, etc., there is no punishment noted in the rules for that. The law does not say that any of these things break the filibuster. The only thing noted in the rules to break a filibuster is three points of straying from topics germane to the main topic. There were two points of straying from germane topics (debatable, but we’ll just go with what’s in the actual rules rather than Dewhurst being a really obnoxious bastard) and one warning when Senator Ellis helped Senator Davis put on a back brace.
This point was brought up in the last two hours. Several times, in fact. The presiding officer, Robert Duncan (not Dewhurst, who recused himself), refused to address this point. The body did vote on whether putting the back brace on constituted a breach of decorum and therefore a warning, but that didn’t make the back brace a departure from germane topics.
But hey. Let’s hand him that. Let’s pretend that was legitimate. I believe it takes more than a simple majority vote to change the Senate rules, but we’ll go with it.
When the third warning (second for germaneness) was sustained, Senator Watson called for an appeal to this ruling. Senator Estes called a point of order then to table that motion, but he did not have the floor. Technically, at least. Within the rules of the Senate. Duncan gave him the floor anyway, on the grounds of “I say so.” Seriously – he said that as the presiding officer, he could choose who had the floor.
What he isn’t allowed to do, though, is ignore senators trying to get his attention. Senator Van de Putte’s question as to what it took for a woman to be recognized? That came after she attempted to motion to adjourn. Ignoring her, Duncan called roll for the motion to table Watson’s appeal. He states he didn’t hear her, but after the roll call, she raised a parliamentary inquiry. He said “I recognize your motion to adjourn.” She’d said that, yes: before he called the roll. Not after. He ignored her the first time out, pretended he didn’t hear her, but tripped himself up when he recognized her afterward.
I didn’t take the notes when we watched this evening. My poli sci buddy filled a sheet of paper, the whole front and half of the back, with questionable-at-best calls by Duncan. Dewhurst did an okay job, even if the questions of germaneness were at best questionable. Roe v. Wade isn’t germane to a bill that restricts women’s rights as designated by that decision? The sonogram bill and the extra hardships SB5 would put on women isn’t germane to the bill? Germaneness is, as stated in the senate rules, not a concrete concept. It’s left up to the presiding officer. His calls were deeply questionable, even so.
Moreover: the final vote could not have been on the bill. It could have conceivably been to end the filibuster itself, but at the end of the night that vote had not yet been taken – and the rules say the body must vote that the filibuster has ended before they can even motion to vote on the bill. That motion was never taken.
And yeah. We knew that in the gallery and we knew that in the hall because enough of us were parliamentary scholars. And those that weren’t were Twitter followers of people who were. In the end, several senators didn’t know what they were voting for. And then? The time stamp changed on the vote. That was clearly a crime – in Texas, a second degree felony.
Questions? This is, I admit, written by not-a-lawyer and not my best lawyerly prose. My law professor would smack me in the back of the head for being so disorganized, but it’s late and I’m tired. 
Oh, and it is in fact theoretically possible to change the official time of a vote. It requires a ridiculous majority; something like 4/5. I can’t be arsed to look it up right now, but it’s either that or unanimous. Whatever it was, they didn’t have it. They didn’t even have 2/3.
For those who care about legal detail, this article explains how the traditions of the Texas Senate:
In related Stupid Texas Republican news, the Senate passed the Immigration Reform Bill.
Oh. And there’s about 16% of Texans who agree with the tenets of the bill since they refused to include the amendments on, for example, rape and incest. The life-of-the-mother bit is sketchy, too.
And that’s the other nasty thing. Senators Ellis, Lucio, Watson, and Whitmire pled with their fellows across the aisle, saying: “Look. We’ve NEVER been this bad. We weren’t this bad when we went to Albuquerque. This has been the most vituperative we’ve ever seen the Senate.” With Ellis having been there for 40 years, that’s a fairly powerful statement. The night did horrible things to the concept of senatorial decorum.
Before I go to bed – the first article Bridget Burke cites says basically what I did, only better. Read that instead. 
Well, you gotta admit, waiting until the kid’s 13th birthday is running it a bit late.
Yep. Ohio just yesterday tightened abortion laws . . . through the state budget.
According to The Columbus Dispatch with the new budget:
I don’t have the energy for a “Fuck you, Ohio Republicans” thread right now though .
They’ve been bought?
What was that about hats again?
Apparently people aren’t wearing enough of them.
In their world, the Right Thing. They (that is, the credulous base, not the cynical leadership) are, perhaps, in their own estimation, like civil-rights activists in the South in the 1950s (not a comparison they’d be likely to make first, however), they believe they know what’s right however unpopular it might be, therefore what the majority thinks doesn’t matter.
While there is a certain nobility to that kind of thinking, it does open a path to madness. Whenever Communists or Nazis or Islamic Fundamentalists or anyone else who is absolutely sure what the Right Thing is get into power, they always seem to feel that they owe dissenting viewpoints no more tolerance than astronomers owe flat-earthers.
Is this true?
True facts. Where I live, the city council tried to somewhat sneakily pass a bill that was so vague and wide sweeping that it’d almost be funny if it didn’t have to do with my uterus:
One of the city council members lives directly across the street from me. The woman is about 116 and still has a garage full of pro Sarah Palin signs. What chaps my ass most is that this woman is so old that it’s been literally longer than I’ve been alive-- possibly longer than my mother has been alive!- since this woman has had to even think about the contents of her uterus potentially killing her. Fuck that. Her talking about and legislating these things is as offensive as some old Christian dude— it has nothing to do with you, stay the fuck out.
Anyway, Pro Choice folks are now hip to what they are trying to do and have rallied the troops. Still, ridiculous.
Honey, my mother is plenty pro choice and I’m still here. Pro choice people procreate, too. Shocking, I know-- I’d think those sluts were out having recreational abortions just for funsies, too, but it doesn’t work that way apparently.
One of my cousins is married to a guy who works for some legal organization that “protects the lives of innocent babies” through lots of article-writing and other means that aren’t clear to me. What is clear to me is that the really, really rabid pro-lifers think “pro-choice” is the same as “pro-abortion”. As an example, this same cousin is genuinely baffled that a woman who is pro-choice can express thanks to her own mother for giving her life. What’s more, they don’t understand how there could ever be a circumstance in which a woman would choose (in their words) to “destroy God’s beautiful creation”. Birth defects and other anomalies are just “God’s plan”.
There’s just no reasoning with them…especially when that view is combined with the attitude that women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands and to God.
Just after the Supremes gutted the VRA, our AG said the Texas Voter ID law can go into effect* immediately*. The State even instituted the Election Identification Certificates (EIC), a card specifically designed for the purpose.
“Churchwell” is Logan Churchwell, PR for a group who likes the new law, who was interviewed for the article. There are 70 counties in the state without DPS offices & the people handling the new procedure aren’t sure how long it will take to mail out the new card. What sort of identification will they accept? Gosh, it’s such a surprise that they’re still working out the details!
However, a suit challenging the law was filed on Wednesday.
Heard in passing that the new law accepts a concealed carry permit as valid id for voting, but not student id nor a disabled veteran id. Ordinarily, such an outrageous suggestion would demand a cite. But I was born and raised in Texas, and I don’t doubt it for a moment.
. . . Is one allowed to come armed to the polls in Texas?
Certainly. Hat sales have increased but not pari passu, as our research…
Allowed? I’d be surprised if it’s not required.