Texas Abortion Filibuster!

[Dawndonna]

some debate about timings, but good on her!
(Guardian Link).

[DrSeuss]

To quote Legally Blonde, "never under estimate a woman with a French manicure and a Harvard law degree."!
A worthy successor to Hillary!

[littlemissnormal]

Have you seen the photo of her stood up looking smart but with her pink running trainers on? Brilliant!

[OddSockMonster]

Wow! Good for her!

[Lazyjaney]

Good for her indeed, but it's worrying that she had to do it, and the Republicans will try again

[mayorquimby]

Quick question about filibustering as my knowledge comes mainly from the west wing. I get the general concept that the speaker holds the floor for an excruciating length if time etc, but how does it alter the result?
Is it due to taking up the scheduled time for the vote or dragging proceedings into a 2nd sitting and somehow making the vote unable to take place?

I've seen a lot of praise for the speaker involved and congratulating her. But is the act of the filibuster (away from the soecifics of this cause)not in itself slightly undemocratic? It is essentially one person or a minority party deciding that a bill that would otherwise pass shall not because of a loophole in the system?
Even with regards to this incident I've seen criticisms of republicans who tried to find objections as bring shameful for trying to derail the speakers efforts on technicalities but surely the speaker herself was relying on technicalities of waiting out the proposed bill.

I guess what I'm wondering us it just another political tactic where if its used to support something you agre with its "noble/principled" etc but if it were the opposite way around and a bill reflecting your beliefs were stalled by such tactics it would be "technicalities / abusing the system" etc

[mayorquimby]

Excuse many typos
On phone late at night

[EmmelineGoulden]

Mayor - in this case the bill was being debated in a special session that ran until midnight. If had to be voted on by midnight in order to be a valid vote.

From what I've read it seems likely a second, longer special session will be called and the bill reconsidered. It's unlikely the democrats will be able to filibuster a longer session. But it also seems likely the law is unconstitutional anyway...

Filibusters are very much the sort of thing where if you agree with them they're brilliant and if you don't they're a bit of a blot on democracy, though the stamina required for them is impressive in its own right.
In the US most legislatures have an odd mix of populist maxi-democratic levers, like recalls direct vote propositions, and brakes on democracy, like the filibuster and the constitution. When the US was set up the people were not overly trusting of government power, and the brakes were an attempt to protect the people from a dictatorship of the majority.