Sound “Taps” for the era of collegiality and bipartisanship in the Texas Senate.

They’re all but gone.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/27/coming-out-swinging-dan-patrick-announces-lt-gov/

State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, has announced his candidacy for lieutenant governor, vowing to bring “authentic conservative leadership” into the Legislature’s upper chamber. You know what means, yes? The two-thirds rule that used to govern the way the Senate did business is a goner, toast, road kill.

I know that because (1) Patrick opposes the rule and (2) the incumbent lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, is going to fight like hell to keep his job and one of the things he’s going to do to keep it is get rid of the rule himself.

The lieutenant governor can do that, as the Senate’s presiding officer. Dewhurst did so, in fact, prior to the start of the special session that ended this past Wednesday morning. He’ll do so again when the Legislature convenes Monday for its second special session, which Gov. Rick Perry has called to shove through an anti-abortion bill that was filibustered to oblivion by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth.

Republicans occupy 19 of 31 Senate seats. The two-thirds rule, established long ago, is meant to seek bipartisan support on legislation. That means bill sponsors would need 21 votes to bring any bill to a full Senate vote, which also means that at least two Democratic senators would need to sign onto a bill if it had full Republican support.

Such a rule helps breed at least a semblance of collegiality.

Patrick hates the rule. He vows to get rid of it. He’s a GOP firebrand who’s now taken the unusual – for Texas – step of challenging an incumbent within his own party.

Dewhurst was bloodied badly in the first special session as Davis took control of the floor at the session’s 11th hour and the Senate gallery erupted in cheers, hoots and applause near the end of her filibuster to help carry Davis across the finish line. Patrick and his Republican colleagues were steamed at what happened and so Patrick has decided to take matters into his own hands by challenging Dewhurst in next year’s Republican primary.

For his part, Dewhurst is talking tough – against Senate Democrats, the media (who he alleges helped foment the uprising in the jam-packed Senate gallery) and anyone else who stands in the way of enacting Senate Bill 5, the aforementioned anti-abortion legislation. Check this out:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/dewhurst-ill-pass-the-late-term-abortion-ban-and-take-action-against-those-who-incited-demonstration/

The days of comity and collegiality in the Texas Senate aren’t long for this world.

This will be an ugly and sad spectacle to watch.

It occurred to me the other day as I was pondering a key ruling from the Supreme Court that changed so many Americans’ lives that the critical vote came from someone who wasn’t supposed to there in the first place.

Justice Anthony Kennedy fulfilled his role as the “swing vote” on the court, tilting it 5 to 4 in overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that declared that marriage must be between a man and a woman. The court ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. The ruling produced dancing in the streets, literally, in cities across the nation.

Kennedy’s role was critical. But think of this: Were it not for the U.S. Senate’s rejection of one high court nominee and another’s withdrawal from being considered for the court, Kennedy wouldn’t have been there to change history.

Justice Lewis Powell retired from the court in 1987. President Reagan nominated former U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork to replace him. Bork, brilliant constitutional scholar that he was, harbored some views about race relations, affirmative action and women’s reproductive rights that troubled many members of the Senate, which had the power to confirm or reject his appointment. Senators chose the latter and knocked Bork out of the race in a decisive 58-42 vote to reject his nomination.

Then the president turned to Douglas Ginsburg, who looked like a shoo-in – until it was disclosed that he smoked pot while in college. Oops, Mr. Justice-designate. Can’t have that spot on the record of a Supreme Court justice. A firestorm erupted over that chapter in Ginsburg’s life. He backed out of consideration.

Only then did the president turn to Kennedy, a fellow Californian, to take his seat on the high court bench. Kennedy sailed through Senate confirmation and joined the court in 1988.

It’s not that Kennedy is an accidental Supreme Court justice. He happened to be in the right place at the right time. Furthermore, he’s proving to be far from the ideologue that some thought he’d become after being nominated by the godfather of modern political conservatism.

Vive la independent judiciary!

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus has weighed in Gov. Rick Perry’s remarks about state Sen. Wendy Davis’s controversial – and in some circles highly acclaimed – filibuster of an anti-abortion bill.

Perry said Davis, D-Fort Worth, had failed to learned from “her own example” that children born into “unfortunate circumstances” can grow up and be successful, as she has done.

Straus told the Texas Tribune that Perry’s remarks damaged the Republican “brand.” He didn’t like their personal tone.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/28/straus-says-perry-crossed-line-davis-comments/

Well, I happen to agree with the speaker. Then again, I’m not a member of the Texas Republican Party’s extreme right-wing fringe, which includes Gov. Perry as its star member – and which has been highly critical of Straus’s speakership, not to mention his leadership style.

You see, Straus is a Republican as well, but he has this nasty habit of working across the aisle with legislative Democrats. Does he favor the restrictive anti-abortion bill that Davis filibustered into (temporary) oblivion? Yes. That’s not good enough to suit some within his party, who want him to be even more hard-nosed than he’s been. It kind of reminds me of liberals within the Democratic Party who didn’t much like former Speaker Pete Laney’s willingness to work with those dreaded Republicans, chief among them being then-Gov. George W. Bush. Laney, the Panhandle cotton farmer, wasn’t dissuaded by his critics and I’m guessing Straus won’t be deterred by his critics, either.

Straus still will be in the doghouse with righties within his party, even though he’s right to be critical of Gov. Perry’s big mouth.

Immigration reform by all rights should be halfway home, with a resounding “yes” vote in the U.S. Senate and one more roll call awaiting it in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Except for this little hitch: House Speaker John Boehner says a majority of Republicans who control the House need to favor it before he’ll even allow it to come a vote.

What he’s saying in effect is that a minority of the entire House of Reps is going to determine whether this important piece of legislation even gets to the floor.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/308373-boehner-facing-full-court-press-on-immigration

And he calls that the “democratic process”?

The immigration reform bill approved by a 68-32 vote this week isn’t perfect, but it’s a dandy compromise. It allows a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people who are here illegally also while providing for more security along our borders and the completion of a 700-mile long fence along our southern border. There’s something in the legislation for liberals and conservatives, which is the essence of effective government.

But the speaker won’t have any of that. The tea party wing of his party is putting the arm on him to stop this thing, or approve an entirely new House bill.

Boehner’s strategy appeases one wing of his sharply divided House caucus. For him to insist that a majority of Republican members, along with a majority of Democrats, to favor this legislation before even allowing a vote sticks it in the eye of those who worked hard to craft a bipartisan compromise in the other congressional chamber.

What’s more, that tactic denies a majority of the entire House a chance to have its voice heard, as the speaker is deferring to the body’s vocal minority.

Boehner spoke grandly of the letting the “will of the House” determine the fate of immigration reform. He’s doing no such thing. He’s knuckling under to the will of knuckleheads.

I’m beginning to think I might become – to borrow a Marine Corps recruitment phrase – “one of the few, the proud” to have flown on Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

If the plane keeps having many more problems, air carriers just might ground the bird for keeps.

Another Dreamliner flight was delayed in Tokyo because of problems with the power that runs the air conditioning on the aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/travel/boeing-787-dreamliner-air-con-fault/index.html?hpt=hp_bn10

It was the fourth incident in 10 days. Well, I’m telling you that the plane has experienced even more trouble than that.

On June 7, I was set to board a United Airlines Dreamliner at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. All the passengers were seated, the pilot came on to announce our impending departure – only to come back on later and tell us we had to get off the plane because of “mechanical issues.”

In other words, the plane wouldn’t start.

I gathered my gear, got off the bird and trudged down the concourse to another gate where – to my surprise – another Dreamliner awaited. We boarded the plane and the pilot informed us over the intercom that the aircraft was fit to travel and was “ready to go. No problems.”

We took off and the flight to Denver was smooth and glass.

I’ll say this about the Dreamliner: It’s a very nice aircraft on which to sit for a couple of hours, even in Economy Class. It’s spacious, with plenty of leg room. It’s quiet. The in-flight amenities – such as the video selections – are appealing.

I just worry that the shiny new aircraft is going to keep breaking down.

To borrow another phrase from a former U.S. president: I feel the latest passengers’ pain.

Radio talk show host/gasbag Laura Ingraham has joined the Bash Wendy Davis Brigade on the right wing of the Republican Party.

Ingraham tweeted the following message: “Which kids that you see on the playground shouldn’t be there?”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/27/laura-ingraham-launches-vicious-attacks-against/194650

Here is Example A of just one more perversion of the debate between those who favor retaining a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and those who want to make it illegal.

You see, every woman who gave birth to those hypothetical children “on the playground” made a choice. They chose to give birth to those children. Indeed, it’s a choice most women who become pregnant do make. Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who led the filibuster against Senate Bill 5 in the Texas Legislature this week, made a similar choice when she was pregnant at the age of 19 with her first child. For that she deserves high praise, not the kind of condemnation she is receiving now from those who want to write laws that prohibit women from making the most heart-wrenching choice they’ll ever make.

Those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate should not be construed as being “pro-abortion.” They merely want government to keep its mitts off a woman’s body; they want to enable women across America to make these choices themselves after consulting with their clergy, their families, their own souls.

Whether they choose to end a pregnancy or give birth to a child should be a woman’s choice … pure and simple.

That’s where Wendy Davis appears to stand. That’s where government at all levels – as well as Laura Ingraham and others on her end of the political spectrum – need to butt out.

Ross Ramsey’s analysis of Lt. David Dewhurst’s worst nightmare coming true this week reminded me a late, great Texas politician who once held that office.

Bob Bullock once ruled the Texas Senate like a tyrant. I’m trying to imagine the late Democratic lieutenant governor getting steamrolled in the manner that Dewhurst got trampled during the final hours of the fractious Senate debate over a restrictive abortion bill.

Ramsey’s piece in the Texas Tribune is linked here. It’s worth taking the time to read it.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/26/dewhurst-critical-failure-large-audience/

A couple of key aspects about the way Bullock ran the Senate come immediately to mind.

I don’t believe he would have changed the Senate’s long-standing two-thirds rule merely because it was meeting in a special session. Here’s how it goes: The Senate needs 21 votes – out of 31 total senators serving in the body – in favor of any bill to bring it to a full floor vote. Senate Bill 5, the anti-abortion bill in question, didn’t have that many votes. The two-thirds rule is intended to ensure bipartisan support, meaning in this case at least two Democrats would have to cross over to support SB 5.

Dewhurst, a Republican, decided prior to the start of special session to waive the two-thirds rule. One of the results of that decision was the chaos we saw ensue on the Senate floor late Tuesday.

Bullock would have run the place with an iron fist. No, make that two iron fists.

The second factor I think of is Bullock’s deal-making skills. Although he was known have hard-headed – and some would say hard-hearted as well – the man knew how to grease the system with pols from the other side of the aisle. His legendary relationship with Republican Gov. George W. Bush has become the stuff of legend around Austin. Bullock knew how to schmooze the other side when it needed schmoozing.

In Dewhurst, I see a supreme policy wonk who knows the nitty-gritty of just about every bill under consideration in the Senate. His deal-making skills? Well, they seem to need lots of need work.

Rick Perry followed Bullock into the lieutenant governor’s office, but didn’t stay there long enough – just through one legislative session, in 1999 – to make his mark. He moved into the governor’s office in December 2000 after Bush’s election as president. Perry certainly has made his mark as the state’s longest-serving governor.

He’s going to seek to deepen his imprint on the office next week as he calls his second special session while trying to ram this punitive abortion bill into law. Will the lieutenant governor step up this time? I’m betting he won’t.

Wherever he is, Bob Bullock is laughing.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry cannot get enough rowdiness in the Legislature, which must be his rationale for calling a second special session as the state is still reeling from the near-brawl in the Texas Senate this week.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/26/rick-perry-calls-second-special-session/

The second special session gets under way July 1, the day Perry is supposed to reveal his future political plans.

“Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do,” Perry said in calling legislators back to work.

There you have it. Abortion, transportation and the courts will be on the agenda.

I have to differ with one of the governor’s points. “Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn,” Perry said. I’ll agree with him as far as that statement goes. I do not believe Texans want legislators to enact punitive legislation that makes abortion a criminal act. Texans have joined the rest of America in supporting a woman’s right to reproductive independence. Yet, Perry is listening to the conservative base within his party by demanding the Legislature mandate a law that tells a woman she must carry a pregnancy to full term.

The filibuster – led by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth – that brought the previous special session to a raucous end on Tuesday is going to commence once the defeated abortion bill hits the Senate floor. Also, look for the crowds to return to the Senate gallery – once they catch their breath from all the yelling they did to disrupt the proceedings the other day.

Here’s hoping they return in full-throated form to stop this punitive bill.

Wendy Davis has become the new poster child for women’s reproductive rights.

I trust the Fort Worth Democratic state senator will wear the label proudly – as she should.

Davis talked a punitive abortion bill to death overnight, filibustering Texas Senate Bill 5 past the time it could become law.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/26/led-davis-democrats-defeat-abortion-legislation/

The special session of the Texas Legislature had been called to repair the state’s congressional and redistricting issue, but was expanded to include abortion restrictions when Gov. Rick Perry added that poison pill to the session’s call.

SB 5 would have made any abortion past the 20th week of pregnancy illegal. Many observers have labeled the bill the toughest in the nation. It would have required doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of an abortion clinic and would have required doctors to administer abortion-inducing drugs.

What makes Davis’s victory so interesting is that she filibustered the bill the old-fashioned way. She stood on the Senate floor and talked for 13 hours. Some Senate Republicans tried to rule her out of order because – and this is rich – she was reading a prepared document instead of speaking extemporaneously. This was no procedural filibuster. Davis talked and talked and talked.

The filibuster drew national attention, with the proceedings being broadcast live into homes all across the land.

My applause at the end – for now – of Senate Bill 5 is not an endorsement of abortion. It is an endorsement instead of preserving a woman’s right to make this difficult decision rather than criminalizing it.

Sen. Davis and her Texas Democratic colleagues have performed a valuable public service.

And if you thought the session in the Texas Senate chamber was raucous, just wait to see what happens if Rick Perry calls yet another special session to try to ram this legislation into law.

I keep resisting the urge to call Edward Snowden a traitor to his country, or otherwise convicting him before he’s even been tried in a courtroom.

Still, I cannot stop believing that the former National Security Agency employee has committed some serious wrongdoing by leaking national security secrets. He’s on the lam, apparently hiding in a transit room at Moscow’s airport. The Russians say they won’t extradite him to the United States.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/307665-white-house-russia-has-clear-legal-basis-to-expel-snowden

This young man is in serious trouble and is seeking asylum, reportedly, in Ecuador, a country run by a government with a known hatred toward the media – to whom Snowden leaked the secrets.

This story is giving me a slight case of heartburn, but it’s relenting somewhat as I’m finally believing that Snowden, at minimum, violated an oath he took when he went to work for NSA. The oath no doubt called for a vow of confidentiality, that he would protect the secrets to which he had access.

Has this fellow committed an act of treason? A court ought to determine whether he’s guilty of the espionage for which the government has charged him.

Edward Snowden is no hero, despite what some on the left suggest. He’s accused of committing several serious crimes against the nation. He needs to be brought home to stand trial, where he can mount whatever defense he has in a public courtroom.