ringwiss
@ringwiss.bsky.social
🏳️🌈 🇪🇺 🇵🇱 🇬🇧 He/him.
Armchair parliamentarian.
I type at 140 wpm.
Armchair parliamentarian.
I type at 140 wpm.
I guess the Senate must still be in the legislative day of last Thursday.
Long before they showed up in every bakery case in February, pączki were a way for Polish families to use up sugar, butter, and lard before Lent — turning it into something joyful and delicious.
February 17, 2026 at 9:39 PM
I guess the Senate must still be in the legislative day of last Thursday.
Reposted by ringwiss
I say, so what if the Record says Rep Byron Donalds (R-FL) voted in the House when he was actually in California to do Bill Maher's show. After all, the Record once said Rep William Henry Bates (R-MA) voted in the House when he was actually dead.🪦
#HRules
#HRules
February 17, 2026 at 12:11 AM
I say, so what if the Record says Rep Byron Donalds (R-FL) voted in the House when he was actually in California to do Bill Maher's show. After all, the Record once said Rep William Henry Bates (R-MA) voted in the House when he was actually dead.🪦
#HRules
#HRules
Great phrase: dissolution by the efflux of their time.
February 15, 2026 at 9:09 PM
Great phrase: dissolution by the efflux of their time.
Titles of bills about the conduct of elections, in Parliament vs Congress:
February 13, 2026 at 12:40 AM
Titles of bills about the conduct of elections, in Parliament vs Congress:
Under the standing order, the reading of Washington’s Farewell Address is supposed to be after the approval of the Journal. This UC agreement swaps them around.
It makes literally no difference since this UC agreement also deems the Journal approved, so why change it? 🤷♂️
It makes literally no difference since this UC agreement also deems the Journal approved, so why change it? 🤷♂️
February 12, 2026 at 11:25 PM
Under the standing order, the reading of Washington’s Farewell Address is supposed to be after the approval of the Journal. This UC agreement swaps them around.
It makes literally no difference since this UC agreement also deems the Journal approved, so why change it? 🤷♂️
It makes literally no difference since this UC agreement also deems the Journal approved, so why change it? 🤷♂️
This was unnecessary. The DC Home Rule Act provides that ‘it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to’.
February 12, 2026 at 10:48 PM
This was unnecessary. The DC Home Rule Act provides that ‘it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to’.
At first glance, it would seem that while this joint resolution is pending, a senator could move to proceed to another measure on the calendar, and that motion would be nondebatable.
February 12, 2026 at 2:41 PM
At first glance, it would seem that while this joint resolution is pending, a senator could move to proceed to another measure on the calendar, and that motion would be nondebatable.
As for ‘goes to the Senate’, nowadays, that the House passed a measure doesn’t necessarily mean that it will send it to the Senate.
PASSED: the House just passed the resolution to end Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Not many crosses from Republicans, a lot of vulnerable incumbents took a dumb vote here to stick with Trump and GOP leadership. Goes to the Senate, which is likely to pass it.
Will share the vote sheet when I have it!
Not many crosses from Republicans, a lot of vulnerable incumbents took a dumb vote here to stick with Trump and GOP leadership. Goes to the Senate, which is likely to pass it.
Will share the vote sheet when I have it!
February 12, 2026 at 2:29 AM
As for ‘goes to the Senate’, nowadays, that the House passed a measure doesn’t necessarily mean that it will send it to the Senate.
Special orders are alive and well; they’re just made by unanimous consent now rather than by resolution.
February 11, 2026 at 3:17 AM
Special orders are alive and well; they’re just made by unanimous consent now rather than by resolution.
Strictly speaking, only bills and joint resolutions can be ‘defeated’.
The previous question would be ‘refused’.
The previous question would be ‘refused’.
February 11, 2026 at 2:21 AM
Strictly speaking, only bills and joint resolutions can be ‘defeated’.
The previous question would be ‘refused’.
The previous question would be ‘refused’.
For no particular reason...
The last time the previous question was defeated on a rule was in 1988. ⬇️
(The amendment that was then offered was kind of complicated, but in essence it allowed an education bill to be amended to add a ban on dial-a-porn.)
The last time the previous question was defeated on a rule was in 1988. ⬇️
(The amendment that was then offered was kind of complicated, but in essence it allowed an education bill to be amended to add a ban on dial-a-porn.)
1988-04-19-1
YouTube video by ringwiss
www.youtube.com
February 10, 2026 at 5:12 PM
For no particular reason...
The last time the previous question was defeated on a rule was in 1988. ⬇️
(The amendment that was then offered was kind of complicated, but in essence it allowed an education bill to be amended to add a ban on dial-a-porn.)
The last time the previous question was defeated on a rule was in 1988. ⬇️
(The amendment that was then offered was kind of complicated, but in essence it allowed an education bill to be amended to add a ban on dial-a-porn.)
The House will be structuring the SAVE Act as an amendment to a Senate bill, so that the Senate doesn’t have to deal with a debatable motion to proceed.
But you can filibuster a motion to proceed even if it’s nondebatable, such that it becomes necessary to use cloture:
But you can filibuster a motion to proceed even if it’s nondebatable, such that it becomes necessary to use cloture:
February 7, 2026 at 10:56 PM
The House will be structuring the SAVE Act as an amendment to a Senate bill, so that the Senate doesn’t have to deal with a debatable motion to proceed.
But you can filibuster a motion to proceed even if it’s nondebatable, such that it becomes necessary to use cloture:
But you can filibuster a motion to proceed even if it’s nondebatable, such that it becomes necessary to use cloture:
Reposted by ringwiss
Talking Filibuster Explainer
Probably more than you wanted to know
open.substack.com
February 4, 2026 at 9:32 PM
Speaking of the talking filibuster (though this happens a lot)...
No senator is seeking recognition, and the Senate is not in a quorum call, so why is the chair not putting the question on the pending nomination?
No senator is seeking recognition, and the Senate is not in a quorum call, so why is the chair not putting the question on the pending nomination?
February 5, 2026 at 3:29 PM
Speaking of the talking filibuster (though this happens a lot)...
No senator is seeking recognition, and the Senate is not in a quorum call, so why is the chair not putting the question on the pending nomination?
No senator is seeking recognition, and the Senate is not in a quorum call, so why is the chair not putting the question on the pending nomination?
Re the talking filibuster:
There was not even a second of debate (not even irrelevant debate) on this nomination. Was cloture *really* necessary?
There was not even a second of debate (not even irrelevant debate) on this nomination. Was cloture *really* necessary?
By a party-line vote of 49-44, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Nicholas Jon Ganjei to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. Senators not voting: Duckworth, Graham, Kim, Lujan, McConnell, Paul, and Tillis.
February 3, 2026 at 7:58 PM
Re the talking filibuster:
There was not even a second of debate (not even irrelevant debate) on this nomination. Was cloture *really* necessary?
There was not even a second of debate (not even irrelevant debate) on this nomination. Was cloture *really* necessary?
Private bills!
Sadly, they were considered by UC, not through the Private Calendar.
Sadly, they were considered by UC, not through the Private Calendar.
February 3, 2026 at 7:26 PM
Private bills!
Sadly, they were considered by UC, not through the Private Calendar.
Sadly, they were considered by UC, not through the Private Calendar.
This would be slightly more exciting if Congress followed the parliamentary rule that rejecting a motion to concur is equivalent to disagreeing to the amendments.
February 3, 2026 at 7:05 PM
This would be slightly more exciting if Congress followed the parliamentary rule that rejecting a motion to concur is equivalent to disagreeing to the amendments.
It’s that time of the week again.
February 3, 2026 at 4:56 PM
It’s that time of the week again.
Any guesses as to how many floor amendments are made in order by the rule...?
February 3, 2026 at 4:13 PM
Any guesses as to how many floor amendments are made in order by the rule...?
For the first time this Congress, the speaker has referred a Senate bill to committee. If anyone was hoping to bring this bill up using a discharge petition, you’re in luck!
February 3, 2026 at 2:13 PM
For the first time this Congress, the speaker has referred a Senate bill to committee. If anyone was hoping to bring this bill up using a discharge petition, you’re in luck!
The first thing I look at in a special rule will forever be the last line of each section.
February 3, 2026 at 3:17 AM
The first thing I look at in a special rule will forever be the last line of each section.
The last time the House considered Senate amendments in the 🐄 without the help of a special rule, members really struggled with it, so much so, I guess, that one member decided to interrupt the proceedings to request an indefinite leave of absence.
February 3, 2026 at 2:27 AM
The last time the House considered Senate amendments in the 🐄 without the help of a special rule, members really struggled with it, so much so, I guess, that one member decided to interrupt the proceedings to request an indefinite leave of absence.
Reposted by ringwiss
The House could also adjourn for a moment or two after the rule is reported, but that, too, might be a little too sophisticated for them.
February 1, 2026 at 2:12 AM
The House could also adjourn for a moment or two after the rule is reported, but that, too, might be a little too sophisticated for them.