Tea at Trianon: The SAVE Act

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, February 12, 2026

The SAVE Act

From Alexander Muse at Amuse on X:

In the modern Senate, the illusion of the indefinite filibuster is sustained by a set of informal practices. Leaders usually file cloture before real debate begins. Unanimous consent agreements limit speech. Legislative days are routinely allowed to lapse. Quorum calls are used as naps rather than tools. These practices create the impression that the minority can talk forever. In reality, they can do so only with majority acquiescence.
Suppose the SAVE Act is brought to the floor without a cloture motion. Democrats announce a talking filibuster. What happens next is governed not by myth but by arithmetic and biology. To delay the vote, Democratic senators must continuously speak. They may not sit. They may not leave the chamber without yielding the floor. They may not sleep in any meaningful way. Rule XIX limits each senator to two speeches per legislative day. Germaneness disputes can be raised. The presiding officer has discretion. These constraints matter little at first. They matter enormously after exhaustion sets in.
Among Senate scholars and parliamentary historians, there is a strong consensus on how long such an effort can last. Without cloture, but with a continuous legislative day, a determined minority can realistically sustain debate somewhere between 24 and 72 hours. That range appears repeatedly in academic analyses, memoirs of former parliamentarians, and interviews with ex-leaders from both parties. Beyond that window, collapse becomes likely unless the majority blinks for political reasons.
Why this ceiling? The first constraint is physical. Speaking continuously is far more taxing than most imagine. Cognitive degradation begins well before total physical collapse. Even exceptional speakers deteriorate quickly. Huey Long, operating alone and with extraordinary rhetorical stamina, lasted roughly 15 hours. Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour filibuster remains an outlier, dependent on careful preparation and circumstances that no longer exist. No modern Senate has replicated it under hostile floor management.
Rotation helps, but only briefly. To sustain a 72-hour filibuster, Democrats would need dozens of senators willing to speak, disciplined handoffs with no gaps, physical presence in Washington at all times, and constant readiness through nights and weekends. This is not merely difficult. It is historically unprecedented outside moments of existential crisis. Modern caucuses are not built for this level of coordination. Senators have committees, media obligations, and human limits. The bench empties faster than the models assume. (Read more.)