Filibuster was busted at the House of Representatives...

When listening to Rush Limbaugh a couple of days ago, he pointed to an article by John A. Barnes at the National Review regarding Reed's Rules, which were enacted by Senator Thomas Brackett Reed (known thereafter as "Czar Reed" after the incident) in 1889, as a response to end a filibuster tactic in which democrats, who were physically there (mentally? I don't know), would refuse to acknowledge being there during roll call, thereby preventing a quorum. The article points out striking, even eery similarities between the conditions in the House of Representatives then, and the conditions in the present day U.S. Senate. For an interesting lesson in history, I would urge all to read this piece. Barnes ends his piece by opining

Majority rule no doubt has its problems, but they pale in comparison with those presented by minority rule. The term was unknown in 1889, but "going nuclear" can be unavoidable when a majority party finds itself caught between keeping faith with its electors and an obstinate minority that simply refuses to yield. "Czar" Reed knew that. Does Sen. Bill Frist?

Just how long will the Republican "Majority" continue to thwart the will of the voting majority constituents? Just when will the Republican "leadership" rein in the RINOs and once again assert their majority status? Right now there are a lot of angry republicans whose deep pockets are going to close wide shut should things not change, and the current Republican "majority" leadership will once again find themselves in the minority (a position in which, by virtue of their inactions, they will beyond a doubt feel the most comfort).