Biden Falsely Calls Filibuster ‘Jim Crow Relic,’ So Why Did Democrats Use It So Much Just Last Year?
In 2005, then-Senators Biden and Obama fought to protect the filibuster, and the videos of their speeches put the lie to what they are saying now.
Before last year’s presidential election, Democrats promised their supporters that they would work to eliminate the filibuster should they regain control of the Senate.
“And as for the filibuster, I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing,” then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said during a September interview.
But well before Democrats won the two Georgia Senate seats in the January runoffs, members of their party were throwing wrenches into the process by declaring they would not support their side’s attempts at nuking the filibuster.
For instance, as Democrats like Schumer were taking to the streets to celebrate the media projecting Joe Biden as the winner, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was pouring ice-cold water on his hopes for ending the filibuster.
“Let me be clear: I will not vote to pack the courts & I will not vote to end the filibuster,” Manchin said during a November appearance on Fox News. “If you get rid of the filibuster, there’s no reason to have a Senate.” He has reiterated his position numerous times. His colleague Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) strongly agrees with him.
Because Democrats now view senators within their ranks as obstacles to achieve Biden’s plan, Democrats, including Biden, make Jim Crow comparisons as a not so subtle way of pressuring Manchin and Sinema to reconsider.
Biden previously stated through White House press secretary Jen Psaki that his preference was not to eliminate the filibuster.
On Thursday, a reporter asked Biden about the filibuster during his press conference. He indicated that he agreed with former President Obama’s characterization last year of the filibuster as “a relic of the Jim Crow era”:
President Joe Biden said Thursday during the first formal news conference of his presidency that he agreed with former President Barack Obama that the filibuster “was a relic of the Jim Crow era,” but stressed his immediate focus was addressing abuse of the rule.
Asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins if he agreed with Obama’s characterization of the controversial procedural tool, which came during the former President’s eulogy last summer for the late Democratic congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis, Biden replied, “Yes.”
Watch:
.@kaitlancollins: "Do you agree that the filibuster is a relic of the Jim Crow era?"
BIDEN: "Yes."@kaitlancollins: "Why not abolish it if it's a relic of the Jim Crow era?"
BIDEN: "Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible." pic.twitter.com/MVCFoAHGZL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 25, 2021
A simple Google search of “filibuster Jim Crow” shows repeated attempts by left-wing sites and even some mainstream media news outlets at backing up Obama’s claim about it being a “relic” of the Jim Crow era.
As usual, however, the matter’s facts are quite different from what Democrats are making them out to be.
First things first: The filibuster existed well before the Jim Crow era. To the extent it was used to block civil rights legislation during the Jim Crow era, let us note that it was Democrats who were utilizing the tool.
Some of the Democrats wanting to change or end the filibuster felt differently about its use when they were in the minority. Take then-Sen. Barack Obama, for instance:
Sen. Barack Obama in 2005 vigorously defending the filibuster, which he now decries as a “Jim Crow relic:” pic.twitter.com/ha6OrW2vzK
— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) March 25, 2021
Then-Sen. Joe Biden in 2005:
In 2005, Sen. Joe Biden argued the filibuster was a crucial constitutional tool, and doing away with it “eviscerates minority rights” pic.twitter.com/qTwG69Rf5x
— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) March 25, 2021
Then-SEN. BIDEN (5/23/2005): “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put unlimited debate in. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation.” pic.twitter.com/AnmfRsaKpk
— Senate Republican Communications Center (@SRCC) January 25, 2021
Schumer, in 2017:
SEN. SCHUMER in 2017: “The legislative filibuster… is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. Without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution like the House… no Senator would like to see that happen." pic.twitter.com/FXHN3nIx0I
— Senate Republican Communications Center (@SRCC) March 16, 2021
27 Senate Democrats signed a letter in 2017 urging Republicans to keep the filibuster in place:
If the filibuster is a holdover from the Jim Crow era why did 27 Democrats sign a 2017 letter encouraging the GOP to not abolish the filibuster when we were in charge?
President Biden & his Democratic colleagues are taking hypocrisy to a new level.
https://t.co/PL64wgJvGu— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 25, 2021
Biden made another comment about the filibuster during his presser Thursday that deserves correcting as well (bolded emphasis added):
You know, with regard to the filibuster, I believe we should go back to a position on the filibuster that existed just when I came to the United States Senate 120 years ago. And that is that — it used to be required for the filibuster — and I had a card on this; I was going to give you the statistics, but you probably know them — that it used to be that, that from between 1917 to 1971 — the filibuster existed — there was a total of 58 motions to break a filibuster that whole time. Last year alone, there were five times that many. So it’s being abused in a gigantic way.
Biden failed to mention the Democrats have recently abused the filibuster. They used it a record-breaking number of times during Trump’s presidency, including on COVID relief bills last year as well as on a police reform bill authored by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC):
Also basically all of the filibusters over the past few years before Ossoff/Warnock were elected were from Democrats. Democrats were just engaging in nonstop Jim Crow tactics between 2015-2021?
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) March 25, 2021
Press conf a “pillow fight” per @TGowdySC re filibuster, suggesting a follow up: “Mr. President, was it a racist relic when your Vice President used it less than a year ago to stop police reform that was being authored by a black man named Tim Scott?” #SpecialReport pic.twitter.com/tGeUOcY6G6
— Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) March 25, 2021
So I guess going by their rules, Democrats committed racism when they used the so-called “Jim Crow relic” to stall a bill written by a black Republican Senator.
You seriously could not make this stuff up if you tried.
While Biden did not outright come out in support of eliminating the filibuster during his press conference, his comments yesterday and reports in recent weeks suggest he’s now open to the possibility if he can’t get his big-ticket items rammed through.
So much for unity and healing.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When are people going to learn?
Stop remembering things! Memory lies! Believe only what they (the left – never the right) tell you NOW. And obey!!!!!!
It’s a good thing Biden’s not in charge.
Joe Biden is a Jim Crow relic.
Has anybody figured out yet what “Jim Eagle” is, and whether or not Biden ever belonged to it? It sounds like the Democrat equivalent of Skull & Bones.
My theory is that Biden couldn’t remember who he was supposed to denigrate, so in the moment he invented “Jim Eagle”, who you know is really bad because eagles are bigger than crows.
Did he support the filibuster a 120 years ago when he first came into the senate? I didn’t realize how long he was in the senate. Maybe is just seems like a 120 years.
Why? Because democrats will do anything, say anything, lie, cheat, steal, bully, threaten and pull the most unbelievable shit to get their way while republicans sit back and let them; with even a few rinos coming out of the closet to join them. That’s why.
Just more projection.
Biden is a ‘Jim Crow Relic,’
Oh man! Stole my line! Sorry, I posted before I saw yours.
Great minds think alike, but grater minds think more quickly.
I agree that the filibuster has become part of the way our country works, and it should not be repealed, but let’s not exaggerate. I would like to know how anyone can with a completely straight face defend the legitimacy of a tactic whose very name proclaims it to be an act of piracy. Yes, it’s now legitimate, but the fact that we still call it a “filibuster” should be a constant reminder of its illegitimate origin.
A filibuster is the minority (originally just one senator, now at least 40) holding up the business of the senate, and holding the senate hostage. That’s why it’s called a filibuster. When it was first used it was an illegitimate abuse of an accidental loophole in the senate rules that nobody had noticed for the previous 30 years.
Biden’s claim in 2005 that “the Founders put unlimited debate in. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation” is typical of his utter ignorance of the constitution (which was on display in his debate with Palin). The founders did not put it in, it was not part of the original design of the congress, it didn’t exist for the first 20 years or so, and it was first used 30 years after that.
Nevertheless, it has become part of how the senate works, and over the course of almost 200 years the senate has dozens of times refused to change it, so by now it would be wrong to do so. Not unconstitutional, just wrong.
Everything has to start somewhere, and governmental process is in a constant state of evolution (sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but I digress). The filibuster is one such mutant creature that crawled out of the primordial ooze of the Senate and has proven to be a net positive to the whole of government over its lifetime as it adapted to change (going from 2/3 of the Senate to overrule, down to 3/5).
As Mitch has implied, if the Dems move to eliminate this useful tool of bipartisanship, there should be one Republican Senator sitting in the chambers at all times to answer all Democrat requests for unanimous consent with “I object” for as many painful weeks as it takes for them to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and realize that it is a train.
Meh. For one thing the Franz von Papen Republicans lack the stones to actually do it (wouldn’t want to be accused of “violent insurrection”). For another, why wouldn’t the Chair simply ignore the Senate rules and refuse to hear the objection? Is this more Failure Theater by McConnell, or is he really dense enough to believe what he is saying?
This is what McConnell and the rest of the von Papen Republican fail to understand: the country ceased to be a Constitutional republic on January 6 when the stolen presidential election was rubber-stamped by the cowardly GOP. In colluding with the Communists to dump Trump and flip off Republican voters they have cut their own political throats and installed a Communist dictatorship. From now on the focus of the Communists will be to consolidate their power and sweep away the remaining opposition.
You gotta love leading off with an etymological objection to a procedure, but your logic of asking how can anyone “defend” this tactic with “a straight face”, but to change it would be “wrong” is plainly incoherent.
Are you just trying to prep the space for when Manchin votes to end it when you said he wouldn’t?
Relax Milly, it’s part of the ecosystem. Dems just want to disrupt that ecosystem and bring on climate change so they can bitch about it!
Said before the Senate run off and hold still today.
The Leftists are on a roll and won’t be stopped until taken down.
End filibusters, end opposition elections, we will all be Californians soon living under the Leftists rules.
No surprises here. Pound Me Too is a sacred unbreakable principle that must be discarded if the perp’s name is Biden* or Cuomo or Clinton. Raping, burning, looting, and murder in the name of Black Lives Matter is peaceful protesting, while peaceful protesting is violent armed insurrection. Election results are never to be questioned, except when they are.
Sealing the steal…. The Left now feels comfortable that they can dispense with the tools they needed to protect their agenda and can push as they wish. Getting rid of the filibuster means they assume perpetual control of the Senate and House and never have to “defend” again. They sense that they are just a few laws away from permanent control of the country. They are so close to perfecting their “precious democracy”.
Rule 22, a Woodrow Wilson era rule was the first step to eliminate the filibuster and it required 67 votes for cloture, in 1975 it was reduced to 60 votes.
In fairness I wouldn’t be opposed to requiring a Senator or group of Senators to hold the floor and actually filibuster. I realize the change away from requiring a ‘talking’ filibuster to simply asserting a filibuster was made to allow the Senate to continue to operate.
IMO, a return of the actual spectacle of requiring a real filibuster where rickety kneed Senators must remain physically present, standing and talking would be much better for the Nation as a general proposition.
I really wish people would seizing on Democrat hypocrisy and acting like it’s going to do anything.
They don’t even see it as hypocrisy. They see it as perfectly logical.
They exploited the filibuster because it was beneficial to Democrats, and now it is no longer beneficial to Democrats, they are going to get rid of it.
They think the RINOs were stupid and weak to let them exploit it, and now they think they’ll permanently be in power, so they’re removing the filibuster.
And on the off chance that their cheating won’t keep them in power, they fully expect the weak-kneed surrender monkeys led by Bitch McConnell to put it back in place.
“They exploited the filibuster because it was beneficial to Democrats, and now it is no longer beneficial to Democrats, they are going to get rid of it.”
There is no principle, only power.
What difference at this point does the filibuster make? In a 50-50 Senate the Communists should be sweating each vote. Yet the Biden* nominees have been sailing through far easier that Trump’s nominees ever did (and Republicans had a larger majority than the Communists did). Many nominees get a dozen or more Republican votes.
Why would the filibuster slow down the Communists if the Franz von Papen Republicans will end up making it irrelevant anyway?
Yup, the Republicans are morons. They should be voting in bloc unison against each and every Biden nominee for EVERY politically appointed position and force giggles to use up her time breaking ties.
But they don’t have the solidarity Democrats do. If one Democrat gets out of line and votes against the narrative, somebody shoots her dog. Republicans cross the street willy-nilly, because that’s where the sweet vice is.
“Biden Falsely Calls Filibuster ‘Jim Crow Relic,’ So Why Did Democrats Use It So Much Just Last Year?”
This headline answers itself, doesn’t it?
Quiz: Jim Crow laws were written by _________________ politicians, and enacted by ___________________ state legislatures.
Biden’s recent remarks are a brazen perversion of the Bart Simpson Defense: “We did it, but we got rid of the history books that proved it, and nobody can blame us for it anymore.”
If Democrats love reparations so much, Democrats should pay them.
Oh, the Constitution of the United States. I remember you well. I miss having political leaders who defended and upheld you.
If our newly installed federal government is hiding behind razor wire fencing and requires a standing army to protect them because they are trying to take your guns, there’s a good chance they’re not really concerned with our safety.