If the filibuster is racist, so are the Democrats who used and defended it
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In their quest to overturn the legislative filibuster and fast track President Biden's radical agenda, Democrats have deployed one of their favorite tools: the race card.
© Provided by Washington Examiner
"The filibuster has deep roots in racism," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren last week, "and it should not be permitted to serve that function or to create a veto for the minority."
Warren argued that the filibuster, a legislative stall-tactic that takes 60 votes to overturn, was created to allow "the South the ability to veto any effective civil rights legislation or anti-lynching legislation." Indeed, Democrats used the filibuster for exactly that purpose when Republicans were working to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Regardless, the filibuster itself is not a racist tool of oppression, as Democrats have argued. They should know this better than anyone, since they used it so often and so doggedly throughout the Trump administration. Warren herself joined a filibuster to block Sen. Tim Scott's police reform bill this past year. Sen. Ed Markey, who agreed with Warren that the filibuster is "rooted in a racist past," signed a bipartisan letter in 2017 defending its use. Was the filibuster not racist then?
Warren is lying, as is Markey. So are all the other disingenuous Democrats who repeat her talking points. They're hypocrites who gladly used the filibuster to block the Republican agenda when the GOP was in the majority, and most of the Democratic caucus defended the filibuster as "an important tradition of the Senate" just a few years ago. By their own standards, Democrats enabled racism.
Democrats should either apologize for defending and using the "Jim Crow filibuster," as Rep. Brian Schatz now likes to call it, or they should admit that they would call their own grandmothers racist if it helped them remove obstacles to total power. It stands in the way of H.R. 1, the Equality Act, student loan debt forgiveness, climate change legislation and every single other policy they know Republicans won't agree to. Instead of working toward compromises that can attract 60 votes, or accepting limitations on their power, Democrats want to bulldoze the entire process and make sure Republicans don't have a say.
But Democrats ought to keep in mind that no party ever holds the majority for long. Democrats barely even hold a majority as it is. Eventually Republicans will be back in power. And then they'll have the run of the land, and Democrats won't be able to do anything about it.
Tags:Beltway Confidential, Opinion, Senate, Filibuster, Racism, Elizabeth Warren, Democrats
Original Author:Kaylee McGhee White
Original Location:If the filibuster is racist, so are the Democrats who used and defended it
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
Do Democrats have anything other than the race card?
Speaking of cards: "President Biden's radical agenda".
= doing more for the poor and middle class in 2 months than any republican has in the last 50 years.
It is what it is.
Did you bother to read the article, or try to understand what the topic is?
It isn't what it isn't.
Now that we've solved that triteness ... /S
No need to be upset that the Democrats are being called out for their rank hypocrisy.
The 'left' may exhibit "rank hypocrisy", but Trumpists exhibit skank hypocrisy.
Still fixated on Trump, eh?
Rent free in liberal heads for over 4 years now, and still going strong, apparently!
Unlike where ever Donald lives, my head is a Covid free zone.
Gee, that's just swell!
Fixated? Trump was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the worst president in US history. It isn't possible to be overly concerned with the damage that asshole has done to our country and it's politics.
It's your head he occupies as you demean yourself by defending such a moron.
Yes, that is what I wrote. Do you really need an explanation?
It is beyond obvious that you are still fixated on him--as many of us here predicted.
Why don't you try to show us all where I defended Trump on this article? You know, back up your rather ludicrous claims? Instead of taking potshots you can't logically and honestly defend?
Speaking of which...
Isn't it great to no longer have this site polluted by hundreds or thousands of "I hate Trump" seeds over the course of four years. It really was old and pretty much everybody got tired of seeing them.
John, do you know what happened to that person?
But Democrats ought to keep in mind that no party ever holds the majority for long. Democrats barely even hold a majority as it is. Eventually Republicans will be back in power. And then they'll have the run of the land, and Democrats won't be able to do anything about it.
The poor dopey Dem dummies think the have a mandate to rule forever. They never seem to think or plan ahead. If they intend to play this card, I'm sure McConnell will make good on his threat
When Republicans are in power, it's sacred. Just imagine if McConnell had gotten rid of the filibuster in 2017. The cries of fascism, dictatorship, the destruction of democracy etc...would have been deafening.
When Democrats have the narrowest possible control of the Senate, the Filibuster is the tool of fascists and destroying democracy etc..
It's amazing how they can even function with that kind of whiplash.
It can be said that while not explicitly stated, the Constitution and its authors envisioned merely a simple majority of votes would be used to conduct day to day congressional business. The Constitution does state that a majority of each House constitutes a quorum to do business while just a small number of super-majority requirements were explicitly included in the original document, including conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate), expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question), overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses), ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate) and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).
We know most of the founders did not support endless debate for regular congressional business as Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward."
In 1789 the first US Senate adopted a rule to close debate and proceed to a vote by a simple majority. Arron Bur and others argued this was redundant and the rule had only been used once in any prior Senate and was eventually removed in 1806. This of course cleared the way for endless debate aka the filibuster which wasn't used until 1837 by a group of Whig Senators to prevent allies of Democratic Republican President Andrew Jackson from expunging the previous censure that was made against him.
Now it's true that the filibuster was been used commonly to try to protect and uphold slavery and then later it was used to block civil rights so what Senator Warren said was true, "The filibuster has deep roots in racism". However, this does not mean the filibuster in of itself is racist, but the intent of some in the minority who are racist can use it with racist intent as they have done previously.
Today we live in a deeply divided nation, one that seems as divided now as it was pre-civil war, which two major factions vying for power and refusing to compromise. To try and change the filibuster rules now would only seem to pave the way for further division even if it allowed more to get done by either party that was in power. Yes, it can be used by some for racist means, so call it out when some choose to do that as I'm sure the party not in power now will, but to change the rules now simply for expedience's sake will have long lasting and deeply troubling results for many years to come. Personally, I don't believe the filibuster should be removed or changed to a simple majority vote, but I do think that it should go back to its original form which was where legislators had to actually keep debating instead of this moronic rule where you can just proclaim you're using a filibuster to stop any legislation the majority is trying to pass without actually having to stand and debate.