Joe Biden's Filibuster Hypocrisy

January 19, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (10)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Vice President Joe Biden has a short memory.

While speaking Sunday at a fundraising event in Florida, the vice president denounced the Republicans' use of the filibuster to block key Democratic initiatives in the U.S. Senate. "As long as I have served," Politico quoted Biden as saying, "I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators." Adding, "No democracy has survived needing a supermajority," Biden described the parliamentary tactics of the GOP as putting what the paper said was "a dangerous new roadblock in the way of American government."

What is truly amazing about the vice president's observation, however, is that he apparently made it with a straight face. Biden, who served in the Senate for more than 30 years, was a longtime proponent of the filibuster as a way to block Republican presidential appointments and legislative initiatives. He was also an active opponent, on philosophical grounds, of the so-called nuclear option, a Republican effort to change the rules of the Senate to end the filibuster as a way to block judicial nominations. 

Speaking on the Senate floor in May of 2005, Biden said, "At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation." 

When the Senate was considering President George W. Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court, Biden held out the prospect of a filibuster to block it. "If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision … then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court," Biden said, adding, "That would include a filibuster, if need be." 

During his years in the Senate, Biden could be counted on to routinely join Democratic efforts to support filibusters of Republican programs--from the second President Bush's energy bill to the first President Bush's effort to cut the tax on capital gains in order to stimulate the U.S. economy and blunt the impact of the early-'90s recession. Now that he is vice president, and the entire Obama agenda is imperiled, he has changed his mind in an apparent deathbed conversion. It won't last. 

Tags:
Joe Biden

Reader Comments Read all comments (10)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

in this Senate session is unprecedented! 112 so far since 2007, versus 54 from 2005 - 2007...think about it. Your hypothesis lacks truth.

jham of CA 9:33PM February 11, 2010

Hmm. As a socialist myself, I'd like to hear your definition of the concept. Certainly bailing out Wall Street and having taxpayers pick up the tab is not any form of socialism that I know. Allowing private contractors to continue to profit off the war and not be held accountable for when they kill innocent civilians doesn't sound like any socialism that I know. Is letting drug companies continue to make extreme profits while not ensuring universal coverage socialist? Not in my understanding of the concept. Look, I"m not an Obama supporter (since I am after all, a socialist), but I have heard him be criticized by the right for being a socialist and for excepting a ton of special interest money from Wall Street. You may try to make a case for one of those things, but you certainly can't make a case for both at the same time.

And as for letting the Republicans have a seat at the table, at no point in the Bush administration did the Republicans care about having Democrats at the table.

OldMan of NJ 6:25PM January 29, 2010

How much you want to bet that his Uncle never, ever uttered those words. What a moronic phony.

Steve of ME 1:02PM January 28, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement