Harry Reid's Filibuster Outburst

Harry Reid didn't distinguish himself today:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.  ...

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'" 

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. 

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today." 

Well, let's ponder that a minute. In the first place, let's note that it was Democrats who were the principal prop of slavery in the antebellum years. It was then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond who voting rights legislation in 1957. It was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the second place, James Madison said that the constitutional purpose of the Senate is to be an "anchor" of government. George Washington said the Senate was created to cool legislation, just as one might pour tea into a saucer to cool it. The Senate isn't supposed to be a fast moving body.

In the third place, where was Harry Reid's concern for speed when he was blocking things like George Bush's judicial nominees? Let's go to the record:

Democrats are refusing to forgo filibusters and say they will fight any effort by Frist to act unilaterally to end them for judicial nominations. They warn that it could poison the well for bipartisan cooperation on other issues in the upcoming Congress.

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

He's singing a new song now, however.

Finally, health care legislation is fundamentally different than slavery and civil rights. In the latter, we are dealing with negative rights. Health care--to the extent it is meaningful at all to talk about it in rights terms--is a positive right. Reid's thus comparing apples and oranges. The crusades against slavery and for civil rights were about freedom. Obamacare is about mandates, expanded government, higher taxes, and larger deficits.  "The men who wrote the Bill of Rights were not concerned that government might do too little for the people but that it might do too much to them." Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1983) (Posner, C.J.).  Me too. Sadly, it's not a concern Senator Reid shares.

Comments

[John R]

"Well, let's ponder that a minute. In the first place, let's note that it was Democrats who were the principal prop of slavery in the antebellum years."

And while we're at it, we can consider that womens suffrage passed over the objections of most Democrats in the Senate.

[Fred Beloit]

The democrats used to favor private slaves. Now they favor enslaving citizens to the government. Slavery is their thing, always has been. By making us dependent on government handouts they are trying to enslave us all.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644884355]

Great observation about Reid. The guy is Orwellian.