I’m personally happy that the filibuster has never been introduced in the House of Representatives. Not because of the fact that I’m a legislative traditionalist, mind you. It’s just that I don’t like to see House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have to eat his words on a weekly basis.
Those of you tuning into C-SPAN Thursday probably saw a lot of Jeffries, a New York representative who began leading the Democratic caucus in 2023. In fact, his nearly nine hours of speaking in opposition to the One Big Beautiful Bill reconciliation package that passed the Senate earlier this week was the longest speech in House history.
Not that it helped any, with the vote finally totaling 218 to 214. In the end, only two Republicans voted against the package — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Massie because it spent too much and Fitzpatrick because it spent too little.
However, while the Jeffries’ speech was not a filibuster in fact — that would be a speech during which cloture cannot be invoked — it essentially was in spirit. That’s because there were a lot of Republicans on the fence and the Democrats were likely trying to woo them. Thus, stalling for time became imperative.
“I feel the obligation Mr. Speaker to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time,” Jeffries said, “to tell the stories of the American people.”
“And that’s exactly what I intend to do: take my sweet time,” he said to applause from House Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries: “I feel the obligation Mr. Speaker to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time.”
He’s actively delaying final vote on the budget bill, giving Americans more time to call their representatives. pic.twitter.com/XU7eOMCMbH
— Aaron Parnas (@AaronParnas) July 3, 2025
And no one was under the misapprehension that this was anything substantive. From belligerent leftist popinjay Brian Krassenstein: “Hakeem Jeffries has been speaking on the House floor for the last 4 hours straight trying to prevent the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ from being passed.” The clip he included was the “take my sweet time” one, indicating everyone also knew he didn’t have a whole lot to say but a lot of time to say it and the potential to sway GOP votes behind the scenes.
BREAKING: Hakeem Jeffries has been speaking on the House floor for the last 4 hours straight trying to prevent the “Big Beautiful Bill” from being passed:
“I feel the obligation Mr. Speaker to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time.” pic.twitter.com/N3QiUjruV4
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) July 3, 2025
Even the wire services concurred. From The Associated Press:
There’s no filibuster in the House, but Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries essentially conducted one anyway.
Jeffries held the House floor for more than eight hours Thursday, taking his “sweet time” with a marathon floor speech that delayed passage of Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts legislation and gave his minority party a lengthy spotlight to excoriate what he called an “immoral” bill.
As Democratic leader, Jeffries can speak for as long as he wants during debate on legislation — hence its nickname on Capitol Hill, the “magic minute,” that lasts as long as leaders are speaking.
In other words, while there’s no wide filibuster in the House, thanks to his position as party leader, Jeffries is able to speak as long as he wants to.
This is all pretty humorous when you consider both the outcome of the final vote and what Jeffries has said about filibuster tactics when used in the Senate: namely, that they’re a vestige of the Jim Crow era and need to be abolished.
Hakeem Jefrries in 2022: The filibuster is dripping in racist history and defense of slavery and Jim Crow
He’s been speaking now for nearly 9 hours pic.twitter.com/Y7aS0bjjHP
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 3, 2025
Jeffries, speaking on the subject of Democratic-led voting rules legislation tied up by the filibuster process in the Senate, promised to get it passed “by any means necessary.”
That included “reforming a filibuster rule that is dripping in racist history in defense of slavery and Jim Crow.”
“I guess it’s not racist anymore,” one commentator noted.
Does anyone else remember Hakeem Jeffries referring to the filibuster rule as, “Dripping in racist history, in defense of slavery and Jim Crow”?
I guess it’s not racist anymore. pic.twitter.com/BES8CduzXe
— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) July 3, 2025
Naturally, it wasn’t racist then, and Jeffries wasn’t the only member of Democrat leadership using this type of language to attempt to militate against Republicans and more moderate Democrats supporting the maintenance of the filibuster rule, which requires 60 senators to close debate on most topics.
For instance, if former President Joe Biden really is still as sharp as a tack, he’ll remember saying this: “So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered? At consequential moments in history, they present a choice. Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
My guess is that he probably doesn’t. But then, like Jeffries, he was also a supporter of the legislative tactic when it suited his purposes. Unlike Jeffries, Biden was a senator, and unlike Jeffries, Biden never had another chance to put his words to the test. Not only did Jeffries effectively support the filibuster with his speech Thursday, he expanded it by setting a precedent that party leaders could effectively engage in the same kind of tactics straight out of “racist history” if they thought it helped their chances on critical votes.
Stunts like these are why the Democrats are falling so drastically far behind Republicans: The left says something Republicans are doing is evil, then as soon as they get the power to do that thing, they themselves do it. Then they’ll decry it again when the tables are turned.
Solid work, Mr. Minority Leader: Not only did you not get your way, you now opened Pandora’s box to filibustering in the lower chamber, as well. You were — to use your own words — acting “in defense of slavery and Jim Crow.” I’m sure you’ll own that, no?
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Read the full article here