Elizabeth Warren Silenced By Republicans For Quoting Coretta Scott King!

I dont know too much about Elizabeth Warren other then seeing her speak up for Hillary during the race. She really stuck it to Donald ! I thought she was tough and spirited and had a real confidence and energy that i always wanted Hillary to have.

0 Replies

@George,

Quote George:

Quote:

I think that technically she did [break the rule].
The rule says "directly or indirectly" and "by any form of words". This would
include quoting a letter.

Okay, what do the rules say? Lets see:

Quote:

2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

See? Elizabeth Warren didn't break any rules. The letter Elizabeth read in no way said directly or indirectly that Jeff Sessions is unworthy of being a Senator. The letter from Mrs, King merely said that Senator Sessions has shown himself unworthy of being a Federal judge. There are different criteria for the two positions.

A Federal judge has to prove him or herself to be capable of judgment, sobriety, legal knowledge and respect for legal traditons. A Senator is elected by his own state for whatever reasons they choose, and there is no requirement at all that he or she be capable of judgment, sobriety, legal knowledge or respect for legal traditions. In fact, in order to be seated as a Senator about the only requirement is that you not be not obviously engaged in multiple felonies at at the moment and not be clearly mentally ill or intoxicated. Otherwise, what's good enough for the voters back home is good enough for the US Senate.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You are speechless because the Senate has rules? Or that Senator Warren decided to break them and was shut for doing so?

I thought he was just making a joke. Her speech was stopped. And he used the word speechless.

Maybe not though. Sometimes puns can be accidental.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

The Democrats had eight years of the Republicans blocking and obstructing at every turn.

Not really. The Democrats are just claiming this to make excuses for Mr. Obama's failure to achieve anything after 2010.

Also, what little obstruction the Republicans did engage in was just protest against Democratic abuses.

George wrote:

Now they will return the favor for at least the next four years.

I'm sure they'd like to be able to do so. But the Republicans are sick of their crap and will simply abolish any Senate rule that the Democrats use to oppose Mr. Trump's agenda.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The Democrats are just claiming this to make excuses for Mr. Obama's failure to achieve anything after 2010.

Ten million new Full Time jobs since 2010 is hardly nothing.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

But the Republicans are sick of their crap and will simply abolish any Senate rule that the Democrats use to oppose Mr. Trump's agenda.

The Democrats didn't do that t he Republicans when they were in control of Congress. The Senate has a tradition of etiquette which has distinguished it from the more rough-and-tumble House for over 100 years. Now the Republicans are going to throw that away for their momentary advantage?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

The Democrats didn't do that t he Republicans when they were in control of Congress.

I recall the filibuster being abolished for most judicial nominations.

Blickers wrote:

The Senate has a tradition of etiquette which has distinguished it from the more rough-and-tumble House for over 100 years. Now the Republicans are going to throw that away for their momentary advantage?

When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, yes. Without hesitation.

For blocking legislation, it depends. The Republicans prefer to retain a full set of tools for blocking legislation in the future. But they ultimately will not allow Mr. Trump's agenda to be blocked.

---- Off topic: Wow! I just heard that Charlie Rose is having heart surgery tomorrow. I hope he survives.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Not joking. Did read Blickers' reasoning? I thought it was valid.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Not joking.

Ah. Apologies.

roger wrote:

Did read Blickers' reasoning? I thought it was valid.

I read it, but at the moment I'm not really following politics closely (apart from the push to repeal Obama's horrible executive orders on guns).

I see Trump as leading off 20 years of Republican control over the White House, so in my view the current political fights are not of much significance. I think Trump has already won these fights. Everyone just has to go through the motions to make it happen.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

roger wrote:
Not joking.

Ah. Apologies.

None needed. I was not offended

0 Replies

Yes, the Republicans probably should have allowed Warren to blather on, but maybe the explanation for McConnell's action is less complicated than all this discussion implies. Maybe his action was not a calculated scheme, but just a gut level reaction. Maybe he just couldn't stand to hear her voice droning on about how Sessions is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, sexist, serial killer, child murderer, minion of Satan, blah, blah, blah anymore, and somewhere in the middle of the King letter, he just snapped.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You forgot to add that he was totally against any equal rights for women, (different than just misogyny).
No doubt that Sessions will be confirmed this making the Trump administration the greatest example of "political dressage" since Earl Butz, Robert McNamara, or James Watt.

1 Reply

Silencing Warren had little to do with an obscure rule which didn't even apply (if it did, why did they let other senators read it later on?) but an attempt to silence the words of Coretta Scott King who wrote about the racist behavior of Sessions while Sessions was a US attorney in Alabama.

Republicans on defensive after silencing Warren in Senate debate

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

. . . Also, what little obstruction the Republicans did engage in was just
protest against Democratic abuses. . .

Just switch the party names around and you've got what the Democrats will
be saying.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Maybe you're right because somehow a lying, shrieking harridan was elected to the US Senate by the voters of Mass.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Utter nonsense.

Yes, the big bad racist Republicans were trying to silence Coretta Scott King. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote Finn:

Quote:

Maybe you're right because somehow a lying, shrieking harridan was elected to the US Senate by the voters of Mass.

That's conservative code for a woman who says stuff which makes us uncomfortable. And she was quoting a woman too so it's a double whammy.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

That is certainly how it reads.

Not sure if that is the intention but that is the received message.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're a big fan of King.

1 Reply

This guy has a lot of insight into Jeff Sessions, eh?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You forgot to add that he was totally against any equal rights for women, (different than just misogyny).
No doubt that Sessions will be confirmed this making the Trump administration the greatest example of "political dressage" since Earl Butz, Robert McNamara, or James Watt.

Sorry, I forgot misogynist.

0 Replies

Elizabeth Warren Silenced By Republicans For Quoting Coretta Scott King!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know