Elizabeth Warren censored by Republicans in Senate - Polidicks

[i]She was accused of 'impugning the conduct' of another Senator, despite the fact he was the subject of debate[/i] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/elizabeth-warren-mitch-mcconnell-silence-senate-debate-jeff-sessions-nomination[/url] [quote]Senate Republicans voted on Tuesday night to silence Elizabeth Warren for reading out a letter from the widow of Martin Luther King during a debate over Senator Jeff Sessions’ nomination for attorney general, eliciting furious response from Democrats. Speaking on the Senate floor, [B]Warren quoted from 30-year-old correspondence from Coretta Scott King [/B]relating to Sessions’ failed judicial nomination in the 1980s. It was part of a barnstorming speech by the Massachusetts Senator against Sessions’ suitability for the post and attacking his record on civil rights. ...[/quote] In what world is this politically advantageous or morally acceptable? Is this the end of any kind of professionalism in the Senate?

Reading a letter from someone who didn't like the person in question has nothing to do with his suitability for the position. If Warren wanted to make an argument herself, then she's welcome to do so, but using the name of Martin Luther King Jr. as some emotional appeal is just low. If she wants to call Sessions a racist, then she should have the courage to stand up there and do it herself without hiding behind the name of "King."

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792643]Reading a letter from someone who didn't like the person in question has nothing to do with his suitability for the position. If Warren wanted to make an argument herself, then she's welcome to do so, but using the name of Martin Luther King Jr. as some emotional appeal is just low. If she wants to call Sessions a racist, then she should have the courage to stand up there and do it herself without hiding behind the name of "King."[/QUOTE] So now it's bad to use credible sources of historical context in debating someone's suitability for an office? Are you a mind reader to say that there was no plan but to simply read a letter and [I]not[/I] make points connecting that context to the current day?

[QUOTE=bitches;51792711]So now it's bad to use credible sources of historical context in debating someone's suitability for an office?[/QUOTE] Credible sources? King's wife making accusations doesn't make the accusations more credible. The letter doesn't go into details or evidence of the claims. Again, if she wanted to claim that Sessions was racist based on decisions he made in the past, then she should make that argument with evidence and research, not by reading emotionally laden letters from well respected names.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792643]Reading a letter from someone who didn't like the person in question has nothing to do with his suitability for the position. If Warren wanted to make an argument herself, then she's welcome to do so, but using the name of Martin Luther King Jr. as some emotional appeal is just low. If she wants to call Sessions a racist, then she should have the courage to stand up there and do it herself without hiding behind the name of "King."[/QUOTE] The censoring was for impugning his character so they would have probably done the exact same thing if she'd actually just straight up called him a racist.

[QUOTE=Tigster;51792715]The censoring was for impugning his character so they would have probably done the exact same thing if she'd actually just straight up called him a racist.[/QUOTE] Ideally, she should have presented an argument or asked questions like: Mr. Sessions, can you please explain your reasoning for opposing X bill instead of reading emotionally laden letters.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792714]Credible sources? King's wife making accusations doesn't make the accusations more credible. The letter doesn't go into details or evidence of the claims. Again, if she wanted to claim that Sessions was racist based on decisions he made in the past, then she should make that argument with evidence and research, not by reading emotionally laden letters from well respected names.[/QUOTE] Again I ask, are you a mind reader? What makes you think there was no broader point to be made using modern evidence to demonstrate a longstanding lack of character?

[QUOTE=bitches;51792718]Again I ask, are you a mind reader? What makes you think there was no broader point to be made using modern evidence to demonstrate a longstanding lack of character?[/QUOTE] The letter adds nothing but emotion to the argument. It assumes the claim of racism without having to back it up.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792716]Ideally, she should have presented an argument or asked questions like: Mr. Sessions, can you please explain your reasoning for opposing X bill instead of reading emotionally laden letters.[/QUOTE] so you're moving goalposts, now

[QUOTE=bitches;51792720]so you're moving goalposts, now[/QUOTE] How? What goalpost have I moved?

All the credible sources also point towards Jeff Sessions being a racist, so I am not sure how relevant that argument is in relation to removing someone from the floor in an unprecedented way...

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792719]The letter adds nothing but emotion to the argument. It assumes the claim of racism without having to back it up.[/QUOTE] so I suppose it's up to me to ask you a third time Are you a mind reader? Why do you suppose that Warren had nothing to say but to read a letter? Could she not, sensibly, have planned on highlighting modern evidence of historic claims?

[QUOTE=person11;51792727]All the credible sources also point towards Jeff Sessions being a racist, so I am not sure how relevant that argument is in relation to removing someone from the floor in an unprecedented way...[/QUOTE] Then make the argument on the actual facts...?

Plus, the Sessions debate has been going on for multiple sessions, lots of evidence has been introduced. Emotional arguments accompanying evidence is accepted behavior in the Senate. Else Ted Cruz would be out a job. Also, this letter was effectively used to block Jeff Sessions before, accompanied by evidence of the claims. It's insane that the same tactic no longer works when the stakes are so much higher.

[QUOTE=person11;51792622] Is this the end of any kind of professionalism in the Senate?[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm]I mean, we've had worse things happen in the Capital Building[/url]

Good point. I guess I meant in recent history. This administration started with Schumer saying he was friends with a lot of Republicans and would try to work with them. He then voted against McConnell's wife to be Secretary of Transportation, and then this happened. Things are getting more confrontational than just the usual politics.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51792731]Then make the argument on the actual facts...?[/QUOTE] That's the beautiful thing, the truth is that he's a racist, old fashioned like of crap, but any negative explanation of his character could just lead to Republicans silencing you. Very Democratic!

Since Jeff Sessions is a Senator, what she was saying by reading the letter literally does break rule 19. [url]http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIX[/url] [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.[/QUOTE]

That rule is rarely used, and using the rule breaks with precedent and decorum. The debate is ABOUT Jeff Sessions and she was arguing that he should not be AG. What kind of Senate will exist under Trump when any criticism of another Senator turns into "imputing"? It's a ridiculous use of Rule 19.

[QUOTE=person11;51794231]That rule is rarely used, and using the rule breaks with precedent and decorum. The debate is ABOUT Jeff Sessions and she was arguing that he should not be AG. What kind of Senate will exist under Trump when any criticism of another Senator turns into "imputing"? It's a ridiculous use of Rule 19.[/QUOTE] It's still technically a correct usage of rule 19.

What's legal and what's decent are two totally different things The Republicans broke no rules but may have broken any ounce left of trust or respect in the Senate. I have a feeling Schumer won't be talking about how Sessions is his workout buddy anymore, etc. Things have gotten much more personal.

The rule should definitely not apply if a senator is recommended to a cabinet position, it was not what the rule was intended for. Cabinet positions are suppose to be vetted thoroughly. It's pretty funny that they silenced warren, and then two other male dem senators basically read the entire thing later on.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51794298]It's still technically a correct usage of rule 19.[/QUOTE] Tbh it's a rule that shouldn't apply in circumstances like this because it seems like it would be open to abuse, to the point where criticism can't be levied at all.

[QUOTE=person11;51794231]That rule is rarely used, and using the rule breaks with precedent and decorum. The debate is ABOUT Jeff Sessions and she was arguing that he should not be AG. What kind of Senate will exist under Trump when any criticism of another Senator turns into "imputing"? It's a ridiculous use of Rule 19.[/QUOTE] While I agree it is rarely used... her going up there, grandstanding, indirectly slandering Sessions as a racist (WHICH HE IS NOT, he was given an award by the NAACP in Alabama in 2009 for his work) is exactly what people are tired of hearing. The stalling, slanderous nature of these confirmations from the left are getting out of hand and i'm glad someone stepped up to stop it. We already know he is going to pass confirmation, do we really need to listen to Elizabeth Warren incorrectly and indirectly call him a racist for 3 hours? No. We pay these people to do a job and this is not it.

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51794689]While I agree it is rarely used... her going up there, grandstanding, indirectly slandering Sessions as a racist (WHICH HE IS NOT, he was given an award by the NAACP in Alabama in 2009 for his work) is exactly what people are tired of hearing. The stalling, slanderous nature of these confirmations from the left are getting out of hand and i'm glad someone stepped up to stop it. We already know he is going to pass confirmation, do we really need to listen to Elizabeth Warren incorrectly and indirectly call him a racist for 3 hours? No. We pay these people to do a job and this is not it.[/QUOTE] Thank goodness we know Republicans haven't done worse things that haven't incurred a rule xix action, like referring to someone's leadership as cancerous or accusing someone of lying over and over again. Oh wait

"she was not being respectful" -says the same republicans that said "schumer was crying liberal tears" on the floor what an awful bullshit low mconnel has slid to

[QUOTE=Tigster;51794785]Thank goodness we know Republicans haven't done worse things that haven't incurred a rule xix action, like referring to someone's leadership as cancerous or accusing someone of lying over and over again. Oh wait[/QUOTE] I never said they have not done worse things. Democrats have done the same thing to Republicans in the past though too. My point was that this has been dragged on for weeks now and it was time to put a stop to it and I am glad they did. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;51794833]"she was not being respectful" -says the same republicans that said "schumer was crying liberal tears" on the floor what an awful bullshit low mconnel has slid to[/QUOTE] He was fake crying for sure though... I mean look at his stance on a partial travel ban in the past and then now. He almost did a 180, more like 150 if Im being honest, but still. Don't go up there and start crying just because you think it will add something to what your saying. That is low. Imposing a rule to stop unnecessary delay is justifiable.

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51795102]I never said they have not done worse things. Democrats have done the same thing to Republicans in the past though too. My point was that this has been dragged on for weeks now and it was time to put a stop to it and I am glad they did. [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] He was fake crying for sure though... I mean look at his stance on a partial travel ban in the past and then now. He almost did a 180, more like 150 if Im being honest, but still. Don't go up there and start crying just because you think it will add something to what your saying. That is low. Imposing a rule to stop unnecessary delay is justifiable.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm glad the character of a cabinet nominee can't be brought into question if the nominee is also a senator