Republicans vote to rebuke Elizabeth Warren, saying she impugned Sessions’s character McConnell interrupts Warren's speech opposing Sessions Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was stopped from speaking on the Senate floor about Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions on Feb. 7. "I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate," Warren said. (YouTube/Senator Elizabeth Warren) Senate Republicans passed a party-line rebuke Tuesday night of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for a speech opposing attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, striking down her words for impugning the Alabama senator’s character. In an extraordinarily rare move, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) interrupted Warren’s speech, in a near-empty chamber as debate on Sessions’s nomination heads toward a Wednesday evening vote, and said that she had breached Senate rules by reading past statements against Sessions from figures such as the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the late Coretta Scott King. “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama,” McConnell said, then setting up a series of roll-call votes on Warren’s conduct. It was the latest clash in the increasingly hostile debate over confirming President Trump’s Cabinet, during which Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to force through nominees without proper vetting. Democrats, unable to stop the confirmations that require simple majorities, have countered by using extreme delay tactics that have dragged out the process longer than any in history for a new president’s Cabinet. The Democratic moves, including boycotting committee room votes on nominees last week and a round-the-clock debate Monday night before Tuesday’s confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, reached a boiling point during the debate over Sessions — which Democrats are vowing to continue overnight. McConnell specifically cited portions of a letter that King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Sessions’s 1986 nomination to be a federal judge. “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens,” King wrote, referencing controversial prosecutions at the time that Sessions served as the U.S. attorney for Alabama. Earlier, Warren read from the 1986 statement of Kennedy, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who led the opposition then against Sessions, including the Massachusetts Democrat’s concluding line: “He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department and he should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.” The Senate voted, 49 to 43, strictly on party lines, to uphold the ruling that Warren violated rules of debate. Pursuant to those rules, Warren is now forbidden from speaking during the remainder of the debate on the nomination of Sessions. “I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate,” Warren said after McConnell’s motion. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), a freshman who was presiding over the Senate at the time, issued a warning to Warren at that point, singling out Kennedy’s “disgrace” comment, and 25 minutes later McConnell came to the floor and set in motion the battle, citing the comments in the King letter as crossing the line. Other Democrats later came to her defense, but Warren’s speech ended with a simple admonition from Daines: “The senator will take her seat.” Warren, a liberal firebrand whom some activists want to run for president, took to social media to attack McConnell and Republicans for shutting down her speech. Off the Senate floor, Warren called in to MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” a program watched loyally by many Warren devotees, to explain that “I’ve been red- carded on Sen. Sessions, I’m out of the game of the Senate floor. I don’t get to speak at all.” Rising to Warren’s defense, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the chamber’s only African American woman, asked that Warren be allowed to resume participation in the debate. But her request was rejected along party lines. Public reaction to the Senate floor drama mushroomed on social media. Democrats began using #LetLizSpeak on Twitter to draw attention to the senator’s speech, while supporters started posting copies of King’s letter on Twitter and Facebook to draw attention to the cause. At least one other Democrat, Sen. Christopher Murphy (Conn.), hinted that he might try to pick up where Warren left off at some point overnight, saying on Twitter, “Go ahead and rule me out of order.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-character/?utm_term=.bfdb3d9c70c9&tid=sm_fb
RIP Free Speech. Just had to post that for all the free speech a-hole trolls on this board who cry about free speech as hate speech all the time but are sure to be absent from this discussion.
She broke Senate rules, they warned her, she didn't stop, she now has to go sit in time out. It's how it goes.
it's case of abuse of power by Mitch McConnell. Warren recited 2 documents that were allowed in the US Senate's record in 1986; McConnell took no exception to her reciting Ted' Kennedy's less-than-complimentary comments about Jeff Session. But he objected to her reading Mrs. MLK's letter.
She did break the rules but did you guys read this part, "Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) interrupted Warren’s speech, in a near-empty chamber as debate on Sessions’s nomination heads toward a Wednesday evening vote, and said that she had breached Senate rules by reading past statements against Sessions from figures such as the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the late Coretta Scott King." Get these self righteous, lazy, entitled, corrupt, algae cover scum out of Washington. And don't turn this into a left or right issue unless you're willing to discuss how they both suck.
Not only were they wrong to not allow free and open debate (regardless of any nitpicky senate rule), but this was a political blunder as well. No one cares what they are droning on about during these hearings, but once you stop someone from talking it becomes major news.
Yes. You are correct. But other instances similar to this have been allowed. They should apply the rules evenly.
It's intellectually lazy to just say they both suck. They both represent different ideas and policies, I really hate that "They both suck..." narrative down the line "I'm so neutral" stuff. Elections do have consequences, even for senators.
Bobby is right, they should throw her in jail, along with all them stupid civil rights people. And you can throw all the blacks in with them. That will make our country great again! Bobby is a very smart guy. Don't look like a racist by addressing the issue, instead stick to the argument that distracts from the content of the character of Mr. Sessions. Bobby would make a good Trump nominee for head of propaganda.
Wow, that's a complete abuse of the rule. Rule or not, that's an abuse of the principle of free speech. Quite cowardice to hide behind the rule that was abused to justify suppression of speech, when you were always for free speech.
You do know that the Senate chamber is often near empty. Sometimes senators address the senate after hours (which sounds the case... since in the same sentence it refers to an evening vote). Sometime during lunch and other meal times. Senators could be off in committee. Yet senators will make statements to get the statement into the senator record. Don't know the rule she supposedly broke... but it sounds like it the accusation is she "impugned" Sessions. Which seems suspect since she was reading previous statements that were already presented to the Senate. And it also sounds like the even the level of "impugning" is quite commonplace in Senate debate. But the Turtle and fellow repubs just looked partisan, spiteful and probably boosted Warren's argument and re-election when Sessions will be confirmed on a straight party vote anyway.
Total blunder by the GOP. They didn't want MLK's widow's letter in the record and tried to silence free speech. By doing that, they brought 100 times more attention to it. They also revealed themselves to be petty, afraid, and unwilling to allow free speech.
im ok with skipping. Its not like Democrats can do anything to stop the confirmation so why not work on other stuff.
That rule is archaic in that it was in place to prevent senators from dueling each other if they insulted each other's honor. It wasn't meant for senator mc.frog to use because warren disagreed with Jeff Sessions being AG.
Mitch McConnell rarely makes mistakes, but this was one. His silencing of Warren has turned more attention to this than it would've received had he just let her finish reading the letter.
Sure, the confirmations are all guaranteed due to the number of republicans that will rubber stamp all of Trumps nominees, no matter how unethical or unqualified (or in Devos' case, both). The reality is that Congress' role in advise and consent is getting to the point of being unimportant now, since partisan loyalties have gotten to the point that its party before country. So sure... the republican senators can all approve the cabinet members, the Democrat senators can all vote no and at least down the road they can point to the fact that they didn't confirm if and when the #$%^ hits the fan. Then maybe the makeup of the congress will change.
Reading is fundamental... Senators are often in committees, working on local constituents' issues, at meals, at home (if at night)... the fact you believe they are at "parties" suggests you care little about reality and more about pushing your agenda. But sure, promote a plan to remove every congressman from their current positions... works for me.
