She is a supporter of Trump. The letter stills stand. But more important is the suppression of speech. No one would care if not for that.
"Suppresion of speech..." oh the irony - Milo Yiannopoulos Warren is a typical race-baiter...and was called out on it.
Deflection much? I'm not in favor of suppressing Milo's speech. But sounds like you are for suppressing Warren's speech. Irony where now?
Deflection...you were instantly dismissive of actual video content stating otherwise. Instead you stated "the letter still stands" after I have proven your premise to be false. No one was suppressed for speech, but rather for breaking decorum in the Senate...The fake native American Senator from Mass. was rightfully silenced for being a fool.
I already stated this is about free speech more than anything. You keep on changing this to attacking Warren. So, you are going to hind behind a rule to allow suppression of free speech. If you WERE for free speech, that's a shame. But if you are not for it, I understand.
Warren should have been allowed to spew whatever she wants. Can't claim to be for free speech and then whine when it hurts your cause. Let everyone talk and we can all make up our minds at the end.
In the Senate they expect you to be an adult and follow the rules, when you fail to do so, you can be put on time out. That's what happened to her. It's not suppression of free speech, she can feel free to run her mouth to the press or whoever she wants to.....she just can't do so in the Senate temporarily because she failed to follow the rules. Feel free to go in the "it's not fair that there are rules" direction if you like, but I'm not sure how far you are going to get.
in 2015, in a Senate debate on imports, there was a heated exchange of words between Ted Cruz and McConnell which ended up w Cruz calling Mitch a liar. Mitch did not consider that insult impugning another Senator's character then, yet Warren reciting a letter by Mrs. MLK is considered so. arbitrary and abuse of power by Mitch. After Warren was warned and ultimately silenced. Several man Senators (Murphy, Udall, Sander, Shumer) proceeded to recite the letter. They're allowed to do so. arbitrary and inconsistent application of senate rule. The optics is not good for Mitch McConnell. In the same committee meeting the action by a woman senator, to recite Mrs. MLK's letter, is warned and ultimately shunned, subsequent to her being silenced, similar actions by her male colleagues were deemed ok/
Meh. Politically, it's a mistake and moreover a dumb precedent. This country is supposed to be about everyone getting their say without the government stopping you. How bad does it look when our Senate can't follow this fundamental right in our Constitution?
5 years ago, I saw someone speeding down the highway and they didn't get a ticket so it's unfair that I got a ticket for doing 75 in a school zone. Clearly my rights have been infringed on.
The Senate has rules for decorum for a reason, they are supposed to be better than that kind of thing. Now sure, it's true that they absolutely aren't, but they have to at least pretend like they are or occasionally they lose speaking privileges if they can't behave themselves. Everyone can have their say, so long as they follow the rules. No one is suggesting that she wasn't allowed to speak out against a fellow Senator, she just couldn't do so in the manner in which she was doing it.....and she knew that. If she's incapable of expressing her concerns with his nomination without breaking the rules.....well maybe she's simply not intelligent enough to be a Senator to begin with.
For a body that relies upon something called the "Fillibuster" this argument has little weight for me.
Rule 19 states "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" The first time she violated this was when she was quoting Ted Kennedy who called Sessions "a disgrace to the justice department". When she was on about that, she got a warning to not continue breaking that rule. She continued and a little bit later she was reading a quote saying "Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts" which was accusing Sessions of doing those things (falsely) and that is absolutely suggesting that his actions or motivations are unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. When those things were first said, Sessions was not a Senator, so they were allowed. Again, it's not hard to follow the rules.....you just can't personally attack fellow Senators like that. If she can't articulate her opposition without doing so, again, perhaps she's not qualified to be a Senator.
... and Sessions is now AG. Seems like McConnel could have let Warren read the letter and no one would even mention the letter.
Another hollow argument. Senators have personally attacked other Senators in session before with no invocation of this rule.
Just because some break the rules and don't face consequences for it doesn't mean that it's not fair for someone to face consequences when they knowingly break the rules. After she was warned, she should have stopped going in that direction. Honestly she probably wanted this to happen so she could whine about how unfair it is (sounding just like Trump BTW)
Like Obama supposedly did not want to appoint a Supreme Court justice? This tactic of yours is roadkill at this point. Is it a cut-and-paste thing?
Oh no doubt. Thus the stupidity of this ruling. Anyone who bakes in their partisanship ultimately is turning off the public and hurting their own cause.
