The Silencing of Elizabeth Warren

[CalMeacham]

@pompeybear

We aren’t in disagreement about the 1st part of what you’re saying. You’re just proving my point. She is clearly trying to show that she believes he is a racist, without actually coming out and stating it directly on the floor of the Senate (instead she quotes someone else stating it directly).

No, I think we disagree on a subtler level. She isn’t trying to simply call him a racist indirectly. She’s trying to demonstrate why he’s an unacceptable candidate; she’s not trying to call names, in other words – she’s trying to argue against his acceptability. That’s a very different thing.

Of course, she could believe his is a racist. I certainly do, but I can’t speak for her. And that lies at the root of my (and probably her)( thinking he’s unacceptable.

But regardless of whether you think he’s ac racist, his demonstrable actions, as cited in King’s letter, argue that he is not a disinterested party. That’s independent of how you feel about him as a person.
Once again, though – Has This Ever Happened Before – that Rule 19 was used to squelch statements (justified or not) about a Senator being discussed for a political post?

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Does it make sense for the rule to bar discussion of the senator’s past during his confirmation hearings?

Of course not. But this is the Trump era, where sense and sensibility are out the window, replaced by pride and prejudice.

[running_coach]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’m sympathetic to the argument that if you’re being nominated for something, then opinions about you need to be fair game. I assume McConnell was technically within his rights, as the Senate rules were probably not put together with that situation in mind, so no exceptions carved out. But in spirit, I agree that an exception should be made.

Of course, what complicates things is that McConnell doesn’t think Sessions is a rapist, and thinks Warren is acting despicably in calling him one. (I agree with this.) So he is not going to be inclined to go with the spirit of the rules over the letter of the law.

McConnell was quite forgiving when it was one of his own.

As the exchange spread on social media, some were quick to point out that McConnell was recently the target of a personal attack on the Senate floor. In 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) accused him of lying to his colleagues and the press, saying “he is willing to say things that he knows are false.” There was no Rule 19 invocation then.

[Colibri]

This is obviously more suitable for Great Debates than General Questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Chefguy]

Seems to me that the rule ought to be called the “honor among thieves” rule, as this is largely a body of dishonorable cowards at this point in history. That aside, rules should be enforced for all offenders, and this one clearly is not. As noted in the NYT today:

In one instance from 2015, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas accused Mr. McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.” In another, last year, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas described the “cancerous leadership” of Senator Harry Reid, the former Democratic leader.

In neither case was the rule invoked.

[CurtC]

@pompeybear

She is clearly trying to show that she believes he is a racist, without actually coming out and stating it directly on the floor of the Senate (instead she quotes someone else stating it directly).

That’s not clear at all - in fact I think it’s just wrong. She is invoking the name of a very reputable source on the topic of racism, to express that Sessions is indeed a racist. Warren could call him that herself, and should be permitted to, but Warren’s opinion doesn’t carry the weight that King’s does.

[pompeybear]

@CalMeacham

No, I think we disagree on a subtler level. She isn’t trying to simply call him a racist indirectly. She’s trying to demonstrate why he’s an unacceptable candidate; she’s not trying to call names, in other words – she’s trying to argue against his acceptability. That’s a very different thing.

Of course, she could believe his is a racist. I certainly do, but I can’t speak for her. And that lies at the root of my (and probably her)( thinking he’s unacceptable.

Umm… you just stated:

It seems abundantly clear to me that Warren was saying “I think he’s a racist, and I’m not the only one. Here’s some strong evidence to back that up, from some big guns that felt the same way.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Chefguy

That aside, rules should be enforced for all offenders, and this one clearly is not. As noted in the NYT today:

In neither case was the rule invoked.

Did either of these people continue doing it after being warned? Because McConnell is saying that that’s why he shut her down - he didn’t do it for the first violation.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Of course, what complicates things is that McConnell doesn’t think Sessions is a rapist, and thinks Warren is acting despicably in calling him one. (I agree with this.) So he is not going to be inclined to go with the spirit of the rules over the letter of the law.

Ordinarily we don’t bother with correcting spelling but in this case I think it is worth correcting.

The claim being made is Sessions’ is a racist and not a rapist.

[CalMeacham]

@pompeybear

Umm… you just stated:

Sorry. I don’t mean that she was throwing epithets, but that she was accusing him of racist actions (“intimidating and chilling the free exercise of the ballot by citizens”… “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten away elderly black voters”, to quote King’s letter), and that others felt the same way.

It’s not a case of yelling “Sessions is a poopy head” by proxy – it’s an argument that he had done discriminatory actions in while in office before, and that this ought to disqualify him from the office he’s up for now.

And, once again – Has Rule 19 ever been used before to squelch arguments against a candidate who was a Senator?

[CalMeacham]

I see that thisd is currently front and center on the Huffington Post right now:
McConnell Cuts Off Elizabeth Warren For Criticizing Sessions, Senate GOP Silences Her | HuffPost Latest News?

But even they aren’t answering my question about Rule 19

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Whack-a-Mole

Ordinarily we don’t bother with correcting spelling but in this case I think it is worth correcting.

The claim being made is Sessions’ is a racist and not a rapist.

:smack: :o

Thanks.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@CalMeacham

And, once again – Has Rule 19 ever been used before to squelch arguments against a candidate who was a Senator?

Foxnewssays it hasn’t been used in decades, but I haven’t found specifics in a quick search.

I’m mostly finding where it wasn’t used although it should have been.

As it turns out, Rule 19 dates back to a different — and perhaps more violent — time in the Senate, The Washington Post reports. In 1902, a fistfight erupted between South Carolina’s two Democratic senators after the senior senator, Benjamin Tillman, accused his protégé, John McLaurin, of working with Republicans on some issues. McLaurin had fallen victim to “improper influences,” Tillman alleged, prompting McLaurin to storm into the chamber and accuse Tillman of a “willful, malicious, and deliberate lie.”

Naturally, the pair started throwing punches. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members,” Senate historians recalled. Rule 19 was adopted shortly afterward, apparently to keep senators in line (or at least more docile) during floor debates.

“In the time since, the rule has rarely come up,” The Washington Post adds. “One instance flagged by Bloomberg’s Greg Giroux occurred in 1979, when Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.) called Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.) ‘an idiot’ and ‘devious’ in a debate on the Senate floor. Heinz reportedly stormed to the front of the room with a rule book and showed him Rule 19. Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) defused the situation and asked them to shake hands. Other examples are hard to come by.”

[CalMeacham]

Here’s an interesting piece about the origin and history of Rule 19, which dates back to a 1902 fistfight in Congress. I’m surprised it came so late – there were notable assaults by Congressmen on each other during the 19th century:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silencing-of-elizabeth-warren-and-an-old-senate-rule-prompted-by-a-fistfight/?utm_term=.0e41074e0577
This paragraph answers the question I asked:

In the time since, the rule has rarely come up. One instance flagged by Bloomberg’s Greg Giroux occurred in 1979, when Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.) called Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.) “an idiot” and “devious” in a debate on the Senate floor. Heinz reportedly stormed to the front of the room with a rule book and showed him Rule 19. Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) defused the situation and asked them to shake hands. Other examples are hard to come by.

So it appears that Rule 19 has probably NOT previously been used to squelch criticism of a candidate for an office who just happens to be a Senator. This does, indeed, set a bad precedent, then.

“You stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the Department of Justice,” responded Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who was presiding during the speech.

About 25 minutes later, McConnell came in and said her quotes from King crossed the line. She was ordered to sit down.

Why it was the King letter – which contained no epithets against Sessions, but condemned his actions – was what “crossed the line” baffles me (It was Kennedy who called him a “disgrace”. And Session wasn’t a senator when he said so.). It shows, I think, that McConnell was just trying to shut her up.

[Shodan]

This is reminiscent of the umpteen threads on the SDMB about ‘but why can’t we call racists racists in GD???’ The Senate is supposed to be like GD - Warren should be redirected to the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

[Quartz]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Of course not. But this is the Trump era, where sense and sensibility are out the window, replaced by pride and prejudice.

You do know that that ended in wedding bells, don’t you?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Shodan

This is reminiscent of the umpteen threads on the SDMB about ‘but why can’t we call racists racists in GD???’ The Senate is supposed to be like GD - Warren should be redirected to the Pit.

This would be more akin to someone being nominated to be a moderator of the SDMB and the board participants got to debate whether the person has the qualifications for that role. Someone then produces some comments made by a well regarded outside source that points to evidence that the moderator is a sock puppet.

For that you come along and demand the whole thing be sent to the Pit.

[GIGObuster]

@CalMeacham

Here’s an interesting piece about the origin and history of Rule 19, which dates back to a 1902 fistfight in Congress. I’m surprised it came so late – there were notable assaults by Congressmen on each other during the 19th century:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silencing-of-elizabeth-warren-and-an-old-senate-rule-prompted-by-a-fistfight/?utm_term=.0e41074e0577
This paragraph answers the question I asked:

So it appears that Rule 19 has probably NOT previously been used to squelch criticism of a candidate for an office who just happens to be a Senator. This does, indeed, set a bad precedent, then.

Why it was the King letter – which contained no epithets against Sessions, but condemned his actions – was what “crossed the line” baffles me (It was Kennedy who called him a “disgrace”. And Session wasn’t a senator when he said so.). It shows, I think, that McConnell was just trying to shut her up.

QFT and for the record.

[GIGObuster]

@Whack-a-Mole

This would be more akin to someone being nominated to be a moderator of the SDMB and the board participants got to debate whether the person has the qualifications for that role. Someone then produces some comments made by a well regarded outside source that points to evidence that the moderator is a sock puppet.

For that you come along and demand the whole thing be sent to the Pit.

Yep, I also have to say that it is a move Sessions would be proud of, like when he shut down a group that only wanted to have more black people voting.

I tried to help black people vote. Jeff Sessions tried to put me in jail: Voices

After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, I was proud to see that black voting registration in our region grew by tens of thousands and I was proud of my late husband’s well-earned nickname, “Mr. Voter Registration.” I also was proud to work alongside him to continue to build and grow our community’s political voice. But as black political power grew, so did resistance.

In 1985, U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions indicted me, my husband, and another civil rights worker, Spencer Hogue, on false charges of election fraud for assisting elderly black citizens with absentee voting ballots. Until the day I die, I will believe that our arrests were because of our successful political activism and were designed to intimidate black voters and dampen black voting enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Sessions declined to investigate claims of unlawful white voting.

Despite none of us having any history of criminal activity, Sessions wanted to give us the maximum sentences, adding up to two centuries in prison. My husband was willing to plead guilty for crimes he didn’t commit if it would keep me from going to jail. But I knew we were innocent and refused the offer. Thankfully, the case against us, the “Marion 3,” was weak. The vast majority of charges were dismissed outright for lack of evidence, and a racially-mixed jury only took four hours of deliberation before acquitting us.

Yet the trial took a toll. We had to sell our family’s farm. I lost my job. The episode also took a toll on the voters of Perry County. The tactics of using the levers of power to intimidate and sow fear worked all too well. Black turnout dropped. People were afraid to exercise their constitutional right to vote for fear of retaliation backed by the power of the government. This was what Jeff Sessions did as a U.S. Attorney. I can only imagine what might happen to black voters when he has the power of the entire Department of Justice at his disposal.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

This is reminiscent of the umpteen threads on the SDMB about ‘but why can’t we call racists racists in GD???’ The Senate is supposed to be like GD - Warren should be redirected to the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

So what’s the equivalent of the Pit? Congress? Maybe the White House?