The Silencing of Elizabeth Warren

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

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

Twitter.

Regards,
Shodan

[k9bfriender]

@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

Can you show me where in her speech she called him a racist?

Seems to me that she just gave a litany of his actions.

If those actions reflect badly upon him, that’s not her fault.

That’s like saying that you cannot attack the post in GD.

The reason for the rule is to prevent senators from insulting each other on the floor, not to prevent valid criticism from being raised to a candidate for cabinet.

It doesn’t matter, he will get voted in no matter his views and past actions, because he is a republican, and that is all the qualification that is needed for the highest offices in the country.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Twitter.

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, that fits.

[Bone]

It seems like Rule 19 would need to be amended to not apply towards senators being debated for other non-senate positions.

[Shodan]

@k9bfriender

Can you show me where in her speech she called him a racist?

Seems to me that she just gave a litany of his actions.

If those actions reflect badly upon him, that’s not her fault.

That’s like saying that you cannot attack the post in GD.

Ms. Warren should start a thread in ATMB to discuss the matter.

Regards,
Shodan

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@pompeybear

Umm… you just stated:

And presumably you just read “She isn’t trying to simply call him a racist indirectly.” Perhaps that was too complex for you to fully grasp?

[CalMeacham]

@Bone

It seems like Rule 19 would need to be amended to not apply towards senators being debated for other non-senate positions.

I agree. I’ll bet that won’t happen.
#ShePersisted is apparently becoming a rallying cry and a meme:

#ShePersisted Becomes New Battle Cry After Senate Silences Elizabeth Warren | HuffPost Women?
But my concern is still with the nasty precedent this sets. If you can silence someone because they bring up unsavory facts about a Senator nominated to a position during his hearing for that position, it effectively nullifies the debate.

[Evan_Drake]

It would be most improper to bring up in the Senate the late Mr. Dickens’ characterization of Senator Sykes as evidence of his so-called unfitness to carry out the duties in the Supreme Court as Chief Justice for which he is here nominated by the President.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Crotalus

I think that McConnell was wrong to do what he did for the reason stated by CookingWithGas above. In the confirmation hearing, Sessions’ role is not Senator, it is Nominee. I think this was a misapplication of the rule.

This.

You have waived your right to this courtesy during your confirmation.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@watchwolf49

If Republicans use this as a weapon against Democrats … then Democrats will use it as a weapon against Republicans … more division, more strife, bit by bit our Federal government becomes more and more paralyzed …

Sen. McConnell was within the letter of Rule XIX … but I believe it was grossly misapplied … but that’s just how the Senate is run … boycotting Kentucky might be our only recourse …

but… bourbon

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

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.

I don’t see how that matters.

Can McConnell silence anyone after giving them a warning without a firm basis in the rules? I can think of few places where the first amendment is more sacred than when used by a senator while making a political statement.

[CalMeacham]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

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.

But after she was warned, she didn’t call Sessions names – she was simply reading the Coretta King letter (which is what the other two later did). The only thing Warren “continued” was speaking. Did he shut her down for simply talking? That seems an abuse of Rule 19.

[ThelmaLou]

@Bone

It seems like Rule 19 would need to be amended to not apply towards senators being debated for other non-senate positions.

Nah. If McConnell and his other lackeys don’t like the rule, they’ll just throw it out.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I don’t see how that matters.

Can McConnell silence anyone after giving them a warning without a firm basis in the rules?

It’s been established that he has a firm basis in the rules.

What we’re discussing here is whether he’s enforcing it in an even-handed manner. If he’s consistent about warning first and then shutting down, then he is.

@CalMeacham

But after she was warned, she didn’t call Sessions names – she was simply reading the Coretta King letter (which is what the other two later did). The only thing Warren “continued” was speaking. Did he shut her down for simply talking? That seems an abuse of Rule 19.

She continued to read the parts of the letter which were defamatory to Sessions. The others who read that letter read different parts.

[RickJay]

@CookingWithGas

I tend to disagree with McConnell. Of course, it’s all political theater. But the rule is intended to ensure civil discourse and was not intended to suppress criticism of a candidate for a cabinet post just because he is, coincidentally, a sitting senator.

See, that’s the logical problem I keep running into myself. Rule XIX effectively prevents legitimate criticism of a Presidential appointee if the person is a Senator, thus preventing what may be highly relevant evidence from being heard and points from being made - but would NOT apply if Sessions was, say, a Governor. It’s a clear flaw in the rule, which was created not for this purpuse but to make debate about the issue and not about who’s a dumb bastard. In a case like this it is stupid obvious that Sessions *is *the issue.

[CalMeacham]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s been established that he has a firm basis in the rules.

What we’re discussing here is whether he’s enforcing it in an even-handed manner. If he’s consistent about warning first and then shutting down, then he is.She continued to read the parts of the letter which were defamatory to Sessions. The others who read that letter read different parts.

It’s not defamatory in calling him names. It’s describing why his actions are objectionable. The only thing I can find remotely objectionable is the word “shabby”, used to describe those actions.

And they didn’t read “different parts”. As noted here, Tom Udall read the entire letter:
Republican Senate Lets Men Read Coretta Scott King's Words Against Jeff Sessions | HuffPost Latest News?

So, again, it seems as if McConnell silenced her simply to shut her up.

Incidentally, here’s an interesting tidbit about Rule 19, coutesry of SteveMB from the Pit thread on Stupid R Ideas:

Rule Used to Silence Warren Was Created to Protect Senate’s Foremost Advocate...

[CalMeacham]

More interesting (though ultimately irrelevant) tidbits, courtesy of the Pit, this time from the Sean Spicer thread:

Spicer said he expects Sessions to receive a full vote, but then said this:
Unfortunately, as has become commonplace in the Senate, Democrats once again spent hours last night in a counterproductive discussion about one of President Trump’s clearly-qualified nominees, not to mention one of their peers.

UPDATE — 2:42 pm ET: Later in the briefing Spicer addressed King’s letter about Sessions and said he would hope if she was alive today she would support the nomination.

Coretta Scott King would support for Attorney General the man she opposed for a judicial post? Definitely an alternate reality.

Democrats | Mediaite

[HumbleThinker]

@CalMeacham

This is all over the news this morning – Elizabeth Warren was ordered silence by McConnell because of statements she made about Jeff Sessions during debate about his selection as Attorney General. I gather that the immediate cause was her reading from a letter from Coretta Scott King from 1986 regarding an earlier debate about Session when he was nominated for a judicial post, although apparently she also cited Edward Kennedy from the same occasion speaking about Sessions.
You can argue at great length about Session himself or Warrens’ choice of citations, but I have a much more basic question that I haven’t seen any of these reports address – why is it alright to shut down what appear to be relevant points during a debate over the appropriateness of a candidate for office? The sort of silencing order imposed on Warren seems grotesquely out of place when you consider that it was imposed during what should be precisely the platform for bringing these points up. It doesn’t matter that she was “warned” not to do so – quoting earlier testimony about the qualities and character of a candidate appears to be just what this session should be about. If you shut down such things because

…then aren’t you effectively disqualifying any negative statements when the subject under consideration is already a Senator? Doesn’t this set a bad precedent?

Again, that she was warned not to do so is irrelevant, as is the argument that she was bringing up too much – she was arguably showing the prepondering sentiment against him, not maliciously “piling on”. It appears clear that Rule 19 was enacted to promote civility among the members of the Senate and to minimize the sort of bad feelings that really did lead, in the past, to literal fistfights on the Floor. But that ought not to be used to prevent the airing of disqualifying testimony.
Or is there something I’m unaware of?

Like you, it seems like a gross misuse of a rule set to maintain civility and prevent fistfights. But like many such rules, civility can be a guise for complacency or even oppression. Neither is hardly a civil act, so the use of the rule in this case is certainly contradictory to its intention.

[Buck_Godot]

@Crybaby_Boobie

It all works out for the best. Now everyone is talking about it, the speech is being shared all over Facebook, etc. It’s not like Sessions isn’t getting approved anyway. But now at least more average people might get informed. The Republicans would have been better off letting her speak, but you know, safe spaces.

This is the reason that I am unconcerned about Rule 19 being over used or used to shut down debate. Warren wasn’t giving a speech to convince senators. Then know who they are going to vote for all they have to do is check what side of the aisle they were seated on. The speech was really directed at the public, which had McConnel not deigned to be such an ass, would have been quietly forgotten among all the other turmoil of the Trump maladministration. Instead he elevates it to front page news, and makes Republicans look like bullies in the process.

Once this settles down I bet that this targeted use of Rule 19 will be seen as a huge mistake that no one in either party is going to want to repeat.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Buck_Godot

Once this settles down I bet that this targeted use of Rule 19 will be seen as a huge mistake that no one in either party is going to want to repeat.

Very likely. Though once the floodgates are opened, I assume both parties will increasingly engage in this type of rhetoric, and whether anybody is better off net-net is anyone’s guess.