Just be careful she doesn’t quote it right back to you after the “weed” talk or worse.
The Pit is reserved for personal attacks and vitriolic rants. Warren was making a reasoned, measured argument. That should be appropriate in any venue.
Cite?
I think you have convinced yourself that he has a firm basis in the rules. I don’t agree.
The question isn’t whether he is consistently following up on warnings. The question is whether he is being consistent in his issuance of warnings in the first place.
Schumer pointed out some of this inconsistency (along with a healthy dose of partisan sniping):
Other senators have read the exact same passage:“Sanders read the entirety of the letter including a portion — which got Warren in hot water on Tuesday night”
As did Jeff Merkley, Sherrod brown, and Tom Udall.
Sessions is a different man today than he was 30 years ago and people can cahnge. For example, I suspect that her feelings about senator Byrd (who filibustered the Civil Rights Act) might have changed over 30 years. But I do not see the same dramatic change in Sessions that we saw in Byrd.
But, she was hurting Sessions’ feewings (I don’t think Sessions was even present at the time)
It’s trivial to say that, although there are examples of people making a switch (look at George “Segregation now, Segregation forever” Wallace later in his career), but it’s hard to shake the habits of a lifetime. Your supposition imagines that Sessions himself has changed significantly, and that Coretta Scott King would have changed her own views significantly because of that. When you multiply an unlikelihood by and unlikelihood you get a probably-won’t-happen. The probability of King theoretically supporting Sessions appears vanishingly small to me.
It’s a bit more complicated than that.
FWIW, IMO the notion that anyone might have changed their views on Sessions since 30 years ago doesn’t rest on the supposition that Sessions has radically changed since then. Rather, that even the judgment made 30 years ago was resting on an extrapolation from a few data points, and that in the intervening years there’s a lot more to work with, which change the overall assessment.
But I agree with you as to the ultimate point. “The probability of King theoretically supporting Sessions appears vanishingly small to me.” Me too. But the reason for that is because my view of King is such that I don’t care what she would have thought about it altogether.
Meaning, I don’t think there’s any reason to think King would have done anything different than any of the contemporary liberals/civil rights people, all of whom seem to be opposing Sessions. But then, I wouldn’t assign her views any more weight than I would to these contemporary people, either. To the extent that you’re granting King and her views some sort of unique status, it’s because you’re presuming that she’s some sort of saintly figure, who would never impugn someone as a racist just because they disagree with their politics or the like, and if she were indeed such a person then she might well have changed her view in light of the last 30 years.
I’m not assigning her “saintly status” either – I’m responding to Sean Spicer’s bizarre statement that he hoped that, were she still alive, she would support Sessions. And the only reason he brought her up was because Warren quoted from her letter years earlier opposing Sessions, which she wrote as a recognized public figure, not from any “saintly” status.
But the only reason Warren quoted from her letter years earlier opposing Sessions is due to her purported saintly status. Otherwise who cares what she wrote 30 years ago?
“Saintly” ain’t the word – she was a Civil Rights advocate who was married to one of the most famous of them all, and who was still involved. The name gave her recognition and weight. The reason for quoting from a thirty year old letter was that that was the last time his name came up in a hearing for a federal position, and this was a very notable and relevant objection to his nomination. It still is.
Yeah, her name carries weight in large part because of her husband’s assassination, but people immediately know who was saying these things and why. People would be less likely to be swayed by the words of a contemporary lawyer they never heard of.
I agree. See last sentence of my previous post.
It only dems, libs and progressives that can change their spots.
You can be a card carrying member of the KKK, but if your a democrat that is not a problem at all since you have changed.
You can be a fake Indian with high cheekbone but no Tribal connections at all and use your fake credentials to get into top tier law schools as a professor, but all is forgiven if your a Dem.
You can abuse women all you want but all is forgiven if your a dem.
The list goes on and on.
But if you on the other side oh no. Once tainted your tainted for life.
Byrd publicly renounced his kkk views and has been highly critical of them and supportive of civil rights until his death.
Sessions never renounced (or even acknowledged, I believe) past racist views. He continued to defend racist symbols like the confederate flag, and opposed issues related to civil and voting rights.
??? Don the con is a democrat? Or did you just wake up after a loooong sleep? Look at a newspaper.
Got a single example of this having happened?
Err…
What school did she get into because of her supposed heritage?
Now, genealogy is messy, my father and grandfather used to argue over whether or not we were related to a few particular famous individuals. My grandfather was convinced that we were, as those were the stories that he had heard, but my father, having done rather extensive genealogy, found that those stories were not true.
So, if she made a claim based on family lore that was later refuted by further research, and never actually received any benefit from the claim, what exactly is the point here?
Yeah, Warren’s tales of Native American ancestry seem questionable, at best, but there is no evidence she is some sort of AA beneficiary. We’ve been over this at least a dozen times on this MB over the last few years. Nothing ever comes up to substantiate a claim that she used her alleged NA ancestry to benefit her career.
My family (dad’s side) claimed native American ancestry for decades. Then, out of curiosity, a few of us did DNA ancestry tests. The result? My grandfather was one eighth African (thus I am 1/32nd). Almost certainly this was an invented story to explain his (and probably his mother’s) dark skin.
I would have honestly claimed it was true, or probably true, until we did the ancestry tests. Warren’s family may have had the same story, whether because it was true or for some other reason.