'Republican Senators Vote to Formally Silence Elizabeth Warren'

[btfc]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/po....html?_r=0

' “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair,” Mr. McConnell began, alluding to Mrs. King’s letter, which accused Mr. Sessions of using “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.”
Mr. McConnell called the Senate to order under what is known as Rule XIX, which prohibits debating senators from ascribing “to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.”
When Mr. McConnell concluded, Ms. Warren said she was “surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate.” She asked to continue her remarks.
Mr. McConnell objected.
“Objection is heard,” said Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, who was presiding in the chamber at the time. “The senator will take her seat.” '

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...53f3b86b9a

[deckeda]

It's not enough to have the majority. They have to avoid any slings and arrows, too.

I have no problem with the Rule. Decorum should guide the Senate. Equating name calling with a past reference of an opinion is shaky grownd however. I do so hope 2018 shows these turds the door.

[Shera]

The Dems are using the rules to gum up the works. So the Repubs are using the rules to stop them. What's the difference?*



*For those who don't hate Trump and are willing to do anything to stop him...

[Acer]

Got herself some press out of it, so what did the Republicans really gain?

[Pam]

Acer wrote:
Got herself some press out of it, so what did the Republicans really gain?

My thoughts exactly. McConnell gave her a heck of a lot more press by not letting her read that letter.

[cbelt3]

I do wish we had scuffles and fisticuffs like in the House of Commons. I think those skinny Democrats could kick the Fat Republican's collective assets...

[rjmacs]

#YetShePersisted

Great name for her bio.

[gabester]

Pam wrote:
[quote=Acer]
Got herself some press out of it, so what did the Republicans really gain?

My thoughts exactly. McConnell gave her a heck of a lot more press by not letting her read that letter.
Oh I'm sure it fires up their flyover fascist followers just fine.

The really ridiculous thing here is that they could not have used this rule were Sessions not a sitting Senator. It kind of underscores a loophole in the rule system; either the nominee should have to resign his seat to be nominee (and thus not subject to the rule) or the rule should specifically exclude discussion where the character of the nominee who happens to be a member of the Senate must be openly discussed.)

I think the other workaround here is that a Senator should simply request that the previous testimony from records of the Senate Session where the letter was read in 1986 be reread. Let them come up with a rule that allows the Senate to censor its own previous historical record, and truly prove they want to live in a 1984 dystopia. (I mean, this is pretty close to it already, but that would truly be the nail in the coffin and just might be enough to wake some people up to the true peril the United States is facing.)

[SteveG]

For those who have any doubt the entire Republican Party agrees with Trump's third-world dictator politics.

[Wags]

And yet it's acceptable to jump up and scream, "YOU LIE!" at POTUS during his address to the nation.