Republican Senators, worse than Snowflakes, squash free speech

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Senate Republicans barred Democrat Elizabeth Warren from the rest of the debate over President Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, after she read a 1986 letter attacking him by Coretta Scott King.

“Mr. Sessions’s conduct as U.S attorney from his politically motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge,” Warren said, quoting a letter from the late wife of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., who was discussing the 1986 nomination of Sessions to the federal bench.

...
_______________________
McConnell’s move against Warren set off lengthy parliamentary wrangling on the Senate floor, with Democrats incensed that Republicans were shutting down debate and Republicans angry that Democrats, and in particular Warren, had attacked Sessions personally.

Republicans cited Senate Rule XIX, which 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."

Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island inquired what, exactly, they would be allowed to say about a colleague up for Senate confirmation. The chair made clear that truth is not a defense in the case of Rule XIX, and the ruling is made by the chair, not by the parliamentarian. The ruling can then be appealed to the full Senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...n-as-senate-debate-over-sessions-turns-bitter

So any time a Senator does terrible things he cannot get in trouble with the Senate and if a President ever nominates a Senator to a cabinet position, no Senator can speak about those terrible things.

 

[Rhea]

Wow. Needs to be amended; "except during a hearing for appointment, confirmation or wrongdoing."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But can you still beat them with a cane?

On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

 

[dismal]

Who could have ever guessed the Senate had rules and decorum and stuff?

I have a good mind to show up there and tell them they can't have their rules and decorum and stuff using my free speech rights.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I was watching when that took place. Rule IXI is too overly broad anyway. I can see wanting to keep debate from sprawling into an insult-fest. I get that. Nevertheless, I find it ironic that the right, who so loudly trumpet their positions against censorship of free speech on campuses, and so readily accuse the left of political correctness on virutally any issue used such a sleazy tactic to derail another all-nighter by the democrats.

Why the right would pick this particular hill to die on is beyond me. I can only think them drunk with power at this point.

First we have the letter itself. Written in 1986 it was supposed to be entered into the congressional record by another Republican infamous for not being racist, who somehow forgot about all that. Recently the letter resurfaces. It was supposed to be entered into the record already, which is what Warren was doing in the act of her speech. Secondly, the letter addresses the the abuses of office Sessions has been accused of in the past to deny voting rights to minorities, and opinions on why he should not be allowed to be a federal judge at the time. These are very similar reasons why so many object to him being Attorney General now. Also note he was NOT a senator at the time of the letters writing. Congress is in confirmation hearings: a time when the nominee's record is supposed to be searched with a fine tooth comb, their relevance and experience (or lack of) highlighted, and a decision made on their suitability for the office being sought.

Stupid.

 

[untermensche]

The rules should only apply to Senators acting in their responsibilities as Senator, they should not extend to Senators seeking employment elsewhere.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The rules should only apply to Senators acting in their responsibilities as Senator, they should not extend to Senators seeking employment elsewhere.

I don't see why there should even be a rule applying to that. If a senator does something wrong, they should be able to be called out on it by anyone at anytime.

 

[Derec]

I was watching when that took place. Rule IXI is too overly broad anyway. I can see wanting to keep debate from sprawling into an insult-fest. I get that. Nevertheless, I find it ironic that the right, who so loudly trumpet their positions against censorship of free speech on campuses, and so readily accuse the left of political correctness on virutally any issue used such a sleazy tactic to derail another all-nighter by the democrats.

There is a bit of a difference between Senate's internal rules of decorum and left-wing activists seeking to prevent speakers they disagree with from even speaking through violence.

That said, the action by this Senator brought a lot more publicity to the letter and is thus counterproductive. Kind of like Milo gets a lot more publicity with leftists trying to shut him down everywhere he speaks.

 

[untermensche]

The rules should only apply to Senators acting in their responsibilities as Senator, they should not extend to Senators seeking employment elsewhere.

I don't see why there should even be a rule applying to that. If a senator does something wrong, they should be able to be called out on it by anyone at anytime.

It's to keep the Senate from becoming nothing but a big pissing match, like the British Parliament.

 

[untermensche]

I was watching when that took place. Rule IXI is too overly broad anyway. I can see wanting to keep debate from sprawling into an insult-fest. I get that. Nevertheless, I find it ironic that the right, who so loudly trumpet their positions against censorship of free speech on campuses, and so readily accuse the left of political correctness on virutally any issue used such a sleazy tactic to derail another all-nighter by the democrats.

There is a bit of a difference between Senate's internal rules of decorum and left-wing activists seeking to prevent speakers they disagree with from even speaking through violence.

That said, the action by this Senator brought a lot more publicity to the letter and is thus counterproductive. Kind of like Milo gets a lot more publicity with leftists trying to shut him down everywhere he speaks.

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

 

[dismal]

The rules should only apply to Senators acting in their responsibilities as Senator, they should not extend to Senators seeking employment elsewhere.

I don't see why there should even be a rule applying to that. If a senator does something wrong, they should be able to be called out on it by anyone at anytime.

There is abso-lutely nothing preventing you from calling a Senator on something outside of formal debate in the Senate.

Try to imagine you are a heavy handed moderator of a website that restricts comments against other members. Are you against free speech?

 

[Derec]

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these were "right-wing agitators" rather than "left-wing-activists"?

 

[KeepTalking]

There is a bit of a difference between Senate's internal rules of decorum and left-wing activists seeking to prevent speakers they disagree with from even speaking through violence.

That said, the action by this Senator brought a lot more publicity to the letter and is thus counterproductive. Kind of like Milo gets a lot more publicity with leftists trying to shut him down everywhere he speaks.

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

I thought the most likely explanation is that the protest was infiltrated by anarchists. What are anarchists if they are not left-wing agitators? The violence may not have been from the original left-wing protesters, but I think it is still accurate to assign the violence to left-wing activists, if the violence was indeed perpetrated by anarchists.

 

[untermensche]

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these were "right-wing agitators" rather than "left-wing-activists"?

Same as yours.

- - - Updated - - -

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

I thought the most likely explanation is that the protest was infiltrated by anarchists. What are anarchists if they are not left-wing agitators? The violence may not have been from the original left-wing protesters, but I think it is still accurate to assign the violence to left-wing activists, if the violence was indeed perpetrated by anarchists.

So right-wing agitators have learned to call themselves Anarchists.

Now Anarchism is besmirched?

 

[KeepTalking]

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

I thought the most likely explanation is that the protest was infiltrated by anarchists. What are anarchists if they are not left-wing agitators? The violence may not have been from the original left-wing protesters, but I think it is still accurate to assign the violence to left-wing activists, if the violence was indeed perpetrated by anarchists.

So right-wing agitators have learned to call themselves Anarchists.

Please note the use of the word "if" in my post. Do you not agree that if those committing violence were indeed Anarchists, that they could accurately be called out as "left-wing agitators"?

Now Anarchism is besmirched?

I think it would besmirch Anarchism, if the violent agitators were indeed Anarchists. I hold no special reverence for Anarchism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Who could have ever guessed the Senate had rules and decorum and stuff?

I have a good mind to show up there and tell them they can't have their rules and decorum and stuff using my free speech rights.

Another thread dismalized.

 

[ZiprHead]

Probably a discussion for it own thread but the right and anarchist do share one view, that government is bad.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What does Anarcho-capitalist mean?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What does Anarcho-capitalist mean?

Anarcho-capitalist

 

[LordKiran]

No left-wing activists engaged in violence. That is a right-wing alt-fact from their alternate universe.

There was violence but not from any left-wing activists. Most likely by right-wing agitators.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these were "right-wing agitators" rather than "left-wing-activists"?

Demands evidence for other people's claims. Provides none for his own and has no problem with that.

Dismal you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.