ELIZABETH WARREN - Only the 2nd Senator in U.S. History To be Barred From Speaking.

a reply to: TrueBrit

She's could have referred to the letter, she could have cited specific actions from Session's past, she could have cited specific decisions made concerning Sessions, but she can not call him names or describe him in demeaning fashion, even by reading words written by another that she agreed with. That is why Senators typically refer to other Senators by phrases like "my esteemed colleague from ______" or "my good friend from ______." The United States Senate is not a place for personal insults or chapter assassination; it is supposed to be above that.

And apparently it will again be above that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grambler

I did not say that feelings ought to be voiced in Senate, although a little compassion would not go amiss in that room. But what I did say, was that the truth, the facts, should be voiced. The facts are that Sessions did mess people around during the civil rights movement, did misuse his power, and any proper examination of his actions at the time would inform a person of as much, as is made utterly clear by Kings letter.

As a statement of record, I feel it ought to have been exempt, given that it was not a document which established what anyones feelings were on the subject, simply a list of misdeeds that would lead any significantly astute person to understand that the man in question was wrong for the job.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I very much doubt that she could have cited specific actions without causing the same offence, since doing so would have had precisely the same effect.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Isn't stating her own subjective requirements for a good attorney general and then stating that based on those requirements she cannot support his nomination the same as explaining why? It's subtle but I think it works.

For instance, she can say "we need an attorney general that will stand up for minorities" and "we need an attorney general that will stand up to the president when he is in the wrong" etc... "and based on these requirements, I cannot support senator Sessions' nomination."

Don't know, seems like it's a nice and subtle way of explaining why she can't support his nomination. Sure she can't bring up specifics from his past but she can allude to them without breaking rule XIX.

Don't know man, chalk it up to politics.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

I did not say that feelings ought to be voiced in Senate, although a little compassion would not go amiss in that room. But what I did say, was that the truth, the facts, should be voiced. The facts are that Sessions did mess people around during the civil rights movement, did misuse his power, and any proper examination of his actions at the time would inform a person of as much, as is made utterly clear by Kings letter.

As a statement of record, I feel it ought to have been exempt, given that it was not a document which established what anyones feelings were on the subject, simply a list of misdeeds that would lead any significantly astute person to understand that the man in question was wrong for the job.

But this issue was raised again and again. Its not like the issues you mention were not discussed.

The problem was that Warren continually implied Sessions was a racist, and made racist comments. She was warned, and thought she would cleverly skirt the rule by reading someone elses words.

I have no problem with attacking Sessions voting record or actions in his elected capacity. But to continually assert he said some racist thing with no proof should not be allowed.

Look at Warrens tweet I posted last page, where she says she can not allow someone who said something racist to be AG.

Do you think that bringing up allegations of someone saying something racist be allowed in the Senate?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Citing specific actions without using a racist insinuation, would have certainly been allowed. What is not allowed is her personal, subjective feelings toward another Senator.

Saying "Sessions voted against a civil rights bill on 37th of Devember 2224" is no issue. Adding "and that proves how racist he is" or "so he obviously hates purple people with pink polka-dots" is not. The actions must speak for themselves. The Senate is not Facebook.

TheRedneck

Elizabeth Warren better be careful. If she runs for prez in the future, lots and lots of stupid borderline mentally ill sounding things she has uttered and claimed are going to come out about her. I think the woman is a bit deranged and the election of Donald Trump has tipped her a bit over the edge.

The whole Dem party needs some anger management therapy, imo, especially the wackos in Washington....D.C. and the state.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Best explanation I've read so far, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll let you guys have at it and have a good one.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: carewemust


The age of SJW's is over.

good, because it was only used by right-wingers as a code phrase to bash black people protesting police violence

originally posted by: queenofswords
Elizabeth Warren better be careful. If she runs for prez in the future, lots and lots of stupid borderline mentally ill sounding things she has uttered and claimed are going to come out about her. I think the woman is a bit deranged and the election of Donald Trump has tipped her a bit over the edge.

The whole Dem party needs some anger management therapy, imo, especially the wackos in Washington....D.C. and the state.

anger management classes???.....how did those classes work out for the tea party?

a reply to: Grambler

The problem was that Warren continually implied Sessions was a racist, and made racist comments. She was warned, and thought she would cleverly skirt the rule by reading someone elses words.

This is one of my favorite arguments.
Do democrats want Republicans to start Quoting Alex Jones to bypass slander rules?

originally posted by: angeldoll
I'm so proud of her. Do you want people who speak the truth, or silence the truth?

Trump has been in office for a couple of weeks, and it seems like years already. Somebody will need to clean up the mess he leaves behind. Elizabeth Warren is looking more and more like the person to do just that.

That is exactly why she was warned and then booted out. Because she was not being honest and twisting quotes from the letter. And so looking at your post you should be happy that it happened.

Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Liz got caught "editorializing".

a reply to: carewemust

originally posted by: carewemust
Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Because its apples and oranges. I wouldn't say the GOP obstructed when Obama was able to get them to stab The People in the back by passing ACA.

Warren not gonna be any good for the dems,way to far left.

At least someone shut this nut job warren up!!

The law is the law!! The rules are the rules, you can't do what she did
and defame someones character...

I aslo love the lefts outrage that they silenced Correta King!

How could they not give all deference to someone connected to the great MLK?

Except, the same media didn't seem to give two hoots that other members of Kings familt actually voted for Trump or met with him and encouraged working with him.

Strange how that works.

Can we bar her from Twitter as well.
Oh and i dont think Congress should be eligible for multi million dollar book deals.