So much for the 1st Amendment, I guess?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was prohibited Tuesday night from speaking on the Senate floor for the rest of the debate over Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to be attorney general.

The drama began when Warren, quoting a 30-year-old letter by civil rights leader Coretta Scott King, referred to the Alabama Republican as a "disgrace." King's letter was written in 1986, when Sessions was nominated to the federal bench but was never confirmed.

 

King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., also wrote that when acting as a federal prosecutor, Sessions used his power to "chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens."

Warren's reference drew the ire of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said that Warren had "impugned the motives of our colleague from Alabama."Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. advised Warren that she was out of order under Rule XIX of the Senate, which states that "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.""I'm reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the record," Warren argued. "I'm simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her."

Warren barred from speaking on Senate floor for rest of Sessions debate | Fox News

It's a Senate rule and she was warned ?

While I normally wouldn't mind any attempt at piping down Sen. Warren, in this case I don't know how it is justified and feel we may just have to bear with the Senator.

I guess Mitch and co. needed a safe space.

I guess Mitch and co. needed a safe space.

 

I did chuckle how you reversed that touche. But it is a Senate rule and she was warned. She was not shut down immediately and continued after she was warned. Unlike what some media have implied this is not some rule that is never used.

I did chuckle how you reversed that touche. But it is a Senate rule and she was warned. She was not shut down immediately and continued after she was warned. Unlike what some media have implied this is not some rule that is never used.

 

So basically they didn't like what she was reading, so they decided it was "unbecoming of a Senator?"

So basically they didn't like what she was reading, so they decided it was "unbecoming of a Senator?"

 

I mean no ? Did you read the rule ? I never said I agreed with the rule. But it's politics and my consistent point on here is I like politics. But the rule says another Senator can basically not impune another Senators character by outside words. It was legal and within the rules.

 

The better question that should be asked by you and others besides your first ammendment argument which is wrong across the board. Is did it make political sense for the GOP. Will her words get more play because of this action. That is legitmate argument. I personally don't think it matters but it is a legit argument. At the end of the day I do not take her serious and she is the queen grand of standing. Everyone knows he is being approved but they have to cater to protestors.

My question for the cowardly senior senator from Kentucky is why Corey Booker was allowed to attack Sessions? I guess withstanding phony charges of racism would have been a bridge too far for Mitch.

 

Seriously, U.S. Senators routinely impugn the character of private American citizens who appear before them. I do not believe politicians need or deserve special protection against personal insults. Nor do they need to be exempt from laws prohibiting insider trading.

 

I am tired of watching corrupt, dim-witted politicians becoming wealthy violating laws to which the rest of us are subject. Let them marry wealthy Americans like Senators Johns Kerry and McCain did.

One question I have on the rule. Was he rule created for internal debate and not debate about an appointment?

 

Sessions is the subject of the debate. If he were not a member of the Senate this rule could not be invoked. I think that was not the intent of the rule.

 

That said, I am in favor of approving Sessions. The only choice I wanted blocked was DeVos.

From everything I've seen regarding Senator Warren, I think I'd have a hard time sitting in a room and listening to her speak.

 

@LIPTON BASH, thanks for posting about the Senate rule. I'm sure that's not something I would have learned about on social media today. Very interesting question you pose as well.

For those saying there goes the 1st Amendment of Speech. How about Facebook post who get people fired from their jobs, do they not have rights. But you all are all for those people getting fired because its unbecoming of an employee.

 

Well that FOOL Warren is unbecoming of a Senator. She should have been told to shut up and sit down. If all she can do is get up there and act a fool and crap, then they did the right thing.

For those saying there goes the 1st Amendment of Speech. How about Facebook post who get people fired from their jobs, do they not have rights. But you all are all for those people getting fired because its unbecoming of an employee.

 

Well that FOOL Warren is unbecoming of a Senator. She should have been told to shut up and sit down. If all she can do is get up there and act a fool and crap, then they did the right thing.

 

1) The First Amendment doesn't protect you from your private employer. If you're dumb enough to post something inflammatory for all the world to see, enjoy your unemployment benefits.

 

2) I have no qualms with the senate rule, but if you're going to stand up and ask your colleagues to approve of your appointment to a different branch of government, you take your questioning like a man, even if you don't like what they have to say.

Warren needs to be sit permanently. I have watched the Sessions hearings. I listened to the facts presented. They just need to vote. But its all about a show at this point. DeVos was different. She probably needed a show. Sessions does not. Grandstanding.

I don't understand the anger. She broke the rules and this is the consequence. This is the problem with the left. It's okay to break rules and laws if you are proving your point. The next 4 years are going to be a lot of fun. :cry:

I enjoy Elizabeth Warren. She’s a brilliant woman who tirelessly loves and serves her country. I read/listen to her messages and speeches when I need a certain boost.

 

Anyway, loved listening to her read that speech just outside the Senate doors…. you goo Elizabeth!