Senator Warren forced not to quote Coretta King

    Around 9 30 pm Senator Warren, speaking  as part of the Democrat's opposition to  Sessions ,  attempted to provide relevant information about the 1986 Senate's  decision to reject him as a federal judge. After reading Senator Kennedy's  86 statement   she attempted to do the same with Coretta Scott King's 86 letter of opposition.

    Which  ought to have been  in the Senate files,but wasn't , according to Rachel Maddow , because Senator Thurmond took advantage of his then role in Republican Senate leadership to suppress it.. So the existence of Ms. King's letter was essentially significant new  information. For the Senate and  the country.Or would have been if Warren had read it. She didn't.

    Mitch McConnell ordered her to stop, saying she was  violating  Senate Rules by impugning the reputation of a fellow senator. Oh. So Margaret Chase Smith didn't criticize  Joe McCarthy?

    In describing   this totalitarian action ,Maddow   pointed out that while always arguing forcefully Warren  is punctilious about observing senate rules and scorns seeking notoriety for  personal publicity. 

    Possibly I'm over reacting- I don't think so- but with McConnell's  tactic- the Republicans  have  "Crossed the Rubicon" (sorry for the pretentious allusion but it's apt) and started down a road which may lead to  fatally diminishing not only  the reputation but  the actual reality of the Senate.

    Future historians may say  "that's when it all started to go wrong.:" 

    .editted to correct punctuation


    If anything worthwhile can come of this, it is that her heroic letter will now be read by millions.

    McConnell has made a huge mistake.


    ETA:  Make that a collosal mistake ...

    I was on another web page and some one addressed this in a way that that caught my attention.

    McConnell censured Senator Warren for having violated Rule 19. The problem is Senator Warren didn't actively impugned the reputation of a fellow senator. All she did was read statements written by others years before who saw serious issues with Sessions becoming a federal justice, illustrating his personal biases were well known enough at the time to deny his selection to the federal bench.

    In other words, she wasn't trashing the " good " Senator ... she was pointing out others had done so years before based on his own words and actions that kept him from advancing to the court.

    It's a subtle nuance and debatable point, and depends on the mood of those listening. It seems republicans are hurting from the DeVos debacle where for the first time ever the VP had to cast the deciding vote to confirm a cabinet member.

    If " Senate rules"  prevent  presenting critical information about a Senator Cabinet nominee the resulting  approval lacks substance.Ironically it's surely a violation of the "original intent" of the  "rule makers " .  Scalia must be turning over in his grave.

    And , since presumably Senate approval of Cabinet nominees  is surely  in  fulfillment of a Constitutional,  requirement , Sessions' no doubt imminent approval will be unconstitutional . He's been improperly "vetted" to use a phrase currently much in vogue.

    edited to correct grammar

    You just reminded me of another comment made ... Senator Warren was critiquing a Cabinet nominee who happened to be a standing Senator. So how does the rule apply? If a Senator is being presented as a potential nominee for a Cabinet position, the Chamber shouldn't apply parliamentary procedures because the Senator, being a nominee, surrenders his senatorial status so as to be judged upon his own merit for the position in question.

    "Nevertheless, she persisted."

    I am getting some buttons printed ASAP.

    I found this interesting.

    Mornin Joke went into it as usual; from both sides of his insidious mouth. hahahah

    Then Senator Udahl got a way with reading the King letter on the floor. hahah

    At least we were saved from hearing the latest from the orange clown.

    Latest Comments