|
Replies: 24
| visibility 391
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
If a Senator cannot say anything negative about
Feb 8, 2017, 3:26 PM
|
|
another Senator, how are they to debate the confirmation of a Senator for the President's cabinet?
As I read the rule invoked, I think it's pretty clear Sen. Warren broke the rule. But I don't understand what the point of a confirmation is if the only things you can say are positive.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Congress is broken***
Feb 8, 2017, 3:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Warren went over the top. Waaaaay over the top.***
Feb 8, 2017, 4:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
lulz
Feb 8, 2017, 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24765]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42486
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Misspelled Humper...***
Feb 8, 2017, 6:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49040]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38812
Joined: 12/31/97
|
By reading from a document that was already
Feb 8, 2017, 4:12 PM
[ in reply to Warren went over the top. Waaaaay over the top.*** ] |
|
contained the congressional record from one of Sessions prior appointment hearings?
Okay Snowflake - sorry she hurt your feelings!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23465
Joined: 7/13/12
|
sounds like rush
Feb 8, 2017, 4:04 PM
|
|
pros and cons and must end on a pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It's not so much that she could only say positive things...
Feb 8, 2017, 4:15 PM
|
|
she just couldn't say that he engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Senator. She was making personal attacks by accusing him of being a racist and of trying to "chill" black voters.
And, in fact, the rule has been invoked plenty of times when other Senators were similarly out of hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
So, if those things were true...
Feb 8, 2017, 4:48 PM
|
|
They wouldn't be allowed to be said at a confirmation hearing? (Let's keep it hypothetical)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I would think that a Senator would not be covered by the
Feb 8, 2017, 4:53 PM
|
|
rule if they are being confirmed. They are not being discussed as a colleague but as an appointment. The rules that cover every other confirmation hearing should be followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
That makes sense to me. In normal Senate debate...
Feb 8, 2017, 4:55 PM
|
|
it is a good thing to make sure the debate is focused on ideas, not on people. But for a confirmation, the person is the whole point!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
No, because the rules of hearings are different
Feb 8, 2017, 5:19 PM
[ in reply to So, if those things were true... ] |
|
Warren easily could've said what she wanted to say without accusing Sessions of being a racist or trying to chill black voters. Instead, Liz Warren gonna Liz Warren so she went full demagogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Again, keep it hypothetical...
Feb 8, 2017, 5:25 PM
|
|
If a sitting Senator did truthfully and objectively try to suppress voting rights of people, that would not be allowed to be said at a confirmation hearing for him/her?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I think facts could be presented, but maybe conclusions would have to be implied***
Feb 8, 2017, 7:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Thanks for bearing with me and your responses.***
Feb 8, 2017, 8:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
^^ This...she could have said "session did not prosecute...
Feb 8, 2017, 10:43 PM
[ in reply to I think facts could be presented, but maybe conclusions would have to be implied*** ] |
|
such and such...he did not defend voting rights act," etc...
But what she read impugned his motives and said he was a disgrace to the DOJ. Basically called him a racist on the Senate floor. It was way over the top and she had been warned. Many are saying McConnell should have just let it go so as not to give her a rallying point. From where I sit, seems to me he was trying to help elevate her. It's clear she's going to run in 2020 and I think she would be the best to run against. She would not be able to win a national election IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Which is how a defense should be, don't you think?
Feb 9, 2017, 1:18 PM
|
|
You have to at least acknowledge that what Warren was doing was demagoguery, right? She apparently wanted to pretend those weren't her own personal views, so she used a tendentious letter about a controversial case from 30 years ago to hide behind. Now she's going on twitter to claim that Sessions is a racist and a sexist, not just that him prosecuting that case in 1986 chilled black voters. In my opinion, she's the Democrats' version of Ted Cruz, except possibly less interested in facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Was her type of demagoguery any different than others?
Feb 9, 2017, 4:03 PM
|
|
Was she doing anything that other Senators hadn't done before? Why not let her speak to the letter (that was already on record) and leave it be? She and her actions would have been ignored. The optics of stopping her from reading a letter from the widow of MLK during Black History Month about a man that is racially controversial should be damning of Mcconnell alone. It should instantly thrust into question his decision making as a leader in his party.
Interesting you bring up Ted Cruz because he stood on the floor and called another senator(ironically, it was McConnell) a liar without having rule 19 invoked. So, the defense of "demagoguery" is a bit unsupported when the subjectivity of what's considered "demagoguery" on the senate floor is 1)subjective and 2)pretty commonplace.
Touche on the "defense should be charitable" point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4035]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3263
Joined: 4/13/16
|
Re: If a Senator cannot say anything negative about
Feb 9, 2017, 6:26 AM
|
|
I would assume this kind of attack is not allowed as it is a personal without any kind of evidence.
In a confirmation hearing there will be facts and actual cases brought up In which the character of the individual will be determined by how they view outcomes and legislation. I think confirmations are calculated. What Warren did is what I do to you and Balm on a daily basis, attack you without really knowing you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The reason I phrased my original question that way...
Feb 9, 2017, 6:55 AM
|
|
Was because my literal reading of the rule is that you can't basically say anything negative about the person. It says you can't "impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Conduct OR motive. That seems like it could be anything.
It sounds like the rule is normally applied more to the "motive" side, and I suppose that's fine. I was just going by what the rule said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I liken it to crump's rule about personal attacks.
Feb 9, 2017, 7:43 AM
|
|
America is being played. None of our politicians hate their senate opponents. Warren doesn't for a minute believe that Sessions is a racist.
The rule is about attacking someone's character.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
To be fair, everyone in the Senate hates Ted Cruz.***
Feb 9, 2017, 4:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 24
| visibility 391
|
|
|
50
