I’ll come back when you’ve read the article you’re posting comments about.
15 Likes
The letter was about conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a judicial (and now cabinet) nominee.* If the rules were truly drafted to exempt Senators sitting in the nominee’s seat from being subjected to the same criticism that other nominees are then the legal language would have reflected that intent. As it is, the GOP Senate leadership is stretching, and creating a precedent that is bad for both parties.
[* a nominee is someone proposed for an appointed position. A nominee may also be a current elected official, like a Senator, but as a nominee facing a Congressional committee he does not enjoy the protections normally accorded to the elected office – in that seat he is a public-spirited citizen first, not a Senator]
Why not? Historically it’s a symbol of being on the right side of history. The real question is: why wouldn’t someone have a safety pin handy when right-wing authoritarians take over?
17 Likes
I agree with Daneyul that the circumstances are exceptional. There are other arguments that probably could be applied correctly to show that the application of rule 19 was improper. But saying it does not apply because it is a comment about Sessions as Ag is moot. Sessions is presently a Senator.
I do know that the rule was intended for use in extraordinary circumstances, which this was not. from what I can find, the last use of the rule was in 1979, and involved actual name calling.
Also, Streisand rule.
2 Likes
He thinks he’ll survive the downfall. Not giving good odds on that.
1 Like
Maybe the GOP just don’t like women speaking.
24 Likes
You’re such a sweetie. You should go back to doing your hair and nails, since you don’t seem able to read well enough to understand what really happened. Aren’t gals like you cute when you’re trying to use your brains?
18 Likes
I wonder what the Brave Defenders of the Rule would say if Democrats objected every time a Senator’s conduct or motives were criticized on the floor. Rule 19 objections would be as common as yawns. Nothing would get done. The Senate would grind to a hal—
I finally get it.
14 Likes
Play the long game, Figsplainer.
It is a democracy in the broader sense of the term, i.e. a system in which the popular and free vote of individuals for any person or party who wishes to run plays a part (there are pseudo-democratic systems like Russia’s as well, where the “free” part is missing). The modern GOP does everything it can to reduce access to the voting franchise, of course, and exploits the sometimes outmoded and broken Constitutional mechanisms intended to moderate the sometimes negative effects of direct democracy when it suits them, of course, but this does not obviate the broader importance of democracy to the U.S. system.
Let me take this opportunity to commend you for trying to learn more about the American system of government. Whether you’re a non-American who finds the system confusing or an American trying to remedy the outcome of our K-12 system’s poor civics education, it’s a worthwhile endeavour.
18 Likes
Elizabeth Warren silenced by 92% of GOP Senate for reading Coretta Scott King’s words on Jeff Sessions
There are 52 Republicans in the US Senate. Only 48 voted to ban Warren from speaking. So there.
I fixed that for you.
4 Likes
“It’s not a democracy—it’s a Constitutional representational republic!” is the civics version of “This isn’t a fedora—it’s a trilby!”
31 Likes
Oh, is this the only thing Sessions has done in his entire life? Interesting.
And are you sure this is what Coretta Scott King was writing about?
3 Likes
“Hysterical”. Stay classy, Heritage Foundation.
24 Likes
Welcome to Boing Boing, comrade. Enjoy your (probably very limited) time here.
11 Likes
I had to google Trilby and found this. The comment section is great -
6 Likes
That depends on the motivation behind the rule break.
Also, if you think laws are absolute and unbendable in any direction, you can’t have spent much time around lawyers.
14 Likes
18 Likes
Oh, I know it. (Perhaps my sarcasm is too dry and insufficiently withering.)
1 Like
Seems to me that a strict interpretation of this rule would mean that no one could put forward ANY argument against Jeff Sessions’ confirmation as Secretary of State. I call bullshit on that.
21 Likes
Oh look, Gracchus was right.
3 Likes
