So, your position is that Session is a racist?Are you aware that the Republican Senate rejected Sessions for a federal judgeship?
Yeah, some time after "We'll just have to win, then."I guess times have changed.
I doubt if he is a racist. You agree that what I stated in my post is factual?So, your position is that Session is a racist?
Yeah, some time after "We'll just have to win, then."
It was apparently instituted because a string of insults in 1902 led to a fistfight on the Senate floor. Artist depiction:One of the Democrats said "Rule 19 against criticizing a member of the Senate cannot apply when the subject of the debate is the fitness of a member as a nominee." I actually think this argument has some merit. I believe Rule 19 is to prevent a Senator from saying, "I oppose this bill and oh, by the way, Senator Leghorn is a scumbag."
If you refer to my posts related the current state of politics in the US to the collapse of institutions in the declining years of the Roman Republic, you will detect that I do not support any move by current incumbents that undermines the viability of our republican institutions. The institutions are more important than any particular decision.I doubt if he is a racist. You agree that what I stated in my post is factual?
Here was the House version:It was apparently instituted because a string of insults in 1902 led to a fistfight on the Senate floor. Artist depiction:
content/uploads/sites/21/2017/02/senatefight.jpg[/IMG]
Thank you TW. Rarely do we find ourselves in agreement, but I do respect your opinion and admire your breadth of knowledge, to which mine pales in comparison.If you refer to my posts related the current state of politics in the US to the collapse of institutions in the declining years of the Roman Republic, you will detect that I do not support any move by current incumbents that undermines the viability of our republican institutions. The institutions are more important than any particular decision.
Shutting Warren down is ungentlemanly and undermines collegiality.
And attacking another senator from the floor of the Senate with unfounded allegations is gentlemanly and promotes collegiality?If you refer to my posts related the current state of politics in the US to the collapse of institutions in the declining years of the Roman Republic, you will detect that I do not support any move by current incumbents that undermines the viability of our republican institutions. The institutions are more important than any particular decision.
Shutting Warren down is ungentlemanly and undermines collegiality.
Part of me would love to see some of them duke it out in a boxing ring once in a while....to walk the walk.....in addition to talking the talk.It was apparently instituted because a string of insults in 1902 led to a fistfight on the Senate floor. Artist depiction:
"Gentlemanly" is a sexist code word designed to subtly emphasize that women should not be senators. Therefore to refer to warren as being treated ungentlemanly is actually a complimentAnd attacking another senator from the floor of the Senate with unfounded allegations is gentlemanly and promotes collegiality?
No it doesn't, but it keeps the Democrats in the wrong. I am not convinced that a thirty year old opinion from Coretta Scott King on Jeff Sessions is really relevant, but I do believe that Rule 19 cannot have the same relevance when the senator himself is the topic of debate. I would not cede to Mrs. King a veto on Federal judgeships (or, post-mortem, on UAGs) just because she was married to MLK. Warren's was a plain appeal to authority (invoking King's name).And attacking another senator from the floor of the Senate with unfounded allegations is gentlemanly and promotes collegiality?
"Gentlemanly" is a sexist code word designed to subtlety emphasize that women should not be senators. Therefore to refer to warren as being treated ungentlemanly is actually a compliment
I wonder if she invented Mazola.