WaPo: The Silencing of Elizabeth Warren and an old Senate Rule Prompted by a Fistfight
Furious that McLaurin was colluding with the other side of the aisle, Tillman used a Feb. 22, 1902, speech on the Senate floor to harangue the younger senator. Gesturing toward McLaurin’s empty chair, Tillman accused his counterpart of treachery and corruption, saying he had succumbed to “improper influences,” according to a Senate history of the dispute.
When McLaurin caught wind of Tillman’s remarks, he rushed into the chamber and shouted that Tillman was telling a “willful, malicious and deliberate lie.”
A fistfight erupted. As Senate historians recounted, “The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows. Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.”
Offered as an antidote for misty-eyed longings for the days of yore when there was comity and mutually respectful disagreement between the parties.
Not offered as evidence that things are currently the way we should be willing to tolerate.Report
There’s been worse.Report
SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!
Senatorial cage match, live on CSPAN PPV!Report
Featured match: Mitch McConnell (The Tortoise) vs. John Edwards (The Hair).Report
I think the Senate would be a much more interesting place if you could call somebody a liar, but only if doing so resulted in a hearing on the evidence for the accusation. “That’s a lie!” “You called me a liar!” isn’t interesting, but having to crawl through the record and decide what’s true would be a hilarious burden to watch them struggle with. I’d love to see members of congress investigate each other’s behavior with as much vigor as, say, Behngazi!
Tucked away for future reference: If you nominate senators to positions requiring confirmation, they’ll have a natural advantage in that all discussion must proceed based on the assumption that they’re good and honest people even if it’s not true.Report
The nominee’s senatorial privileges should be suspended during any confirmation-related procedures. That’s so obvious that only a man of no principles, a purely partisan hypocrite could act otherwise. As he just did.Report
ConcurReport
I don’t know if the Republican Party was planning on a serious challenge to Sen. Warren, but they’ve certainly made her re-election campaign a lot easier.Report
I believe Illinois may have elected more governors that went to prison than Massachusetts has elected Republicans to the Senate.
Some root for the snowball, some root for the fires of Hell.Report
Any legislative assembly without at least three fistfights per session is a dull affair.Report
I’m waiting for Richard Spencer to be elected to the Senate.Report
If she isn’t willing to pull a caplock and demand a second on the spot, then well!
(I used to say she had too much baggage to run, but after ’16…Report
I DEMAND A SECOND ON THE SPOT!Report
For whatever reason, they were willing to silence Senator Warren, but not Senators Udall, Brown, or Sanders, who all subsequently read the letter in Warren’s absence; Udall specifically arguing that rule 19 was mis-applied, and Sanders saying McConnell owes Warren an apology.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-silenced-coretta-scott-kings-letter-read-by-senate-colleagues/Report
df,
I think the principle was that she was saying things, repeatedly. and had been repeatedly warned.
The letter itself was not the particular issue to stand on.
Credit to Udall and Brown, both generally not grandstanders, for standing on the principle that King’s letter ought to be read.Report
I have to disagree with this.
When the Senate comes to where the most productive thing they can possibly do is to sit and have read to them a letter written over 50 years ago, then it is way past time to adjourn for the day.
If it really needed to be added to the record, there are ways of doing that without wasting so much time.
I have nothing against MLK. In fact, I believe I’ve read more of his stuff than most people. It’s just that the Senate has other business to attend to than storytime.Report
Will,
It is testimony about what he was doing before then, from someone who kept a decent close eye on the fellow.
I’d expect something like that if anyone tried to nominate Byrd for anything — along with testimony on his reformation.
Because both of those ought to be up for consideration.
Thirty years ago doesn’t mean a damn thing, if the person still holds those beliefs. If they don’t, then their supporters should be demonstrating why and how they’ve done concrete things to change.Report
“silenced”
Yeah right. What a massive abridgment of her speech-i-fying rights.
*rolls eyes*
One one wonders why so many people called the election wrong….Report
I agree. If Warren was silenced then what happened to Milo?Report
I think the more interesting story is, “What in the hell was McConnell thinking?!” Has the man not been paying attention? What could he possibly have gained by cutting Warren off that would be worth the subsequent shitstorm?
Also, that rule needs an amendment for when a sitting senator is up for a post that requires senate confirmation.Report
Oscar,
Oh, hellyeah. Wish I could take credit for baiting McConnell into that bit of complete stupidity and tone-deafedness.
And totally, we should have different and pertinent rules for “people up for senate confirmation”Report
I doubt he was thinking. More like an instinctive reaction to the affront he was feeling.Report
Is this “emotionally charged acting out” going to be a thing now in American politics? Because I was finally getting used to “thoroughly timed and rehearsed emotional displays” thing.Report
Let me check POTUS twitter for info on that.Report
Pretty clearly “Suck on this, bitch.”Report