What is wrong with what Senator Elizabeth Warren quoted according to the Senate rule 19?

Nothing is wrong with it. Conservatives stifled an honest description of their racist behavior.

She is a Democrat, who knows maybe a Presidential candidate for 2020, NOT a Republican pass at for 2017. She opened her mouth, not wanted by the Republicans to hear. Stop her from talking.

I believe the rule came into effect because of a fist fight on the Senate floor over 100 years ago.

One interesting little factoid: When Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called him [McConnell] a liar on the floor in 2015, McConnell urged his fellow Republicans not to use the tool against the junior senator fearing Cruz could appear to be a martyr—a fate that now seems to benefiting Warren, a potential presidential candidate in 2020.

I read that Republicans had discussed implementing this arcane rule at some point to try to keep Dems from bringing up all the skeletons in Sessions closet. It really didn’t matter who it was applied to. The intent was to subdue Democratic opposition.

The only thing wrong is that McConnell feels threatened by women outside of the kitchen.

How can you have a hearing on someone’s appointment to a cabinet position without allowing “impugning” statements? Are you only supposed to say nice things? That would not be much of a hearing.

The whole thing was a big farce. Other Democrats quoted the letter and nothing happened. This was a clear case of discrimination against Warren for being a woman.

@LostInParadise I am not sure it was actually because of her gender but because she has become the Democratic voice of opposition and reason and therefore the biggest threat to Republican Hegemony. But, then again, maybe it was her gender that made them think they could get away with it.

Apparently we have found our troll Randy. He was the one that only wanted us to say nice things. He is Mitch Mcconnell in real life.

What’s wrong with it is, it is calling Sessions a Racist.

Duh.

By the way, I’d like to know how this rich white woman got so far in life using programs and funds intended for Native Americans— many of whom really need them.

@Yellowdog one mans biased opinion.

Care to address @LostInParadise ‘s question of how to hold a hearing without discussing all sides; the good, the bad and the ugly?

Well, for one thing, Sessions sure put the Klan out of business in Alabama.

Lots of Democrats will vehemently deny that the Ku Klux Klan was a democrat organization, as was most of the politics in the South. The Republicans were never dominate in the South until at least the 1980s, when there wasn’t much racism left—except among the remaining, aging democrats.

Jeff Sessions has a stellar Civil Rights record. Elizabeth Warren takes funds and positions intended for minorities.

Lots of Democrats will vehemently deny that the Ku Klux Klan was a democrat organization

Lots of dishonest racist conservatives deny that all the Klan supporters moved to the Republican party in the years following the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

Not going to re-fight the civil war. I am sure you are well aware that the growth of the Republican Party in the south was fueled by disaffected Democrats, many of whom harbored racial biases, and who felt abandoned by the party when they adopted a more inclusive attitude toward African-Americans. So, New party in charge but made up of those who have the same old racially intolerant attitudes.

As for your Klan reference. Since the majority of the white population in the south was democratic it stands to reason that the majority of the Klan would be. But enough of the past, take a look and see what the major party affiliation of present day Klan and other White Nationalist organizations is today (which is what is important). The vast majority are, or align themselves with, the Republican Party. Again, IS rather than WAS.

Your last point regarding Sessions is but your opinion; mine is different and there is a lot of facts out there waiting for you to review and, if justified, revise your position. I will leave you with one thing however; before his hearing Sessions listed four civil rights cases that he said he was instrumental in the resolution of. He further clarified this claim by saying that his role in the cases was to “provide support for the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, attorneys. I reviewed, supported and co-signed complaints, motions, and other pleadings and briefs that were filed during my tenure as U.S. attorney. I provided assistance and guidance to the Civil Rights Division attorneys, had an open-door policy with them, and cooperated with them on these cases.”. In some of these cases the lead attorneys say they never even heard from nor spoke with Sessions. His role could probably better be said that “By design, attorneys in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division were directly responsible for the day-to-day tasks in these legal cases. Sessions, as United States attorney, had a supervisory role. Sessions’s “strong record” on civil rights has more to do with the fact that he didn’t interfere in these cases, or otherwise make it difficult for the Civil Rights Division attorneys to do their jobs.” Hardly what I would call a stellar civil rights record. Finally, here is an article with quotes from Sessions and his responses when asked about what he said.

But, I don’t expect you to take my word for it, only ask that you do your own research and see if you don’t reach a different conclusion