GOP Senators fight facts: won’t hear Coretta Scott King’s views of Attorney General nominee Sessions
by Linda Beale
GOP Senators fight facts: won’t hear Coretta Scott King’s views of Attorney General nominee Sessions
GOP obstructionism is back again in full form. This time, instead of voting over and over again to eliminate affordable health care (Obamacare) for the 20 million Americans now covered by the health reform act or declaring that they will not perform their duty to even hold a committee meeting on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, they are declaring their unwillingness to listen to anything that doesn’t suit them about Trump’s band of misfits for cabinet posts. They are, in other words, declaring themselves fit only for a world of “alternative facts” (i.e., lies) and “rose-tinted glasses” for looking at Trump nominees like Jeff Sessions.
During Black History Month, Republican Sen. McConnell squelched Democratic Sen. Warren‘s speech on Jeff Sessions and called for a roll-call vote to rebuke her under a quaint Senate rule against casting aspersions on fellow Senators for discussing Sen. Sessions’ (dis)qualifications for the office of Attorney General to which he has been nominated by the Trump administration. What was Senator Warren’s so-called sin? Reading portions of a letter that Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 to oppose his nomination to be a federal judge. See, e.g., Mitch McConnell gives Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign an in-kind contribution, Washington Post (Feb. 8, 2017).
This appears to be one more blatant example of the two-facedness of the Republicans in Congress. It was fine for Republicans in the House and Senate to malign President Obama (a former member of the Senate and thus a colleague as well) by calling him names and casting aspersions on his citizenship (Trump’s invention of the so-called “birther” movement)! But hearing what a highly respected fighter in the civil rights struggle wrote about Senator Sessions’ attempts to curtail the voting rights of Black voters through harassment and intimidation was too much for Republicans!
Warren was being an uppity woman, so the white man had to show her her place, doncha know.
Coretta thanks Sessions:
Why didn’t E Warren talk about this?
Why should she? The letter is real and it spoke of many things Sessions was and was not. Even today, Sessions has flawed beliefs. Furthrtmore, I did not hear a “thank you” as much as an acknowledgement for the library.
1. Sessions’ long record in public life reveals a man who has hired African-Americans for senior positions who speak highly of him, but who has been sharply criticized by civil rights groups for his positions on voting rights, same-sex marriage and gender equality.
2. In 1986, for instance, when he testified before Congress, he called the Voting Rights Act “intrusive” but “necessary.” Then in 2006, as a U.S. senator, he voted to renew the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. But seven years later, he said it was “good news . . . for the South” when the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the law, which made it more difficult for the federal government to protect people from racial discrimination in voting.
3. At a 2006 congressional hearing, Sessions said that an entire group of people wouldn’t thrive in America. “Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and would indicate their likely success in our society,” he said.
4. In 2009, he voted against a hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming student murdered in 1998, that extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
5. As state attorney general in 1995, he argued against a decision by the Alabama Circuit Court to order the state to remedy funding inequities between the poorest school districts, which were heavily black, and their wealthiest, which were predominantly white.
6. “I used to respect them, but if they smoke pot, I sure can’t.”
In the end, the man was conflicted and there are many better candidates who have the qualifications who are not as conflicted and who labor under their past deeds. The better question to ask here is why Senator Warren was sanctioned and the others who finished reading the letter were not.
Were fireworks aimed at opponents? Were windows smashed? Was anything set on fire?
Run: Why do Dems keep losing?
Your Champion, HR Clinton, couldn’t beat Donny. Why? Because people disliked her. She called 60m people “deplorable”. She deserved to lose for that.
Now you have a New Champion – Lizzy is your hero. But she may go down in flames too. Her favorable rating is below 50% in Mass. Her screaming is going to cost her the Senate seat. So when Scott Brown takes the seat you will be scratching your head and wondering why.
“only 44 percent of registered
voters believe that Warren
Excuse me, what was the topic again? It was about Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions and his conflicted views. Now that he was confirmed as the US AG and head of the DOJ, lets add another one:
newly-confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions said America’s “classical” principles about religious freedoms don’t apply to immigrants seeking to come into the country.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-their-own-words-how-top-trump-advisers-view-muslims/ar-AAmLs95?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp December 2015
Ye old meme Menschen verlassen Europa und nach Amerika kommen was to escape religious persecution and to be able to practice their religion unhindered by government. And here we have a newly appointed US AG who has claimed he is not a racist or a bigot or anything which might hinder him from being judiciously fair in his treatment of all people claiming religious freedom does not apply to immigrants. Seems to me like old habits are not just left behind and Sessions is a dyed in the wool bigot and racist.
I am sure we will hear more from AG Sessions, Herr Krasting.
Was Warren Wrong ??? Not likely.
“Your Champion, HR Clinton, couldn’t beat Donny.”
Actually, HRC beat Trump. By nearly 3 million votes.
No wonder you have no respect here, Krasting. You can’t even count.
Joel – May I suggest that you Google “45th Presidential Election”? You will be surprised to learn that Trump won the election by a wide margin.
If you’re still confused, may I further suggest you have a look at:
“Social Studies For Kids – How Presidents are Elected”??
Again, I believe the topic was the “popular vote.”
Krasting–May I suggest that you Google “45th Presidential Election”? You will be surprised to learn that Trump lost the election by a wide margin. He was appointed POTUS by the electoral college. He was beaten in the election by a large margin, particularly when you include the 3rd party vote, which was also a vote against Trump.
If you’re still confused, may I further suggest you look at:
California vote totals:
HRC – 7.4m
DT – 3.9m
HRC margin = 3.5m
So 150% of the HRC popular vote advantage comes from Cali. Most of that advantage come from SoCal. Most of the advantage come from LA County.
I understand you are frustrated and disappointed by the election. But do you really think that the other 49 states don’t matter and that national elections can only be won by carrying NYC and LA?
When Bruce, I, and Dan were talking about certain commenters; Bruce suggested the blog always needs a village idiot. You are vying for that title at this moment. If one were to wipe away New York and Massachusetts leads over Trump and HRC still retained California, Clinton would have lost also. Your point is meaningless. “It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.” http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
Martin Longman at Washington Monthly makes the argument for the popular vote stating the EC does not work anymore. I disagreed; but, the EC is not functioning in the manner it was designed to function. The House is frozen at 435 Representatives which also represent the numbers of EC delegates who get to vote. The numbers of constituents in each district goes from 586,000 in a state like Wyoming to 738,000 in California. In comparison, California is under represented when compared to Wyoming with the smallest population in the nation. If you wish to fix the EC, fix the representation. As it is, CA lost 14 addition EC votes for HRC as well as other highly populated states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. One Rep was never meant to have 586,000 in a district much less in a state. The original number was 60,000. Since the House would have to expand Yuugely, the other way to fix it is to change the EC to reflect the populations in each state and district.
My point here is popular vote does matter and if properly measured by state, Trump would be relegated back to his phallic symbol called Trump Tower. Wyoming is over represented in comparison to California and many other states. I do not think the Repubs will go for that much less apportion the EC vote by popular vote.
Finally we agree on something. The US voting system is flawed. There are issues with the EC and there would be misrepresentation of State rights if it is just the popular vote.
I can’t imagine that this can be fixed in the next 10-20 years? Change the Constitution? So that Latinos in NYC and LA have the deciding vote?
I do hope you spend the next 20 years fighting to change this. But then in the year 2038 Cali votes for a Republican.
Recall that Cali did vote Rep from 1952 – 1988 (except 64, Goldwater)
Two states already apportion. Congress set the limit at 435 for The House. This has little to do with the EC. And you have something against minorities? By 2040, the majority of the population will Hispanic.