Rules and laws are funny creatures. Contrary to what we have been led to believe, they are not objective forces working to stabilize society. Rather, those in power give meaning and force to our rules and laws. Therefore, if you want to know how to interpret a rule, then you should first determine who has been given the power to interpret it. Depending on the interpreter, they will use it as a shield or a sword. That was the case with Senator Elizabeth Warren.
During the senate’s debate regarding the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Mitch McConnell called Senator Warren out of order as she read excerpts from a letter written by Coretta Scott King. Senator Warren was accused of violating senate rule 19(2) that states, “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” After she was called to order, the senate voted along party lines to have Senator Warren sat down. She is no longer allowed to speak on the senate floor about Senator Session’s nomination.
There are numerous aspects to this story that had me livid, but I will restrict it to three major issues. First, this rule is meant to maintain civility among senators by essentially restricting debate to the subject at hand and not have it slide into an exchange of ad hominem attacks. This is a noble objective because it upholds the integrity of the senate. However, when the underlying debate IS a fellow senator and whether he is fit for a higher position, this rule ceases to be prophylactic and becomes an impediment to the function of the senate.
How can a nominee be adequately vetted if senators are restricted from discussing those negative aspects of a nominee that would make him unfit to serve a higher office? The senate is responsible for ensuring quality candidates, which is impossible if they can only discuss positive attributes. Tellingly, the senators did not argue that the comments were false, only that it made Senator Sessions look bad. Instead of debating the matter, they stifled it. The senate majority leaders did not use the rule as a shield to protect decorum, but as a sword to silence the truth.
The second, and more disconcerting issue I had with the silencing of Senator Warren is that it was the words of Coretta Scott King that the majority of the senate found offensive. (stop and re-read that last line). A majority of current senators found the words of Mrs. King describing Senator Sessions’ history of violating the rights of blacks and using the law as a sword to punish civil rights activist, as offensive enough to sanction Senator Warren for repeating them. What I find most upsetting is the lack of reservation the senate had in essentially condemning the words of a great civil rights leader.
To be sure, the republicans do not want Mrs. King’s scathing words in the record, but to do so at the expense of censuring her is beyond the pale. Coupling this with the president’s attacks on Rep. John Lewis, and his general ignorance of black history, I am alarmed at the growing lack of reverence for historic civil rights leaders. I believe it is an indication of a growing hostility toward civil rights, especially with this administration. Perhaps the greatest indication of this is the very nomination of Senator Sessions.
Finally, this incident points to another issue that allows racism to continue to fester in our country: silence. When the issue of racism arises, we do not want to address it, we want to silence it. We agree that racism is wrong, but we cannot agree on who is racist. For the majority of America, if racism is not blatant like Dylan Roof, then it is debatable. And if it is debatable, then we must silence the debate, least we find racism lurking in high places. Last night the senate chose silence, and as a result a person with a history of racism may be allowed to sit in a high place. This is far more offensive than any words uttered by Senator Warren.
–Until Next Time–
Palooke
Awesome truth