If indeed Warren was in breach of Rule 19, Section 2 concerning Senate Debate (which reads, "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) then why on earth was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker permitted to testify against Sessions during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings? Here is a sample of Booker's testimony which occurred less than four weeks ago:
One of the victories of the Modern Civil Rights movement was the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which in effect made the Attorney General not only the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, but also vested in the office the responsibility to pursue civil rights and equal protections for all in America.
Senator Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requirement of the job – to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all. In fact, at numerous times in his career, he has demonstrated a hostility toward these convictions, and has worked to frustrate attempts to advance these ideals.
Surely Rule 19, Section 2 is applicable to Senate Committees as it is to the Senate as a whole. If this is the case then surely Booker certainly imputed conduct or motive unworthy and unbecoming a Senator when he said Sessions "demonstrated a hostility" towards the enforcement of civil rights law. Yet Booker's testimony is now a part of the public record. If Booker's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was acceptable then why isn't Warren's attempt to read a 30-year old letter from the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Under these circumstances one must wonder what motivated McConnell in acting as he did. No doubt the words of Coretta Scott King carry a certain amount of moral authority and must be given serious consideration. What other reason would McConnell have to prevent Warren from reading Mrs. King's letter to the late Senator Edward Kennedy if he didn't think it would damage Sessions' chances of confirmation and cause his fellow Republican Senators to waver?
Whatever McConnell's reasons, his move is a political blunder. By preventing Warren from reading Mrs. King's letter he has drawn far more attention to it and to Sessions' conduct earlier in his career than if he had simply let Warren read the letter. Yes, it would have received public attention but McConnell's invocation of Rule 19, Section 2 has given this matter a life of its own. He may come to regret this course of action.
As a deliberative body, the Senate ought to consider the words of Mrs. King 30 years ago against Jeff Sessions just as it ought to consider the words of those who have praised Sessions in the 30 years since especially in the African-American community as both Warren and Booker have questioned his commitment to civil rights. How much weight Mrs. King's letter will have in determining Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General is a matter of debate. Even if he was procedurally correct, Mitch McConnell erred in silencing Elizabeth Warren on the floor of the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment