Old, white, Democrat women are racist, too

[bigsly]

In honor of Democrat woman-of-color Rashida Tlaib who, during the House Cohen hearing today, accused an old, white, Republican Representative of being a racist, but then backed-off actually doing so by insisting she only accused him of doing a racist act (as if accusing someone of a murderous act isn't simultaneously accusing that same person of being a murderer).

Calls growing for Maryland lawmaker to resign over slur

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland political leaders from both parties and civil rights groups made growing calls for the resignation of a Democratic state lawmaker on Wednesday, after she used a racial slur for African-Americans at an after-hours gathering.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/calls-growing-for-maryland-lawmaker-to-resign-over-slur

 

[HisArpy]

In honor of Democrat woman-of-color Rashida Tlaib who, during the House Cohen hearing today, accused an old, white, Republican Representative of being a racist, but then backed-off actually doing so by insisting she only accused him of doing a racist act (as if accusing someone of a murderous act isn't simultaneously accusing that same person of being a murderer).



https://www.foxnews.com/us/calls-growing-for-maryland-lawmaker-to-resign-over-slur

Tlaib is eventually going to have to answer to the ethics committee for what she said about a colleague. It'll be interesting to see which members defend her.

 

[RoryN]

Tlaib is eventually going to have to answer to the ethics committee for what she said about a colleague.

She said the truth. His suggestion that a black woman working on Trump's staff = Trump's not being racist is an assertion steeped in racist ideology. One black person does not equal an entire race, ever. (I feel silly having to spell it out but, y'know, you and this crowd...)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/calls-growing-for-maryland-lawmaker-to-resign-over-slur

^^^^
And this woman needs to go.

 

[Que]

She won't for the same reason the governor of Virginia is not going to step down, and the lieutenant governor of Virginia is not going to be removed from office.

What's the point in fealty to the intersectionality of oppression if you can't use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card?

 

[bigsly]

Underachieving black racist proclaims, "One black person does not equal an entire race, ever." while continually striving to be a GB blacksplaining representative for an entire race, anyway.

 

[Que]

Not to mention that the problems experienced by the collective distill all the way down to the individual and the only possible explanation is "white privilege" where each and every individual white person is imbued with this magical property that equals the entire white race.

At no point have any of the board dispicables indicated that there is even the slightest possibility that any individual white person might be passed over for these alleged privileges.

None seem shy about whitesplainin' my privilege.

 

[HisArpy]

She said the truth. His suggestion that a black woman working on Trump's staff = Trump's not being racist is an assertion steeped in racist ideology. One black person does not equal an entire race, ever. (I feel silly having to spell it out but, y'know, you and this crowd...)

The House rules prohibit members from making derogatory remarks about their colleagues.

(H) REMARKS CONFINED. A member shall confine all remarks to the question under debate and avoid personalities. No member shall impugn the motive of any member's vote or argument.

http://leg.wa.gov/House/Pages/HouseRules.aspx#anchor30

This has been determined to include derogatory remarks made about colleagues. Such remarks routinely lead to censure by the Ethics committee.


Three guesses as to what it's called when you claim a colleague is a racist.

 

[bigsly]

Tlaib is eventually going to have to answer to the ethics committee for what she said about a colleague. It'll be interesting to see which members defend her.

No she won't, nor should she. It's not her problem you don't believe in freedom of speech. Plus, Chairman Cummings already provided her the opportunity to sheepishly walk her talk back, and Representative Meadows accepted her explanation and rescinded his effort to make her racist accusation officially a part of the record.

And "ethics committee" as related to Congress has to be one of the greatest oxymorons, ever.

 

[Que]

No she won't, nor should she. It's not her problem you don't believe in freedom of speech. Plus, Chairman Cummings already provided her the opportunity to sheepishly walk her talk back, and Representative Meadows accepted her explanation and rescinded his effort to make her racist accusation officially a part of the record.

And "ethics committee" as related to Congress has to be one of the greatest oxymorons, ever.

*chuckle*

"Intelligence committee" is not far behind.

 

[schism666]

In honor of Democrat woman-of-color Rashida Tlaib who, during the House Cohen hearing today, accused an old, white, Republican Representative of being a racist, but then backed-off actually doing so by insisting she only accused him of doing a racist act (as if accusing someone of a murderous act isn't simultaneously accusing that same person of being a murderer).



https://www.foxnews.com/us/calls-growing-for-maryland-lawmaker-to-resign-over-slur

they certainly do exist.

/thread

 

[Boxlicker101]

Action has been taken against her: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...nti-loses-leadership-post-over-racial-n976391

Since she was elected, she probably can't be removed from office without involving a long process.

 

[bigsly]

Action has been taken against her: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...nti-loses-leadership-post-over-racial-n976391

Since she was elected, she probably can't be removed from office without involving a long process.

Are you actually suggesting she can possibly be impeached for exercising her constitutional right to free speech?

 

[Rightguide]

Are you actually suggesting she can possibly be impeached for exercising her constitutional right to free speech?

Depends on what the rules of the chamber she serves in and the state constitution provide for disciplinary action.

 

[bigsly]

Depends on what the rules of the chamber she serves in and the state constitution provide for disciplinary action.

Really? You're suggesting the 1st Amendment does not apply unconditionally to the Maryland General Assembly and the Constitution of the State of Maryland?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Are you actually suggesting she can possibly be impeached for exercising her constitutional right to free speech?

Not at all. In fact the remark in question was overheard during a casual conversation in a bar. I don't know anything about the rules of the MD legislature, but there might be some way, short of impeachment, in which her fellow legislators can remove one of their members who has shown himself or herself to be unfit for service.

Personally, I consider the whole thing to be extremely overblown. If there were an ongoing pattern that might be another matter.

 

[Que]

Really? You're suggesting the 1st Amendment does not apply unconditionally to the Maryland General Assembly and the Constitution of the State of Maryland?

It's a pretty strict reading. The First Amendment get you the right to say whatever you'd like it doesn't make you free from the social and financial consequences that your speech might result in.

I mean the most obvious way that such things should be handled would be at The Ballot Box I would think. You don't like how she sounds then you vote her out of office next time around. However there's nothing to say that you can't be so incensed by someone's free speech that you can just decide for example to have a recall election. Or if there are provisions that permit a particular body to expel one of its members then they can obviously do that based on nothing but someone's free speech.

Subsequent to that various mechanisms I'm sure in place to throw them out if the populace doesn't like that their particular representative was thrown out by the herd.

No one's talking about taking away her Liberty.

 

[Rightguide]

Really? You're suggesting the 1st Amendment does not apply unconditionally to the Maryland General Assembly and the Constitution of the State of Maryland?

No it is not an unfettered right. There are rules of decorum and conduct in every legislative house. For instance in the US Senate Rule 19 prohibits Senators from insulting each other on the Senate floor. It was used against Senator Elizabeth Warren recently when she attempted to disparage Senator Jeff Sessions in a speech. McConnell silenced her with Rule 19 and a rebuke.

 

[bigsly]

Not at all. In fact the remark in question was overheard during a casual conversation in a bar. I don't know anything about the rules of the MD legislature, but there might be some way, short of impeachment, in which her fellow legislators can remove one of their members who has shown himself or herself to be unfit for service.

I do not know of any other way than impeachment for a legislature to remove a member from elected office. And there's no way any American legislature can possibly impeach a member for simply speaking freely, which is GUARANTEED by the 1st Amendment, no matter how offensive that speech might be.

No State legislature's rules can supersede the Constitution.

It's a pretty strict reading. The First Amendment get you the right to say whatever you'd like it doesn't make you free from the social and financial consequences that your speech might result in.

I mean the most obvious way that such things should be handled would be at The Ballot Box I would think. You don't like how she sounds then you vote her out of office next time around. However there's nothing to say that you can't be so incensed by someone's free speech that you can just decide for example to have a recall election. Or if there are provisions that permit a particular body to expel one of its members then they can obviously do that based on nothing but someone's free speech.

Subsequent to that various mechanisms I'm sure in place to throw them out if the populace doesn't like that their particular representative was thrown out by the herd.

No one's talking about taking away her Liberty.

Punishing anyone for speaking freely is, indeed, an offense against their liberty to do so.

And her electorate is most definitely the only constitutional judge and jury of any removal from the legislature consequences for her constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Since no State legislature's rules can possibly supersede the 1st Amendment, thereby fully prohibiting it from impeaching and removing a member for speaking freely no matter how offensively, a legislature can only censure a member and/or remove that member from any privileged positions they might hold in that legislature.

No it is not an unfettered right. There are rules of decorum and conduct in every legislative house. For instance in the US Senate Rule 19 prohibits Senators from insulting each other on the Senate floor. It was used against Senator Elizabeth Warren recently when she attempted to disparage Senator Jeff Sessions in a speech. McConnell silenced her with Rule 19 and a rebuke.

Yes, legislative rules can punish and censure members, but no legislature can impeach and remove a member from their elected office for 1st Amendment-guaranteed free speech, no matter how offensively that speech may be. To attempt to do so would be unconstitutionally placing that legislature above the Constitution itself. Legislatures, just like the other branches of government and all citizens, are fully bound by the Constitution, never above it.

 

[nowisthetime]

Um duh, racism isn't limited to party. Black folk have known that all along.

Some white people on the Democratic side have their racist bias. But no way does this compare in magnitude to the racism from old white male Repugs, especially like the ones on this board. Just plain nasty.

Don't you dare call out racism from the other side before checking your group.

 

[Rightguide]

I do not know of any other way than impeachment for a legislature to remove a member from elected office. And there's no way any American legislature can possibly impeach a member for simply speaking freely, which is GUARANTEED by the 1st Amendment, no matter how offensive that speech might be.

No State legislature's rules can supersede the Constitution.



Punishing anyone for speaking freely is, indeed, an offense against their liberty to do so.

And her electorate is most definitely the only constitutional judge and jury of any removal from the legislature consequences for her constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Since no State legislature's rules can possibly supersede the 1st Amendment, thereby fully prohibiting it from impeaching and removing a member for speaking freely no matter how offensively, a legislature can only censure a member and/or remove that member from any privileged positions they might hold in that legislature.



Yes, legislative rules can punish and censure members, but no legislature can impeach and remove a member from their elected office for 1st Amendment-guaranteed free speech, no matter how offensively that speech may be. To attempt to do so would be unconstitutionally placing that legislature above the Constitution itself. Legislatures, just like the other branches of government and all citizens, are fully bound by the Constitution, never above it.

Listen up:

"The Constitution grants the House broad power to discipline its Members for acts that range from criminal misconduct to violations of internal House Rules. While the constitutional authority to punish a Member who engages in “disorderly Behaviour” is intended, in part, as an instrument of individual rebuke, it serves principally to protect the reputation of the institution and to preserve the dignity of its proceedings.

Over the decades, several forms of discipline have evolved in the House. The most severe type of punishment is expulsion from the House, which is followed by censure, and finally reprimand. Expulsion, as mandated in the Constitution, requires a two-thirds majority vote. Censure and reprimand, which evolved through House precedent and practice, are imposed by a simple majority of the full House.'

I will note that explusion has been used 5 times in the past. So the House does have the right to remove a member who violates "its" rules. Read about it here:

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Discipline/

 

[Rightguide]

Um duh, racism isn't limited to party. Black folk have known that all along.

Some white people on the Democratic side have their racist bias. But no way does this compare in magnitude to the racism from old white male Repugs, especially like the ones on this board. Just plain nasty.

Don't you dare call out racism from the other side before checking your group.

The Democrat Party is the genetic home of American racism. it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and restored their rights.

 

[bigsly]

Listen up:

"The Constitution grants the House broad power to discipline its Members for acts that range from criminal misconduct to violations of internal House Rules. While the constitutional authority to punish a Member who engages in “disorderly Behaviour” is intended, in part, as an instrument of individual rebuke, it serves principally to protect the reputation of the institution and to preserve the dignity of its proceedings.

Over the decades, several forms of discipline have evolved in the House. The most severe type of punishment is expulsion from the House, which is followed by censure, and finally reprimand. Expulsion, as mandated in the Constitution, requires a two-thirds majority vote. Censure and reprimand, which evolved through House precedent and practice, are imposed by a simple majority of the full House.'

I will note that explusion has been used 5 times in the past. So the House does have the right to remove a member who violates "its" rules. Read about it here:

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Discipline/

So, you're going with House rules supersede the 1st Amendment, the law of the land. Good for anti-America, authoritative you. Read about it here:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Asked whether she had ever used the slur, the Post reported that she said: "I'm sure I have ... I'm sure everyone has used it."

Wow. That’s messed up. It’s not the first time I have heard this. I know folks who have said much the same thing. “It was just normal”, “everyone talked like that.” No, no, no.

 

[Rightguide]

So, you're going with House rules supersede the 1st Amendment, the law of the land. Good for anti-America, authoritative you. Read about it here:

I'm not going with anything. You asked about the rules, I showed them to you. The Congress has the constitutional right to make its own rules. it's just the way it is.

 

[Rightguide]

Wow. That’s messed up. It’s not the first time I have heard this. I know folks who have said much the same thing. “It was just normal”, “everyone talked like that.” No, no, no.

Please, no doubt every Democrat has probably used the word going back to the founding of the country.