Mediaboss Marketing

By a vote of 49to 43, Senate Republicans on Tuesdaynight formally silencedSen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during the debate over the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be attorney general.

Invoking a seldom-used Senate rule, Republicans put Warren in her seat. Undeterred, she left the chamber, reached far beyond the nighttime audience of C-Span junkies, and broadcast to millions tough criticism of Sessions, leveled in statements by former senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Coretta Scott King.

What happened Tuesdaynight and what can it tell us about legislative politics and the state of the Senate?

Heres how Republicans forcedWarren to take her seat

Senate debate is governed by Rule 19, which includes a rarely invoked clause empowering the presiding officer to enforce standards of decorum on the Senate floor:

At issue last night was Warrens reading from materials entered into the congressional record, including statements from Kennedy and King, the widow of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., when the Senate in 1986 considered Sessions for a seat on the federal bench.

Warren quoted Kennedy, who had called Sessions a disgrace, leading the Senates presiding officer to warn Warren that she was on the verge of breaking Rule 19.

When Warren then read from Kings letter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)called her to order. Warren asked to continue her remarks suggesting that she was quoting from a letter introduced into the record and thus not directly impugning the motives of a fellow senator. McConnell objected (a right of any senator), and the presiding officer ordered Warren to take her seat. Warren lost her appeal on a party-line vote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was stopped from speaking on the Senate floor about Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions on Feb. 7. "I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate," Warren said. (Reuters)

As McConnell later explained: She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.The optics of Republicans mansplaining Warren will surely encourage Democrats to relaunch their attack that the GOP was waging a war on women. Moreover, instead of silencing Warren, Republicans empowered Warren to broadcast her opposition to Sessions to at least 6 million viewers on Facebook. Taking a play from E.E. Schattschneiders 1960The Semi-Sovereign People, Warren expanded the scope of conflict to draw millions into her fight against Trumps nominee.

[Nevertheless, she persisted becomes new battle cry after McConnell silences Elizabeth Warren]

Three lessons from Tuesdays parliamentary spat

First, Tuesday nights spat reminds us that a Senate majority retains the power to interpret its rules as it sees fit. Despite rules that empower the minority party to slow down and often derail the majoritys agenda, molding rules remains an important tool of a cohesive majority party. In this case, a majority interpreted Rule 19 to cover breaches of decorum that arise from reading someone elses words on the Senate floor.

The specifics of Tuesdays appeal are unimportant. More significant is Republican willingness to impose an interpretation of its rules with the effect of amplifying partisan conflict and ensuring future fireworks. Thats precisely the dynamic that underlies a Senate majoritys capacity to go nuclear to ban the filibuster: reinterpret the rules to serve a partys immediate advantage.

Second, fallout from thespat both online and back on the Senate floor on Wednesday ironically also signals the limits of the power of a Senate majority party.

Republicans wantedquick and quiet confirmation of President Trumps nominees: No substantive action on the partys agenda can occur without Trumps team in place. Instead, Tuesdays vote empowered Democrats to rewrite todays headlines around McConnells words framing Republicans as anti-women and highlighting Democrats criticism of Sessions.

Third, the spat highlights the Senates uneven enforcement of its rules. For many, this smells funny: Why wasnt Sen.Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) silenced in the summer of 2015 when he all but accused McConnell on lying on the Senate floor?

Lax enforcement of rules, however, is precisely how the Senate typically keeps an even keel: Most of the time, senators and leaders do not fully exploit the chambers formal rules. Normally, they dont have to. Instead, senators try to make things work by securing every senators consent on a path forward. Calling for votes and enforcing rules signals that the Senate by its own standards is failing.

Whos the guilty party from last nights spat?

Hard to say. Warren clearly thought she was in the right to read from the documents entered into the record.She didnt back down when warned that she was broaching the blurred line of crossing Rule 19. But neither did McConnell seem to try to work things out short of leading his conference to silence a female colleague.

In less partisan times, senators have managed to smooth the waters, thus keeping the chamber functioning. That no longer seems to be the name of the game in the Senate.

Last week, Senate Republicans suspended their rules to force contested nominees to the floor. This week, Republicans silenced a colleague. Democrats blame the GOP for running roughshod over Democrats rights. Republicans protest Democrats unwillingness to cooperate.

But Senate Republicans will need Democratic consent to get much done this and next year. Indeed, voters will hold Trump and his Republican majority for accountable for Congresss performance, even if Republicans blame Democrats for gumming up the works. The effect and duration of this new Republican majority hangs in the balance.

Here is the original post:
3 lessons from Republicans' attempt to silence Elizabeth Warren - Washington Post