Though Donald Trump called his opponents demeaning names and sought to assassinate their characters throughout his run for the presidency and after his inauguration, during his final national debate with Hillary Clinton when she said she would raise taxes on the wealthy like herself and Trump “assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it,” Trump interrupted by calling her “such a nasty woman.”
Though Texas Senator Ted Cruz called Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, a liar on the floor of the U.S. Senate in July 2015, he was not censured or made to sit down when he said in part: “What we just saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what [Senator McConnell] told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over and over again, was a simple lie….”
When senior Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, during an all-night marathon confirmation hearing for Senator Jeff Sessions as Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General read comments from former Senator Edward F. Kennedy referring to Sessions as a “throw-back to a shameful era” and as a “disgrace” for his reported racist remarks when he served as a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Alabama, Mitch McConnell rose from his seat warning Warren not to further impugn the character of a sitting senator.
For McConnell, the final straw came as Warren attempted to read a 1986 letter from Coretta Scott King regarding Sessions’ negative impact on black citizens by obstructing their voting rights. As Warren read King’s words about Sessions’ “…awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge,” McConnell rose again now to invoke the Senate’s arcane and rarely used Rule No. 19, which states in part that senators cannot “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.”
The Senate President instructed that “[t]he Senator [Warren] will take her seat.” Following a vote of 49 for and 43 against on strict party lines, the Senate president rebuked Warren and told her she is barred from speaking on the Senate floor during the remainder of the Sessions confirmation hearing.
The following day, male Senators, including Udall of New Mexico, Brown of Ohio, and Sanders of Vermont read King’s letter aloud on the Senate floor without any form of censorship.
Responding to questions regarding his reasons for silencing Warren, McConnell asserted:
“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”
And because of the tireless persistence against seemingly insurmountable odds, Elizabeth and all the other “nasty” female heroes throughout the ages on this and other continents, have pushed their respective (though often not respectful) societies forever forward by calling out the injustices around them.
While not her primary intention, Elizabeth Warren has been a constant thorn in the side of many Republican legislators. As a Harvard Law Professor, Warren proposed a new governmental agency in 2007, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, responsible for protecting consumers in the financial sector as a response to the Great Recession. The new office was included as a U.S. governmental agency as authorized under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 during the 111th Congress.
President Obama appointment Warren as Assistant to the President and as Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to set up the new agency. The Republicans in Congress stonewalled her nomination to head the agency since they opposed her persistence in defending consumer’s rights by further regulating the business sector. Obama was forced, therefore, to withdraw her name from consideration.
The President made a Congressional recess appointment of Ohio State Treasurer, Richard Cordray to head the agency. Following constitutional concerns arising from the way the appointment was made, Congress finally voted Cordray into the position by a margin of 66 to 34 on July 16, 2013.
If Republicans understood then that Elizabeth Warren would refuse to simply sit down and retreat from a lost battle, but rather run hard for the more powerful position of U.S. Senator, possibly they might not have fought so vigorously to block her heading a federal agency.
Two years prior to Sessions’ arrival in the Senate, in 1994 then Senator Joe Biden of Delaware championed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which mandated stiffer penalties for crimes against women and better protections and services for victims. The act came up for its third reauthorization in 2012 with a few new additions including that the law’s provisions extend to same-sex couples, to Native Americans, and to undocumented immigrants who have suffered abuse and who would be granted temporary visas.
Sessions voted against the reauthorization because he said he could not support the added provisions. During his confirmation hearing, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy questioned Sessions about his opposition to the VAWA, and asked that if confirmed as Attorney General would he enforce the entire law, including the aspects he opposed.
Sessions gave an opaque response saying: “I will defend the statute if it’s reasonably defensible.”
Possibly even more concerning was Sessions’ initial response after Trump’s 2005 remarks captured by Access Hollywood surfaced where he bragged about grabbing women by their vaginas without consent. A reporter for The Weekly Standard asked Sessions whether he considered the behavior described by Trump as sexual assault.
His response was, “I don’t characterize that as sexual assault. I think that’s a stretch….”
When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy pressed Sessions during his hearing asking, “Is grabbing a woman by her genitals, without consent, is that sexual assault?” Session responded, “Clearly, it would be.”
Violence comes in many forms. In addition to how the VAWA defines it, violence also refers to the intentional silencing of women – silencing of anyone – to denying them their voice, their sense of agency, and their subjectivity.
Mitch McConnell and the other 48 Senators (all on the Republican side of the aisle) committed an act of violence by voting to extinguish Elizabeth Warren’s voice from the floor of the United States Senate as she read the poignant words of an African American woman civil rights icon raising troubling issues about the violation of voting rights for people of color.
The Senate, on the evening of Tuesday, February 7, 2017 committed an act of violence.
The role of men is changing in the 21st century. Want to keep up? Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Several folks have noticed the absence of Warren Blumenfield responding to his critics below:
“Nevertheless, he desisted”.
All of this pushback…and where’s Warren?
The real world – even on the internet – isn’t like your college campus. People can disagree with you, and your opinions, without you shouting them down, Warren.
Right now, the only violence I see being done is being done by left wingers on college campuses. But nothing from you about that, of course.
Warren Blumenfeld: “When senior Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, during an all-night marathon confirmation hearing for Senator Jeff Sessions as Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General read comments from former Senator Edward F. Kennedy referring to Sessions as a “throw-back to a shameful era” and as a “disgrace” for his reported racist remarks when he served as a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Alabama, Mitch McConnell rose from his seat warning Warren not to further impugn the character of a sitting senator.” >>> Is the irony of this actually lost on you, Warren? Do you not know the name… Read more »
I’m waiting to hear Warren’s response to Mike here.
Don’t hold your breath
Really? And here I thought this was the conversation no one else was having.
My bad.
Accordingly, Hillary received a full pass on her enabling Bill and his antics all the time pointing out Trumps
When we were young, we were taught multiple lies, two of them including: “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never harm me.” And, “Children should be seen and not heard.” As bullying prevention educators, we know this are lies. Words can break the spirit and have life-long negative consequences. Silencing can break the spirit and have life-long negative consequences as well. Read the work of Iris Marion Young who discusses the “Five Faces of Oppression.” One of the faces includes “powerlessness,” in which people’s voice is taken along with their agency and their subjectivity to control… Read more »
You can rationalize it however you want but when someone has the power of a US Senator, an enviable bully pulpit, news media breathlessly at the ready to report any word in addition to a 7 figure net worth? They are not oppressed. Senator Warren has not been “silenced” she can sound off to MILLIONS. Her bullhorn is louder than others. Hyperbole- ridiculous hyperbole and a cheapening of “oppression” and “violence.” My good friend was imprisoned at 4 years of age for attempting to flee a communist country with her family. Another good friend relates his family’s experiences in rural… Read more »
Once again you cheapen then word “violence.” When I read your articles words like “oppression” and “violence” pretty much lose their meaning. Also, ever thought that bringing attention to Senator Warren might be a GOP goal? Perhaps this will embolden her for a 2020 run. Unfortunately, Senator Warren is unlikeable, holds few positions that appeal to the mainstream and has shown little leadership ability. (you have to do more than yell at people from a bully pulpit to be a leader). If Hillary Clinton failed to appeal to flyover country how do you think Warren would do? Bernie Sanders who… Read more »
When VAWA was reauthorized, Elizabeth Warren and every democrat in the U.S. senate commuted an act of violence against every CIS, white, make into he country. To be clear Lindsay Graham offered to allow VAWA to apply to everyone instead of delineating every group that it would apply to. Democrats didn’t fight to include the LGBTQ or Native Americans. They FOUGHT TO EXCLUDE white, CIS, men and maybe all CIS men. We also know with the adoption of Duluth, law enforcement was given great sway in deciding when or whether to enforce which protections that might have been afforded to… Read more »
Democrats didn’t fight to include the LGBTQ or Native Americans. They FOUGHT TO EXCLUDE white, CIS, men and maybe all CIS men. We also know with the adoption of Duluth, law enforcement was given great sway in deciding when or whether to enforce which protections that might have been afforded to men. Here’s the thing that I find weird about conversations about VAWA. Liberals will swear up and down that its gender neutral and covers violence against men but then turn around and fight against explicitly mentioning men or just wording it to cover them under the umbrella of all… Read more »