House Democratic leaders try to avert censure vote on Rep. Steve King

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

House Democratic leaders were working Wednesday to defuse efforts to censure Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for racial comments because of concerns that it might set a dangerous precedent for policing members’ speech.

Censure is the most serious sanction for a House member short of expulsion, and it has been imposed only six times in the past 100 years. Prompted by King’s recent comments to the New York Times questioning the offensiveness of the terms “white nationalism” and “white supremacy,” the House adopted a resolution condemning that hatred Tuesday.

...snip...

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who introduced the disapproval measure that passed Tuesday, noted that King made his statements to the news media, not during House proceedings, and said he is speaking to Rush and Ryan about averting a censure vote.

“I don’t know that it’s a good thing for us to talk about censure for things that are done outside of the business of the House of Representatives,” said Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American congressional leader. “We should be very, very careful about doing anything that constrains, or seems to constrain, speech.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democratic-leaders-try-to-avert-censure-vote-on-rep-steve-king/2019/01/16/22c7a6ce-19b5-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html?utm_term=.b6dd54430b93

[bearsfootball516]

1. "concerns that it might set a dangerous precedent for policing members' speech."

Yeah, I'd hate for people to be afraid of the backlash of saying racist things.

[KCDebbie]

5. I believe that Congr Clyburn is pre-emptively protecting

Congressional Dems ability to start using the "treason" word with regard to Trump and the other republicans...
I can't prove this, it's just what I think! It's what I would do...

[Power 2 the People]

6. +1

Waffling when we should be standing together in solidarity against bigotry.

[groundloop]

2. I respect Rep. Clyburn's reasoning, but in this case I think censure is called for

Rep. Clyburn raises a valid point about censuring House members for conduct and speech outside of the House Chambers. However, IMO, a member of the US government who spouts racist crap should face serious consequences.

[PoliticAverse]

3. He's been stripped of his committee memberships, that's already greater punishment than a "censure".

[trueblue2007]

4. Censure King now !!!!!!!!!!!!

He deserves to be expelled and i would do worse that i can't type here.

[Midnightwalk]

7. Some background

From Wikipedia

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States|]

Censure has been used 23 times in the house, 5 times since 1966

It has no effect on committee assignments. The WaPo article says censure is the next step before expulsion didn’t read the WaPo article to see if it mentioned it’s the next step up from rebuke. It doesn’t sound extreme to me.

From Wikipedia

The House of Representatives is expressly authorized to censure within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2).[23] In the House of Representatives, censure is essentially a form of public humiliation carried out on the House floor.[24] As the Speaker of the House reads out a resolution rebuking a member for a specified misconduct, that member must stand in the House well and listen to it.[25][26] This process has been described as a morality play in miniature.[27]

My two cents is that defending white supremacy and King’s history of racist statements merits something formal. I say censure but I didn’t read about the history of rebuke vs censure

Free speech is not free from consequences. Yeah we shouldn’t do either lightly, but King has a history of racist speech.

[Scruffy1]

8. I think Clyburn is right.

This a two edge sword. If you start it where do you stop? How about calling the POTUS MFer? He's been aroud long enoughto know the wheel of power turns. In the nineteenth century the hoouse had a cloture rule similar to the one in the Senate. it was ended finally after an opponent of the rule put it in when his party was in power just to show them what it was like to be in the minority. Being stripped of committee assignments is a death sentence, anyway. Hell, Joseph McCarthy got reelected after being censured and stayed in office, drunk until he died from the bottle.

[angrychair]

9. Why not

Republicans have actual indicted criminals and now outed racists in their numbers.

This is s mistake in my opinion because it says that this behavior is acceptable or at the very least allowable.

What example does this set for children? That you can be a member of Congress even if you are a criminal and racist and everyone is cool with it. No one will make a big fuss about it.
That you can talk about sexually assaulting women and be a lying and cheating amoral asshole and still be president.

This truly is the end of this nation as we know it and fore-telling of the nation we want to be.

[cstanleytech]

10. I agree, the ones that need to really step up and admonish King and really any politician for

their words are the voters.

[Eugene]

11. New headline at link: House Democratic leaders bottle up effort to censure Iowa Rep. Steve King

House Democratic leaders bottle up effort to censure Iowa Rep. Steve King

By Mike DeBonis January 16 at 8:15 PM

House Democratic leaders blocked an effort to censure Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for racial comments, referring the measure to the House Ethics Committee for further review because of concerns that it might set a dangerous precedent for policing members’ speech.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democratic-leaders-try-to-avert-censure-vote-on-rep-steve-king/2019/01/16/22c7a6ce-19b5-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html

[BlueWI]

12. Classic case of overthinking a fairly simple issue.

If the racist speech exceeds a common standard for members of Congress, censure is a tool to use.

If it doesn't exceed the standard, that's one thing. But a censure vote isn't an injunction against free speech. It's a criticism of what was said.

A stronger stand here is needed, IMO, for the benefit of all who suffer the consequences of white supremacy.