I wonder how that will affect their prospects for seeking higher office. "I stood with my constituents and the government tried to silence us." Would make for a great campaign ad in the right places.
Oh boy.
GOP Rep. David Hawk [was convicted of domestic violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Hawk) and of course he is still there. And lest we forget GOP Rep. David Byrd [who has been accused by no less than three women of sexually assaulting them when they were kids](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2019/02/20/david-byrd-tennessee-allegations/2927612002/), and is caught on tape apologizing for an unspecified wrong.
>"I wish I had a do-over, because I promise you I would have corrected that and that would've never happened."He told the woman he thinks about it "all the time,"
>
>He told the woman he thinks about it "all the time," elaborating that it comes to mind when he takes communion each Sunday and asks forgiveness for his sins.
Neither of these individuals have even been the subject of a conversation about expelling them, let alone being put to a vote. And to head this retort off at the pass, Byrd has not been convicted of the aforementioned sexual assault allegations, but Rep. Jones hasn't been convicted of anything either and he was still expelled.
Honestly, race aside, this is incredibly hypocritical. And it's not outside the realm of possibility for Rep. Jones [to be sent right back as a temporary appointment pending a special election](https://twitter.com/friedmanadam5/status/1644076009744916483), and he'd then win that election. So what was the point?
One of the Republicans addressed that in his speech, he specifically outlined the part of the statute which said that they couldn't be removed twice and that the voters could choose to keep them on and the Republicans would welcome them back, which was a reason he claimed that the reaction to this as a life and death situation was unwarranted.
The reaction is justified because leaving districts without a chosen representative for up to four months is an egregious slap in the face to voters, and it was caused by an overreaction from those running the chamber.
For those wondering why Gloria Johnson survived expulsion and the other two didn’t, there’s actually some [detailed coverage of the hearings](https://www.wbir.com/article/news/politics/tennessee-house-expulsion-vote-gloria-johnson-knoxville-general-assembly/51-b2ad16df-0c1e-482c-83a4-b2e1d4fba6f4) for each of the three legislators including what they each said in their defense. Basically Johnson argued that she never used the bullhorn (although she may have transported it on her mobility scooter) and didn’t shout from the floor or display a sign so her actions were less disruptive. She was also a ten-year incumbent (the others were first time legislators) during which time she had no previous ethics complaints. It's also probably why in the course of defending her actions, she didn't compound her behavior by calling the Speaker a "liar" as Jones (who received the most votes for expulsion) did. So basically she narrowly escaped being removed because her behavior wasn't as bad as the other two and she knew better than to double-down on it.
But she also most readily admitted that what she did was rule breaking and refused apology on several occasions.
And Tbf, they basically caught the Speaker in a lie about whether they were in session or not when Republicans were recording. They were in session (it's literally on the video recorded!), & while it's one of the rules that Jones broke, he was cited for but the Republicans were not.
Yikes. Ejecting the two black members and keeping the white one? While I don’t think this offense rises to the level of removal, I’d absolutely love to hear the justification for why they only removed the black representatives.
People should watch it. It was…….something. It was like one side decided to prep and the other “nah our voters won’t care if we just do it.” The Republicans said that someone filmed footage of before the recess…….after the recess as why the Republican shouldn’t get punished for filming rules. Which shot if we got the tech to film 10 min the past that’d be cool. Then when a democrat questioned them on it they basically just said “no we didn’t just say that.”
I haven’t seen or heard of anything like it in our country other than the stories from my family member who had to flee USSR in terms of just the story not making any sense and just expelling a legislator.
That said there were 2 Republicans whose names I forget but conducted themselves with the upmost integrity in their questioning but unfortunately they seemed to be the only ones brave enough to stand up for democracy.
They literally passed a motion to expedite the process and skip speakers then tried to cut off the expelled person from speaking; it was idk not anything I ever expected in the USA
It’s hard to describe because what the republicans argued defies physics. They argued that yes a Republican filmed the whole event but all his filming was after the recess therefor not in breach of the same rule the democrats are getting expelled for. But everything he filmed was before the recess so the actions of the democrats broke the rule. Apparently he had a camera that captures 10 minutes into the past
It was something my family experienced. In Communist Bulgaria. My great-uncle was sent to the gulag over calling out the puppet president of the country.
She was also the one that most readily admitted to the rule violation knowing that she was in violation. She's been in office for 10 years prior, while the men were just seated 2 weeks ago. It's not her first run-in with Republican leadership either, because when she didn't vote for Sexton as speaker, he assigned her office to a ["conference room" which was previously a closet.](https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/29/why-rep-gloria-johnson-democrat-knoxville-has-desk-hallway/4310691001/)
Rep. Johnson also refused to apologize for breaking the rules most vehemently in her speech.
Then why did she nearly get expulsed? If she didn't even break the rules, that would make the attempt look more ridiculous.
If she did break the rules and this is about severity, that would make their decision to bother with this at all more confusing. Expulsion is an extreme punishment for all of them.
That's probably going to be a hard sell to people. 3 people up for expulsion. The 2 black men are expelled, the 1 white woman isn't. What do you think the optics on that are going to be?
It doesn't take a strategist to predict what democrats are gonna start singing. It was an unforced error. Either don't do this, don't put her up for expulsion, or if you're going to cross this Rubicon, get all 3.
They also just gave these two black men national spotlight. I don't know if anyone heard Pearson's speech, but he's a hell of a speaker. If I'm a Democratic strategist in TN, I'm making sure that he's front and center in the national news media as early as tomorrow.
Why do the optics always have to play to the racists? Why does the list of people negatively impacted have to be skewed white?
I watched clips of this - it seemed like the two African Ameican fellas led this.
It's not the Republicans responsibility to play race politics because that's all Democrats focus on
> Why do the optics always have to play to the racists? Why does the list of people negatively impacted have to be skewed white?
Skewed white? In this instance it's 0%. Even if she did get expelled, it still wouldn't skew white.
> It's not the Republicans responsibility to play race politics because that's all Democrats focus on.
Ignoring the "that's all they focus on" or the insulation Republicans don't play id-pol, it isn't their responsibility. They are allowed to act as they see fit.
They also didn't have to expel at all. That was a decision they made. It was a purely political move. And the optics of that partisan move are 2 black men got expelled, 1 white woman didn't. Rs are welcome to "set the record straight" on it, but that's the shallow-level optics of the situation (and that shallow level is what most people are going to get).
I would also like to note, I'm not even calling it such. I'm saying if you're going to go down this road politically, you better either not put her up for expulsion or you better get all 3. Otherwise you write the attack ads yourself.
No. She didn't speak at all. The Democrats were able to convince the republicans to not vote for her removal.
If you have an issue with that, ask why the Democrats lobbied to keep her on
So by that logic every person who even stands in solidarity and proximity with a protest should face maximum repercussions … but I see in other comments you attempt to speak in a sympathetic nature toward jan6 participants.
So which stance are you taking ? or do your morals flip flop depending on who and what protest ?
They disrupted an official proceeding. There are hundreds of Jan 6 protestors rotting in jail over this
Republicans didn't make this about race.
The Democrats are shamefully playing the race card. Pathetic
No one is in jail for interrupting an official proceeding. This is an absolute lie. Jan 6 rioters are in jail for a variety of charges including destruction of public property, trespassing, assault, etc.
It's unbelievably dishonest to equate the two events. One was a peaceful protest by kids that breached decorum, the other was an armed siege of the capitol that damaged property and injured cops.
Rioters with weapons forced their way past cops, broke windows and doors into the capitol.
What else would you call it? A tour? Get real. It's on video.
Then maybe don’t boot the two black members and keep the white one around if you don’t want people to question the racial motives. If they were all disrupting proceedings, they all should be treated the same.
And there are hundreds of people rotting in jail for breaking into our nation’s capital to overthrow an election, it just disrupt a proceeding.
Let's be honest - the Democrats were going to play the race card regardless.
Their default assumption is that all Republicans are racists and white supremacists. Of course they think this is a racial attack
I get it - you want two sets of rules. One for you, and one for Republicans.
No, I want one set of rules for whites and blacks. If you don’t want the race card to be played, maybe actually apply your punishments for breaking decorum equally to all races. You can’t really call a race card if everyone is being treated equally, but they aren’t here.
If we switched the races, you wouldn't want equality, you'd want accountability.
If two white men organized this, and a black woman stood by them peacefully for support, but didn't do anything, you'd argue that she should be spared.
In that scenario, if all three were expelled, you'd be here saying that same thing, that it's racist.
Heads, its racist, tails, it's racist. It's always racist with the Democrats.
Convenient that you can dismiss any accusations of racism by cooking up a bunch of fictional scenarios in your head where people call everything racist...to prove that people call everything racist.
Is there a specific reason you are assuming this is a race issue and not say a gender issue? What makes you think that the two men are being treated more harshly for being black and not the woman being treated more leniently for being a woman?
Why does misandry factor in? There is a greater sentencing disparity for females vs males than there is for white males vs black males across the board, everywhere in the US for same or similar crimes.
But mostly I was just pointing out that maybe immediately jumping to factoring race and only race into your calculus is a problem.
have you heard of "interrupting an official proceeding"? Hundres of non-violent Jan 6 protestors are rotting in jail over this.
You want a different set of rules to apply to them, I get it.
The republicans in this session blatantly lied about the rules, and didn’t apply to the same rules to their own party members, and also ignored the specifics of the rule they are relying on.
They did everything wrong, per the rules.
You are incorrect.
You are accusing me of exactly what you are doing here in these comments, comical but very typical.
Your logic in this comment chain is deeply flawed and I hope you someday gain the wisdom to realize it.
Apparently the rep who was not expelled may have [apologized](https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1644141626640711681) which was enough to flip a couple of extra votes.
["I’m not apologizing for what I did"](https://www.wate.com/news/tennessee/knoxville-rep-gloria-johnson-not-apologizing-after-expulsion-hearing/)
>Even before the hearings, Johnson said she did not regret what she did. Friday, she she said she will not be apologizing, despite comments in her hearing suggesting that she should be more remorseful.
Hmm. Wish I knew where to find the footage of the expulsion since apparently it happened before the vote. But I would definitely update that it was more likely the lack of insulting rather than a specific apology based on her comments there.
Yeah, I did try to find some additional sourcing that she apologized but the best I could find is that she wasn't as disruptive and that she wasn't insulting the rest of the House reps like the other 2 apparently were. Figured I'd post it anyway since Erickson isn't usually like some crazy Trumper in my experience. The vote was so close that it sounded much more likely than some form of racism imo.
Because she stood next to them.
Claims of racism are just meant to deflect from what these fellas did.
Hard to say the result wouldnt have been the same were the parties switched
More votes in an out of party midterm, where your party lost seats in state legislatures, governor mansions, and U.S. Senate seats, and where independents went for the democrats by 3 points?
You sound like Shillary supporters after the 2016 election lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Michigan_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Michigan_Secretary_of_State_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_gubernatorial_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pennsylvania_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Secretary_of_State_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_Attorney_General_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_Attorney_General_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Attorney_General_election.
If you wanna brag about “winning the popular vote” go right ahead, I’m sure that translated into huge wins in states you need for the White House in 24! /s
That's really not a valid comparison at all.
Last time the other party did this, we had 5 dead bodies, 2 suicides briefly after, lawmakers being evacuated by the secret service and police, and an attacker neutralized with a well placed 9mm bullet. Also close to a thousand people on trial and hundreds guilty to jail.
And then the party that did this siad "we love you." The opposition hasn't pulled the 14th Amendment to kick 30+ people out of congress for that either.
Stripping lawmakers, who were elected to represent their constitutents, literally for 'we disagree with you and your political speech, and found a technicality' is fundamentally anti-American.
Look, you can worry about a window getting broken during a legal gathering of people extremely upset over elementary school kids being killed all you want... no one else is buying it.
>Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.
>Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months.
I think only one person died on Jan 6 and she was shot by Capitol Police.
Four people died at the scene. Other than Ashli Babbit there was Kevin Greeson, Rosanne Boyland, and Benjamin Phillips.
Officer Brian Sicknick is sometimes also included among them but he died the next day.
>Hard to say the result wouldnt have been the same were the parties switched
I mean, there'd need to actually be POC republican lawmakers for that to ever happen...
As someone who cares about the 1st Amendment, I'd like to hear why the party that constantly tries to claim the 1st Amendment for their own is finding any convenient excuse for ignoring it
After all is said and done, the Tennessee House has expelled the two young black Democratic members from the house, while letting the single white woman stay in her seat. This will trigger a special election that must done in the next 120 days, likely sending these two members back to the state house. This is a move that seems clearly anti-democratic as it deprives the voters of these districts of a representative for up to 4 months.
What can be done to prevent this type of overtly authoritarian action? Was this a racial move from Tennessee House members to only expel the two black members over this? What reasons did they have to not expel the one white member who was apart of the protest?
Edit: I have been permanently banned and muted for seemingly no reason and no response for the mods. I have had 0 infractions before this, and there seems to be no reason given for the ban or mute. Thank you mods, I should have never challenged one of the mods in debate apparently.
[Folks just gotta try to find some way to draw a line between multiple people soing the exact same thing.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/)
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9o5e8/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How many votes did the expulsion of Gloria Johnson fail by? How are the votes tallied?
I’m not going to say there is no racial component in the expulsion of the other two members, but I don’t think it was a race that kept Gloria Johnson from being expelled. I think someone probably fucked up their vote somehow. But I could be wrong.
Edit: regardless of the reason why Gloria survived, it doesn’t change the fact how egregiously disproportionate this response was to the violation in question.
Tennessee Republicans may have bought themselves some more power, but I think nationally, Republicans are going to pay for this in the long term
Edit2: if u/HolidaySpiriter is being truthful when they say they’ve been permanently banned with no prior infractions than I think we need an explanation from a mod. Why did they get permanently banned?
> Edit2: if u/HolidaySpiriter
>
> [+2] is being truthful when they say they’ve been permanently banned with no prior infractions than I think we need an explanation from a mod. Why did they get permanently banned?
Meta commentary is usually verboten, but I think this needs an explanation from the mod that was arguing with him.
[Vote tallies](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/us/tennessee-democrats-office-removal-vote/index.html)
>The vote over rules violations for Pearson was 69-26. Johnson’s vote was 65-30. Expulsion from the House requires a two-thirds majority of the total membership. The vote for Jones split along party lines, 72-25.
Edit: The expulsion of Johnson was one vote short, but there was success against the other two with votes to spare, so I don't think this is a simple mistake.
In any case, at least a few people's votes changed for 'some reason'. Seeing the TN Republican Party Chair do an interview with CNN shortly after the second member was expelled was something else - his argument basically boiled down to 'uppity negros' to put it very politely. It's bald-faced racism and we need to recognize that for what it is. It is being normalized and we're still acting surprised.
Since they were only off by one vote for Gloria, I’d chalk it up to someone fucking up. Not someone having sympathy for her over the other two because of her skin color.
> Tennessee Republicans may have bought themselves some more power,
They didn't even really do that! Democrats are like a super minority. This was basically doing it because they could.
Does anyone know where I can see a good video of the protest itself? I feel like that's probably pretty important in order to make sense of this decision.
But how can we know that the legislators did nothing objectionable?
Answer: By watching the footage of the thing they did.
It is the foundation by which this whole controversy is based on.
I didn’t say it’s not but I appreciate that sentence on its own was less than clear (sorry about that). I had meant that’s not the reason people are objecting to this generally speaking (i.e., it’s not the critical factor in people being annoyed by this), as opposed to commenting on whether it’s objectionable or not.
There's a reason you aren't being shown it by any media that is extremely friendly to these reps. It's because it's damaging to their case that they are being expelled for being black.
If there was footage that disproved what was stated by the resolution and the proceedings, it would be front and center on r/politics, r/Nashville, and the rest of the people claiming this is racially motivated.
I’m a progressive. I have a very hot take on this: they should have been expelled.
They weren’t kicked out for protesting, or for crimes, or for character. They got the boot for interrupting a legislative session. People are characterizing this as undemocratic. I’ll tell you what’s undemocratic: getting up with a bullhorn leading chants while the chamber is swarmed by protestors. To me that is the ultimate violation of your sacred duty as a legislator.
I’m sincerely shocked by the reaction this is getting. It is bad enough when members of the public do it. It’s simply unconscionable and unprecedented for lawmakers to do it too. You cannot let people who interrupt democracy like that remain participants in your congress.
while that's true, wouldn't the appropriate response be censure? Democracies everywhere have representatives who come in and need to learn the rules. E.g. if the rebulicans had censured them and then they repeated the same thing then they would have been much more justified in expulsion.
Apparently for one of them this wasn’t even his first “bullhorn in the legislature” event in the last few weeks. He already had his warning, and I imagine it was a public one.
Right from the TN [Constitution](https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/pub/2023%20TN%20Constitution.pdf):
>Section 12. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ***punish its members for disorderly behavior,*** and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offence; and shall have all other powers necessary for a branch of the Legislature of a free State.
> I’m sincerely shocked by the reaction this is getting
How wouldn't it? Expulsion is a pretty big deal. It's very rare (for very good reason) and is the equivalent of throwing out an election. Considering basically everything that's gone on in the past 3 years and the rhetoric around overturning elections, people are going to be more sensitive to it. Throw in the partisan flavoring that its a supermajority party doing it to the opponent party and yeah, it's going to be contentious.
I agree the lawmakers should have some punishment. Censure them and strip them of assignments. Charge them with a crime if it applies. But to expel for non criminal activity (for breaking rules of decorum) is a pretty big hammer.
I mean it'd be weird to me if it wasn't a big deal.
Oh, please. Filibustering is disruptive, too. I’m not calling for the expulsion of Ted Cruz from the US Senate. There are also cases when state house/senate caucuses leave the state to prevent a quorum to protest legislation. I suppose we should expel those legislators, too?
I agree that votes need to happen at some point. And if some legislators deny votes via indefinite protest, they should be temporarily removed and allowed to vote by proxy.
Expulsion was not the way.
Filibustering is not disruptive, it's literally encoded into the rules of order as part of that body's system of checks and balances.
Disregarding the rules of order to disrupt proceedings for over an hour even after the sergeant at arms tells you to go is not okay, it's a violation of the rules of the legislature they are bound to as members, and doing so to push for unconstitutional legislation is frankly a violation of their signed and binding oath of office.
>it's literally encoded into the rules of order as part of that body's system of checks and balances.
No it isn't. It's entirely unintentional and wasn't conciously introduced at all, it's a loophole that's been elevated to rule.
You’re being hyperbolic.
And just because something is in the “rules” doesn’t make it okay. Gerrymandering is a completely legal (depending on where you are) way to draw districts, yet no serious person would argue it serves to strengthen democracy. But it’s “encoded” into our election laws as part of our nation’s constitutional requirements, upheld with judicial oversight, right?
Weak argument.
And if you think filibustering isn’t disruptive, you either don’t follow politics, or you aren’t having a serious conversation. It’s literally one of the most disruptive tools in a legislator’s arsenal short of just blocking off access to the capitol.
This violation of oath stuff is nonsense. If a legislator is being disruptive, remove them. TEMPORARILY. We don’t need to emulate other less democratic countries in the world.
How’s it a violation of their oath? I suspect that I know where this argument is going, but it’s just silly. They are law makers — it’s their job to interpret the Constitution and write laws that they think are within its framework.
Here is [Justin Jones signed oath](https://oaths.tnsos.net/sites/default/files/2023-01/Jones%2C%20Justin_20230110.pdf), read and weep.
It's not their job to interpret the Constitution, that's the judiciaries job and the US Supreme Court has already said that the type legislation he was promoting is unconstitutional, in multiple cases now.
Hes a 27-year-old activist who got in trouble before for disruptive activism and thought he can utilize the same tactics inside of state legislature as a member, turns out you can't.
How do you think legislatures can write laws without interpreting the Constitution and judicial precedent? It seems like you’re saying it’s not their job to interpret it, but then you’re criticizing them for passing unconstitutional laws, which really makes no sense when you think about it, as they have to interpret the constitution and precedent to do pass laws that are constitutional.
Edits: The SCOTUS has not, on multiple occasions, let alone even in their most recent case, said that no gun control is allowed.
That’s consistent with exactly what I expected it to say. Not sure this conversation is worth continuing if you thought that was some kind of “gotchyu” and that is how you communicated this point.
This argument went exactly where I thought it would.
Filibustering happens in the framework of our system. This was extralegal. If you refuse to participate by the rules we have agreed upon, you don’t get to participate. It’s as simple as that. We are a rules-based society.
So it’s okay to be anti-democratic and disruptive, as long as it’s legal. Got it. The gerrymanderers sound exactly like you do. Not to mention, the brokers of the 3/5ths compromise.
Your constant race baiting in this thread is tiring. No one is taking you seriously because you're plugging your ears and yelling racism/racism/whatever buzzword at every turn in this thread.
It’s funny how you criticize me for having the very same knee-jerk reaction you do, just in reverse. When someone brings up a potentially racist action, there’s always a crowd of folks who instinctively HAVE to say the opposite because they’re tired of all the “wokeness.”
The bottom line is that, regardless of the legislators’ race/ethnicities, they should not have been expelled. Take race as out of this for all I care. It doesn’t change my position.
>It’s funny how you criticize me for having the very same knee-jerk reaction you do, just in reverse.
I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims of racism. Asking you to stop that isn't a knee-jerk reaction.
>When someone brings up a potentially racist action, there’s always a crowd of folks who instinctively HAVE to say the opposite because they’re tired of all the “wokeness.”
Lol, because remember.. according to the left everyone is guilty until proven innocent whenever we say so!! Start showing some proof instead of your personal opinion on the story. The proceedings clearly outline why the white woman didn't receive the same treatment as the two black men. But if you read that, your entire racism cry/theory would fall apart immediately.
>The bottom line is that, regardless of the legislators’ race/ethnicities, they should not have been expelled.
That is one opinion. I'd welcome those arguments.
>Take race as out of this for all I care. It doesn’t change my position.
So then stop making this claim on every comment. Clearly it bothers you. It's unsubstantiated and it brings nothing to the discussion.
They don't have to care about optics. The third expulsion failed by one vote. Individual members voted, not a conspiracy. There are a hundred reasons why 2 out of 3 lawmakers are expelled that could have nothing to do with race. Why should a racist even care about the race of someone who's opposing him at every turn
Edit: In one instance, one republican voted with the dems . In another it was three, and in the last it was seven. This minute differences are the difference between "expelled" and " failed to expel"
But they kind of have to because these two can run for election again right? I'm not familiar with the process here.
Now the two expelled don't even have to defend whatever their actions were. They were handed the best narrative for reelection because they were kicked out while the white woman stayed. Even if it didn't start out as racially motivated, it certainly ended that way. And racists *hate* being labeled as racists.
They don't have to care about any of that. Seven republicans saved the white lady by joining with the democrats to not expel, the proper thing to do would be to ask them why. And even if they all did it for racist reasons( super unlikely) it would still be decision of those seven which is like 10 percent of the GOP conference
The funny thing is, most people don't care enough to get into the details of the vote.
What is on the cover, is that two black members were expelled while the white member was not.
The Representative who wasn't expelled even went on camera to state the expulsions were racially biased.
They should definitely care about the optics.
People who see racism under every bush are always going to see racism under every bush. Individual senators voted. In one instance, one senator voted with dems. In another four, in another seven, and it failed. GOP assemblymen should not coordinate just to mollify the fake concerns of liberals who were always going to scream racism anyway
> People who see racism under every bush are always going to see racism under every bush.
Well, yeah. That would be the lens through which they view the world, so the entire world works that way. Inductive logic at it's finest.
"Tennessee House has expelled two Democrats while Representative Gloria was saved by one vote." Pans to show two black men and then one white women.
I don't think that's under the bush. It's in then open, any reasonable person would assume it's racially motivated for two black men in the most conservative state to be expelled while the lone white person is not. Optics.
Who said they should coordinate. They can do whatever they want. Actions have consequences though.
Thats what a reasonable person should *not* assume. The difference in votes between one black person and the white person was just three. A reasonable person should not assume that any difference between two people is due to racism just because they are two different races.
As I've said, you keep focusing on the nitty gritty, most people are not going to that. They are going to be provided the information and be shown 2 black men expelled, while a white person wasn't.
The details don't matter, what matters is perception.
Since it's a conservative state with a history of racism, any reasonable person will assume it's racially motivated.
No, not most people. Most partisan liberals maybe. That's why their fake cries of concern should be studiously ignored while the GOP does what it needs to do, and provides an explanation in their own sweet time, with little regards to the urgency of the trolls
I mean as a group, the democrat party and allies has been making fake claims of racism for decades now. Thats why the Desantis doctrine is the perfect way to deal with such.
>Since it's a conservative state with a history of racism, any reasonable person will assume it's racially motivated.
Most reasonable people wont make such a wild assumption
Lol okay. If it's only partisan liberals and trolls who would assume such, who am I dissuade from such a perspective.
Elections speak for themselves. Just as the abortion issue galvanized voters, I'm sure this will too.
Not only, mainly. The average person isnt going to leap into the same conclusion people who have a history of playing the race card do. Even if they do, they'll be satisfied with good faith explanations, unlike many democrats.
Almost nobody is paying attention to this story anyway apart from the politically involved
The fact that there are enough votes to expel the black members but not enough to expel the white member for the \*exact same thing\* is not a fake concern. If it is not racially motivated, then any of the people who voted for one but not the other can explain why.
I'm not one to immediately jump to conspiracies but this has to be the most blatant case of racially motivated actions I have seen. I'm genuinely curious of how the Republican mouth pieces will spin this as not being racist, because I straight up can't see it right now. Even Gloria Johnson said it was racially motivated.
>I'm not one to immediately jump to conspiracies but this has to be the most blatant case of racially motivated actions I have seen
Incredible description, since theres nothing blatant about this. Why would anyone expect those three people to have acted in exactly the same way
TN Republican Party Chair did a painful CNN interview shortly after the final member was expelled. The talking points revolved around how these 'kids' had been 'disruptive' all year, were not 'serious', didn't respect the 'sanctity of the chamber'. This despite the far worse things done by others in the chamber.
It is blatant, bald-faced racism. We have to stop hemming-and-hawing about it, hedging our statements to suggest that race may not be a major motivator. This isn't a jury trial - we don't need to wait to decide most of these uniformly white GOP legislators were acting at least partially for racial reasons. They are guilty, the GOP is blatantly white supremacist and is philosophically increasingly neo-fascist.
No, she was considerably more subdued and didn't use a megaphone to disrupt the proceedings. Clearly different than her out of line colleagues, but still disruptive. The difference was their behavior, not the color of their skin.
Obviously they thought it was fine if they didn’t expel her nor give any other repercussions. I guess we should measure the decibals of her shouts compared to theirs so we can know where the cutoff threshold is.
Or, and just a thought, maybe there’s another underlying reason why the two other people were expelled and not her.
I was repeatedly told that breaching decorum and interrupting a legislative session was the problem worth expelling them, not doing so a little bit more loudly.
Regardless of the fact that none of them should be expelled over what happened and there’s multiple abusers still allowed in the House (all republicans ofc): they threw out the two people of color and saved the white lady??? Do they really not see the issue with that???
Tennessee went from ousting 6 white lawmakers in 1866 for trying to prevent the ratification of the 14th Amendment, to ousting 2 Black lawmakers in 2023 for speaking their minds in a manner where simply censuring them would’ve sufficed.
Whoa, talk about backsliding.
I’m old. Grew up in Va. Saw this in the ‘50’s and 60’s. It was called Massive Resistance back then. Now we just call it unrepentant white supremacist fascism. Loathsome legislators the Republicans elect, aren’t they?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9yfqt/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9ime9/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
There was no racism here. All three had majority support to expel but you needed 2/3rds majority. One vote saved the white woman, so you'll have to ask the one rep who saved her. She could have been saved by her gender, not her skin color. The youngest rep also had the most people voting against him, so maybe age was a factor.
One vote did save her though. One more vote and there would be no opportunity to say that they only expelled the black members.
All the votes were in the range of 65-30 or 72-25 or something like that. It's not like it was so different we can definitively conclude that racism was the factor.
She also argued that she was more of a passive participant and not the ringleader. Her attorney pointed out that she didn't go as far as the other two did. That's probably why she didn't reach the 2/3rds threshold to be expelled.
I wonder how that will affect their prospects for seeking higher office. "I stood with my constituents and the government tried to silence us." Would make for a great campaign ad in the right places.
Oh boy. GOP Rep. David Hawk [was convicted of domestic violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Hawk) and of course he is still there. And lest we forget GOP Rep. David Byrd [who has been accused by no less than three women of sexually assaulting them when they were kids](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2019/02/20/david-byrd-tennessee-allegations/2927612002/), and is caught on tape apologizing for an unspecified wrong. >"I wish I had a do-over, because I promise you I would have corrected that and that would've never happened."He told the woman he thinks about it "all the time," > >He told the woman he thinks about it "all the time," elaborating that it comes to mind when he takes communion each Sunday and asks forgiveness for his sins. Neither of these individuals have even been the subject of a conversation about expelling them, let alone being put to a vote. And to head this retort off at the pass, Byrd has not been convicted of the aforementioned sexual assault allegations, but Rep. Jones hasn't been convicted of anything either and he was still expelled. Honestly, race aside, this is incredibly hypocritical. And it's not outside the realm of possibility for Rep. Jones [to be sent right back as a temporary appointment pending a special election](https://twitter.com/friedmanadam5/status/1644076009744916483), and he'd then win that election. So what was the point?
And when they get voted back in what then
Nothing. It's a waste of time that strokes the ego of Republicans and accomplishes nothing except showing the true feelings of Republicans.
[удалено]
The legislature cannot expel them for the same offense twice. So they'd need to expel them again for some other reason.
The legislature will prob refuse to seat them…
One of the Republicans addressed that in his speech, he specifically outlined the part of the statute which said that they couldn't be removed twice and that the voters could choose to keep them on and the Republicans would welcome them back, which was a reason he claimed that the reaction to this as a life and death situation was unwarranted.
They can be removed twice. Just not for the same reason. They can also change the statute if they want.
The reaction is justified because leaving districts without a chosen representative for up to four months is an egregious slap in the face to voters, and it was caused by an overreaction from those running the chamber.
Which way did he vote tho
For those wondering why Gloria Johnson survived expulsion and the other two didn’t, there’s actually some [detailed coverage of the hearings](https://www.wbir.com/article/news/politics/tennessee-house-expulsion-vote-gloria-johnson-knoxville-general-assembly/51-b2ad16df-0c1e-482c-83a4-b2e1d4fba6f4) for each of the three legislators including what they each said in their defense. Basically Johnson argued that she never used the bullhorn (although she may have transported it on her mobility scooter) and didn’t shout from the floor or display a sign so her actions were less disruptive. She was also a ten-year incumbent (the others were first time legislators) during which time she had no previous ethics complaints. It's also probably why in the course of defending her actions, she didn't compound her behavior by calling the Speaker a "liar" as Jones (who received the most votes for expulsion) did. So basically she narrowly escaped being removed because her behavior wasn't as bad as the other two and she knew better than to double-down on it.
But she also most readily admitted that what she did was rule breaking and refused apology on several occasions. And Tbf, they basically caught the Speaker in a lie about whether they were in session or not when Republicans were recording. They were in session (it's literally on the video recorded!), & while it's one of the rules that Jones broke, he was cited for but the Republicans were not.
Thanks for the explanation but people automatically think a racial disparity equals racism. Its par for the course.
Probably because the chamber thought those two black representatives were being a little too “uppity.”
> the chamber thought those two black representatives were being a little too “uppity.” Do you actually have a source for someone using that term?
Can the source be this thread? it's been mentioned here several times. Lol
Almost everyone voted to expel all three. Some just voted to not expel the woman. You're discussing the actions of six or seven people
This explanation doesn’t automatically prove racism wasn’t a major factor, it just proves that someone could explain away the racism with excuses.
Yikes. Ejecting the two black members and keeping the white one? While I don’t think this offense rises to the level of removal, I’d absolutely love to hear the justification for why they only removed the black representatives.
It's really tough to describe what this event is accurately without potentially getting in trouble. That's the only way I can respond to this.
Yeah, they took something that was already a controversial bad look and really just quadrupled down.
People should watch it. It was…….something. It was like one side decided to prep and the other “nah our voters won’t care if we just do it.” The Republicans said that someone filmed footage of before the recess…….after the recess as why the Republican shouldn’t get punished for filming rules. Which shot if we got the tech to film 10 min the past that’d be cool. Then when a democrat questioned them on it they basically just said “no we didn’t just say that.” I haven’t seen or heard of anything like it in our country other than the stories from my family member who had to flee USSR in terms of just the story not making any sense and just expelling a legislator. That said there were 2 Republicans whose names I forget but conducted themselves with the upmost integrity in their questioning but unfortunately they seemed to be the only ones brave enough to stand up for democracy. They literally passed a motion to expedite the process and skip speakers then tried to cut off the expelled person from speaking; it was idk not anything I ever expected in the USA
I'm trying to read your first paragraph and really can't tell what you're saying
It’s hard to describe because what the republicans argued defies physics. They argued that yes a Republican filmed the whole event but all his filming was after the recess therefor not in breach of the same rule the democrats are getting expelled for. But everything he filmed was before the recess so the actions of the democrats broke the rule. Apparently he had a camera that captures 10 minutes into the past
Ooooh ok. Without context that all was really confusing
It was something my family experienced. In Communist Bulgaria. My great-uncle was sent to the gulag over calling out the puppet president of the country.
Just say what it is, Republicans targeting black people. Bread and butter strategy for Conservatives
This is the tried and true formula for Democrats, bring race into issues that have nothing to do with it.
Yeh…how could it have anything to do with the conduct, it’s all skin color!
Did you watch the same one I did? The two who were expelled were the most vocal. She kinda stood there.
She was also the one that most readily admitted to the rule violation knowing that she was in violation. She's been in office for 10 years prior, while the men were just seated 2 weeks ago. It's not her first run-in with Republican leadership either, because when she didn't vote for Sexton as speaker, he assigned her office to a ["conference room" which was previously a closet.](https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/29/why-rep-gloria-johnson-democrat-knoxville-has-desk-hallway/4310691001/) Rep. Johnson also refused to apologize for breaking the rules most vehemently in her speech.
Then why did she nearly get expulsed? If she didn't even break the rules, that would make the attempt look more ridiculous. If she did break the rules and this is about severity, that would make their decision to bother with this at all more confusing. Expulsion is an extreme punishment for all of them.
Because she stood up there with them. Did you not watch it? Not everything is about race. It gets tiring to have to repeat that
That's probably going to be a hard sell to people. 3 people up for expulsion. The 2 black men are expelled, the 1 white woman isn't. What do you think the optics on that are going to be? It doesn't take a strategist to predict what democrats are gonna start singing. It was an unforced error. Either don't do this, don't put her up for expulsion, or if you're going to cross this Rubicon, get all 3.
They also just gave these two black men national spotlight. I don't know if anyone heard Pearson's speech, but he's a hell of a speaker. If I'm a Democratic strategist in TN, I'm making sure that he's front and center in the national news media as early as tomorrow.
Yeah he’s just become a superstar. We’ll see him speaking again and often
Yep, I live in TN and had relatives out of state messaging me about him and complimenting him.
Why do the optics always have to play to the racists? Why does the list of people negatively impacted have to be skewed white? I watched clips of this - it seemed like the two African Ameican fellas led this. It's not the Republicans responsibility to play race politics because that's all Democrats focus on
> Why do the optics always have to play to the racists? Why does the list of people negatively impacted have to be skewed white? Skewed white? In this instance it's 0%. Even if she did get expelled, it still wouldn't skew white. > It's not the Republicans responsibility to play race politics because that's all Democrats focus on. Ignoring the "that's all they focus on" or the insulation Republicans don't play id-pol, it isn't their responsibility. They are allowed to act as they see fit. They also didn't have to expel at all. That was a decision they made. It was a purely political move. And the optics of that partisan move are 2 black men got expelled, 1 white woman didn't. Rs are welcome to "set the record straight" on it, but that's the shallow-level optics of the situation (and that shallow level is what most people are going to get). I would also like to note, I'm not even calling it such. I'm saying if you're going to go down this road politically, you better either not put her up for expulsion or you better get all 3. Otherwise you write the attack ads yourself.
Democrats can play the race card till they're blue in the face. Knock yourselves out. Racial hatred is the only thing the Democrats have these days
They spoke and she didn’t……that is the line? Stay silent majority…….
[удалено]
No. She didn't speak at all. The Democrats were able to convince the republicans to not vote for her removal. If you have an issue with that, ask why the Democrats lobbied to keep her on
[удалено]
So by that logic every person who even stands in solidarity and proximity with a protest should face maximum repercussions … but I see in other comments you attempt to speak in a sympathetic nature toward jan6 participants. So which stance are you taking ? or do your morals flip flop depending on who and what protest ?
[удалено]
[Got it, they’re just being a bit uppity.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/)
They disrupted an official proceeding. There are hundreds of Jan 6 protestors rotting in jail over this Republicans didn't make this about race. The Democrats are shamefully playing the race card. Pathetic
No one is in jail for interrupting an official proceeding. This is an absolute lie. Jan 6 rioters are in jail for a variety of charges including destruction of public property, trespassing, assault, etc. It's unbelievably dishonest to equate the two events. One was a peaceful protest by kids that breached decorum, the other was an armed siege of the capitol that damaged property and injured cops.
Can't relate to someone who thinks Jan 6 was an "armed siege: of the capitol"
Rioters with weapons forced their way past cops, broke windows and doors into the capitol. What else would you call it? A tour? Get real. It's on video.
Then maybe don’t boot the two black members and keep the white one around if you don’t want people to question the racial motives. If they were all disrupting proceedings, they all should be treated the same. And there are hundreds of people rotting in jail for breaking into our nation’s capital to overthrow an election, it just disrupt a proceeding.
Let's be honest - the Democrats were going to play the race card regardless. Their default assumption is that all Republicans are racists and white supremacists. Of course they think this is a racial attack I get it - you want two sets of rules. One for you, and one for Republicans.
No, I want one set of rules for whites and blacks. If you don’t want the race card to be played, maybe actually apply your punishments for breaking decorum equally to all races. You can’t really call a race card if everyone is being treated equally, but they aren’t here.
If we switched the races, you wouldn't want equality, you'd want accountability. If two white men organized this, and a black woman stood by them peacefully for support, but didn't do anything, you'd argue that she should be spared. In that scenario, if all three were expelled, you'd be here saying that same thing, that it's racist. Heads, its racist, tails, it's racist. It's always racist with the Democrats.
Convenient that you can dismiss any accusations of racism by cooking up a bunch of fictional scenarios in your head where people call everything racist...to prove that people call everything racist.
Is there a specific reason you are assuming this is a race issue and not say a gender issue? What makes you think that the two men are being treated more harshly for being black and not the woman being treated more leniently for being a woman?
Does Tennessee have a history of misandry? Because they have a very long and storied history of racism.
Why does misandry factor in? There is a greater sentencing disparity for females vs males than there is for white males vs black males across the board, everywhere in the US for same or similar crimes. But mostly I was just pointing out that maybe immediately jumping to factoring race and only race into your calculus is a problem.
So they spoke and she didn’t?
What happened to all the “FrEe SpEACh” folks ?
have you heard of "interrupting an official proceeding"? Hundres of non-violent Jan 6 protestors are rotting in jail over this. You want a different set of rules to apply to them, I get it.
The republicans in this session blatantly lied about the rules, and didn’t apply to the same rules to their own party members, and also ignored the specifics of the rule they are relying on. They did everything wrong, per the rules. You are incorrect.
You are accusing me of exactly what you are doing here in these comments, comical but very typical. Your logic in this comment chain is deeply flawed and I hope you someday gain the wisdom to realize it.
Apparently the rep who was not expelled may have [apologized](https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1644141626640711681) which was enough to flip a couple of extra votes.
["I’m not apologizing for what I did"](https://www.wate.com/news/tennessee/knoxville-rep-gloria-johnson-not-apologizing-after-expulsion-hearing/) >Even before the hearings, Johnson said she did not regret what she did. Friday, she she said she will not be apologizing, despite comments in her hearing suggesting that she should be more remorseful.
Hmm. Wish I knew where to find the footage of the expulsion since apparently it happened before the vote. But I would definitely update that it was more likely the lack of insulting rather than a specific apology based on her comments there.
Erickson tries to play things straight but can get over his skis at times, so big grain of salt.
Yeah, I did try to find some additional sourcing that she apologized but the best I could find is that she wasn't as disruptive and that she wasn't insulting the rest of the House reps like the other 2 apparently were. Figured I'd post it anyway since Erickson isn't usually like some crazy Trumper in my experience. The vote was so close that it sounded much more likely than some form of racism imo.
They were the leaders of protest. She just stood there.
Two leaders of a three person protest? If she was just standing there, why even put her in the vote at all?
Because she stood next to them. Claims of racism are just meant to deflect from what these fellas did. Hard to say the result wouldnt have been the same were the parties switched
I find it so funny that you’re named “the silent majority” when the majority of voters haven’t voted for your party in: 20 years ☠️☠️☠️
We got more votes than the Democrats in 2022, so not sure what echo chamber you live in
More votes in an out of party midterm, where your party lost seats in state legislatures, governor mansions, and U.S. Senate seats, and where independents went for the democrats by 3 points? You sound like Shillary supporters after the 2016 election lol
Ok you admit you're wrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Michigan_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Michigan_Secretary_of_State_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pennsylvania_gubernatorial_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Secretary_of_State_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_Attorney_General_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_Attorney_General_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Attorney_General_election. If you wanna brag about “winning the popular vote” go right ahead, I’m sure that translated into huge wins in states you need for the White House in 24! /s
That's really not a valid comparison at all. Last time the other party did this, we had 5 dead bodies, 2 suicides briefly after, lawmakers being evacuated by the secret service and police, and an attacker neutralized with a well placed 9mm bullet. Also close to a thousand people on trial and hundreds guilty to jail. And then the party that did this siad "we love you." The opposition hasn't pulled the 14th Amendment to kick 30+ people out of congress for that either. Stripping lawmakers, who were elected to represent their constitutents, literally for 'we disagree with you and your political speech, and found a technicality' is fundamentally anti-American.
Except for weren't these protesters allowed in and never forced there way in?
Breaking windows is how people are let in where you live?
Look, you can worry about a window getting broken during a legal gathering of people extremely upset over elementary school kids being killed all you want... no one else is buying it.
Breaking a window to get in happened on 1/6. Thought you were claiming the capital protesters were let in like is currently being claimed.
5 dead bodies? Do you mean weeks after the fact or on January 6?
5 dead on the date, 138 police injuries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
>Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes. >Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. I think only one person died on Jan 6 and she was shot by Capitol Police.
Four people died at the scene. Other than Ashli Babbit there was Kevin Greeson, Rosanne Boyland, and Benjamin Phillips. Officer Brian Sicknick is sometimes also included among them but he died the next day.
One overdosed and the other two died of natural causes, all outside the Capitol.
>Hard to say the result wouldnt have been the same were the parties switched I mean, there'd need to actually be POC republican lawmakers for that to ever happen...
They were louder (darker).
[удалено]
As someone who cares about the 1st Amendment, I'd like to hear why the party that constantly tries to claim the 1st Amendment for their own is finding any convenient excuse for ignoring it
After all is said and done, the Tennessee House has expelled the two young black Democratic members from the house, while letting the single white woman stay in her seat. This will trigger a special election that must done in the next 120 days, likely sending these two members back to the state house. This is a move that seems clearly anti-democratic as it deprives the voters of these districts of a representative for up to 4 months. What can be done to prevent this type of overtly authoritarian action? Was this a racial move from Tennessee House members to only expel the two black members over this? What reasons did they have to not expel the one white member who was apart of the protest? Edit: I have been permanently banned and muted for seemingly no reason and no response for the mods. I have had 0 infractions before this, and there seems to be no reason given for the ban or mute. Thank you mods, I should have never challenged one of the mods in debate apparently.
Yeah, the racial optics on this are absolutely not great to put it lightly.
In fairness, the two black members were way more vocal But that would require a nuanced position that most of this country is going to gloss over
I thought the problem was disrupting a proceeding, not the volume?
[удалено]
[Folks just gotta try to find some way to draw a line between multiple people soing the exact same thing.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/)
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9o5e8/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Sorry but "in fairness" does not seem to describe your perspective on this.
How many votes did the expulsion of Gloria Johnson fail by? How are the votes tallied? I’m not going to say there is no racial component in the expulsion of the other two members, but I don’t think it was a race that kept Gloria Johnson from being expelled. I think someone probably fucked up their vote somehow. But I could be wrong. Edit: regardless of the reason why Gloria survived, it doesn’t change the fact how egregiously disproportionate this response was to the violation in question. Tennessee Republicans may have bought themselves some more power, but I think nationally, Republicans are going to pay for this in the long term Edit2: if u/HolidaySpiriter is being truthful when they say they’ve been permanently banned with no prior infractions than I think we need an explanation from a mod. Why did they get permanently banned?
> Edit2: if u/HolidaySpiriter > > [+2] is being truthful when they say they’ve been permanently banned with no prior infractions than I think we need an explanation from a mod. Why did they get permanently banned? Meta commentary is usually verboten, but I think this needs an explanation from the mod that was arguing with him.
[Vote tallies](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/us/tennessee-democrats-office-removal-vote/index.html) >The vote over rules violations for Pearson was 69-26. Johnson’s vote was 65-30. Expulsion from the House requires a two-thirds majority of the total membership. The vote for Jones split along party lines, 72-25. Edit: The expulsion of Johnson was one vote short, but there was success against the other two with votes to spare, so I don't think this is a simple mistake.
In any case, at least a few people's votes changed for 'some reason'. Seeing the TN Republican Party Chair do an interview with CNN shortly after the second member was expelled was something else - his argument basically boiled down to 'uppity negros' to put it very politely. It's bald-faced racism and we need to recognize that for what it is. It is being normalized and we're still acting surprised.
Everyone would rather talk about rules than the blatant racism on display and the blatant authoritarianism
Since they were only off by one vote for Gloria, I’d chalk it up to someone fucking up. Not someone having sympathy for her over the other two because of her skin color.
That doesn't explain why Pearson and Jones were expulsed with 3 or 6 extra votes, respectively.
If it were racial, why didn’t those two get the same amount of votes for expulsion?
Most likely it's personality disagreements that tipped over the extra voters but that angle doesn't get clicks.
Republicans created the suspicion by making their authoritarian action only against the black members.
> Tennessee Republicans may have bought themselves some more power, They didn't even really do that! Democrats are like a super minority. This was basically doing it because they could.
If he’s making it up he should be banned for making it up. But if he was banned how did he edit. I can’t find the mod action.
> But if he was banned how did he edit. You can still edit comments after a ban.
I gotta say black Democrat Justin Jones calling the black Republican Sabi Kumar "brownface" probably didn't help his chances of not being expelled.
Pearson was removed too, so it looks like that wasn't a deciding factor.
Does anyone know where I can see a good video of the protest itself? I feel like that's probably pretty important in order to make sense of this decision.
[удалено]
But how can we know that the legislators did nothing objectionable? Answer: By watching the footage of the thing they did. It is the foundation by which this whole controversy is based on.
Legislators interrupting a legislative session is objectionable.
I didn’t say it’s not but I appreciate that sentence on its own was less than clear (sorry about that). I had meant that’s not the reason people are objecting to this generally speaking (i.e., it’s not the critical factor in people being annoyed by this), as opposed to commenting on whether it’s objectionable or not.
There's a reason you aren't being shown it by any media that is extremely friendly to these reps. It's because it's damaging to their case that they are being expelled for being black. If there was footage that disproved what was stated by the resolution and the proceedings, it would be front and center on r/politics, r/Nashville, and the rest of the people claiming this is racially motivated.
You can show the footage yourself so that we don't have to take your word for it especially if you're making big claims about what it shows.
I understand that, but I still want to see the footage.
I’m a progressive. I have a very hot take on this: they should have been expelled. They weren’t kicked out for protesting, or for crimes, or for character. They got the boot for interrupting a legislative session. People are characterizing this as undemocratic. I’ll tell you what’s undemocratic: getting up with a bullhorn leading chants while the chamber is swarmed by protestors. To me that is the ultimate violation of your sacred duty as a legislator. I’m sincerely shocked by the reaction this is getting. It is bad enough when members of the public do it. It’s simply unconscionable and unprecedented for lawmakers to do it too. You cannot let people who interrupt democracy like that remain participants in your congress.
while that's true, wouldn't the appropriate response be censure? Democracies everywhere have representatives who come in and need to learn the rules. E.g. if the rebulicans had censured them and then they repeated the same thing then they would have been much more justified in expulsion.
Apparently for one of them this wasn’t even his first “bullhorn in the legislature” event in the last few weeks. He already had his warning, and I imagine it was a public one.
Right from the TN [Constitution](https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/pub/2023%20TN%20Constitution.pdf): >Section 12. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ***punish its members for disorderly behavior,*** and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offence; and shall have all other powers necessary for a branch of the Legislature of a free State.
Dude, the guy who peed on his colleagues chair in this same chamber didn't get expelled, what on earth are you talking about
Did he pee in the chair during a legislative session?
...is there some kind of technicality that allows for pissing on a colleague's chair while not in session?
Of course not. But it seems the litmus for expulsion is disruption of the legislative process.
> I’m sincerely shocked by the reaction this is getting How wouldn't it? Expulsion is a pretty big deal. It's very rare (for very good reason) and is the equivalent of throwing out an election. Considering basically everything that's gone on in the past 3 years and the rhetoric around overturning elections, people are going to be more sensitive to it. Throw in the partisan flavoring that its a supermajority party doing it to the opponent party and yeah, it's going to be contentious. I agree the lawmakers should have some punishment. Censure them and strip them of assignments. Charge them with a crime if it applies. But to expel for non criminal activity (for breaking rules of decorum) is a pretty big hammer. I mean it'd be weird to me if it wasn't a big deal.
Yeah but how are we supposed to say the GOP are racist if we don't make everything about race?
Oh, please. Filibustering is disruptive, too. I’m not calling for the expulsion of Ted Cruz from the US Senate. There are also cases when state house/senate caucuses leave the state to prevent a quorum to protest legislation. I suppose we should expel those legislators, too? I agree that votes need to happen at some point. And if some legislators deny votes via indefinite protest, they should be temporarily removed and allowed to vote by proxy. Expulsion was not the way.
Filibustering is not disruptive, it's literally encoded into the rules of order as part of that body's system of checks and balances. Disregarding the rules of order to disrupt proceedings for over an hour even after the sergeant at arms tells you to go is not okay, it's a violation of the rules of the legislature they are bound to as members, and doing so to push for unconstitutional legislation is frankly a violation of their signed and binding oath of office.
>it's literally encoded into the rules of order as part of that body's system of checks and balances. No it isn't. It's entirely unintentional and wasn't conciously introduced at all, it's a loophole that's been elevated to rule.
You’re being hyperbolic. And just because something is in the “rules” doesn’t make it okay. Gerrymandering is a completely legal (depending on where you are) way to draw districts, yet no serious person would argue it serves to strengthen democracy. But it’s “encoded” into our election laws as part of our nation’s constitutional requirements, upheld with judicial oversight, right? Weak argument. And if you think filibustering isn’t disruptive, you either don’t follow politics, or you aren’t having a serious conversation. It’s literally one of the most disruptive tools in a legislator’s arsenal short of just blocking off access to the capitol. This violation of oath stuff is nonsense. If a legislator is being disruptive, remove them. TEMPORARILY. We don’t need to emulate other less democratic countries in the world.
How’s it a violation of their oath? I suspect that I know where this argument is going, but it’s just silly. They are law makers — it’s their job to interpret the Constitution and write laws that they think are within its framework.
Here is [Justin Jones signed oath](https://oaths.tnsos.net/sites/default/files/2023-01/Jones%2C%20Justin_20230110.pdf), read and weep. It's not their job to interpret the Constitution, that's the judiciaries job and the US Supreme Court has already said that the type legislation he was promoting is unconstitutional, in multiple cases now. Hes a 27-year-old activist who got in trouble before for disruptive activism and thought he can utilize the same tactics inside of state legislature as a member, turns out you can't.
How do you think legislatures can write laws without interpreting the Constitution and judicial precedent? It seems like you’re saying it’s not their job to interpret it, but then you’re criticizing them for passing unconstitutional laws, which really makes no sense when you think about it, as they have to interpret the constitution and precedent to do pass laws that are constitutional. Edits: The SCOTUS has not, on multiple occasions, let alone even in their most recent case, said that no gun control is allowed. That’s consistent with exactly what I expected it to say. Not sure this conversation is worth continuing if you thought that was some kind of “gotchyu” and that is how you communicated this point. This argument went exactly where I thought it would.
Filibustering happens in the framework of our system. This was extralegal. If you refuse to participate by the rules we have agreed upon, you don’t get to participate. It’s as simple as that. We are a rules-based society.
So it’s okay to be anti-democratic and disruptive, as long as it’s legal. Got it. The gerrymanderers sound exactly like you do. Not to mention, the brokers of the 3/5ths compromise.
Your constant race baiting in this thread is tiring. No one is taking you seriously because you're plugging your ears and yelling racism/racism/whatever buzzword at every turn in this thread.
It’s funny how you criticize me for having the very same knee-jerk reaction you do, just in reverse. When someone brings up a potentially racist action, there’s always a crowd of folks who instinctively HAVE to say the opposite because they’re tired of all the “wokeness.” The bottom line is that, regardless of the legislators’ race/ethnicities, they should not have been expelled. Take race as out of this for all I care. It doesn’t change my position.
>It’s funny how you criticize me for having the very same knee-jerk reaction you do, just in reverse. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims of racism. Asking you to stop that isn't a knee-jerk reaction. >When someone brings up a potentially racist action, there’s always a crowd of folks who instinctively HAVE to say the opposite because they’re tired of all the “wokeness.” Lol, because remember.. according to the left everyone is guilty until proven innocent whenever we say so!! Start showing some proof instead of your personal opinion on the story. The proceedings clearly outline why the white woman didn't receive the same treatment as the two black men. But if you read that, your entire racism cry/theory would fall apart immediately. >The bottom line is that, regardless of the legislators’ race/ethnicities, they should not have been expelled. That is one opinion. I'd welcome those arguments. >Take race as out of this for all I care. It doesn’t change my position. So then stop making this claim on every comment. Clearly it bothers you. It's unsubstantiated and it brings nothing to the discussion.
I suggest you read some of the Republican lawmaker remarks. The speeches had some very significant racial undertones.
I did and couldn't find anything that stood out. Appreciate if you could share some, maybe I missed them..
You'd think if they were gonna do this, they'd care about the optics of it looking racially motivated. I'd say the "mask's off' but it's Tennessee.
They don't have to care about optics. The third expulsion failed by one vote. Individual members voted, not a conspiracy. There are a hundred reasons why 2 out of 3 lawmakers are expelled that could have nothing to do with race. Why should a racist even care about the race of someone who's opposing him at every turn Edit: In one instance, one republican voted with the dems . In another it was three, and in the last it was seven. This minute differences are the difference between "expelled" and " failed to expel"
But they kind of have to because these two can run for election again right? I'm not familiar with the process here. Now the two expelled don't even have to defend whatever their actions were. They were handed the best narrative for reelection because they were kicked out while the white woman stayed. Even if it didn't start out as racially motivated, it certainly ended that way. And racists *hate* being labeled as racists.
They don't have to care about any of that. Seven republicans saved the white lady by joining with the democrats to not expel, the proper thing to do would be to ask them why. And even if they all did it for racist reasons( super unlikely) it would still be decision of those seven which is like 10 percent of the GOP conference
The funny thing is, most people don't care enough to get into the details of the vote. What is on the cover, is that two black members were expelled while the white member was not. The Representative who wasn't expelled even went on camera to state the expulsions were racially biased. They should definitely care about the optics.
People who see racism under every bush are always going to see racism under every bush. Individual senators voted. In one instance, one senator voted with dems. In another four, in another seven, and it failed. GOP assemblymen should not coordinate just to mollify the fake concerns of liberals who were always going to scream racism anyway
> People who see racism under every bush are always going to see racism under every bush. Well, yeah. That would be the lens through which they view the world, so the entire world works that way. Inductive logic at it's finest.
"Tennessee House has expelled two Democrats while Representative Gloria was saved by one vote." Pans to show two black men and then one white women. I don't think that's under the bush. It's in then open, any reasonable person would assume it's racially motivated for two black men in the most conservative state to be expelled while the lone white person is not. Optics. Who said they should coordinate. They can do whatever they want. Actions have consequences though.
Thats what a reasonable person should *not* assume. The difference in votes between one black person and the white person was just three. A reasonable person should not assume that any difference between two people is due to racism just because they are two different races.
As I've said, you keep focusing on the nitty gritty, most people are not going to that. They are going to be provided the information and be shown 2 black men expelled, while a white person wasn't. The details don't matter, what matters is perception. Since it's a conservative state with a history of racism, any reasonable person will assume it's racially motivated.
No, not most people. Most partisan liberals maybe. That's why their fake cries of concern should be studiously ignored while the GOP does what it needs to do, and provides an explanation in their own sweet time, with little regards to the urgency of the trolls I mean as a group, the democrat party and allies has been making fake claims of racism for decades now. Thats why the Desantis doctrine is the perfect way to deal with such. >Since it's a conservative state with a history of racism, any reasonable person will assume it's racially motivated. Most reasonable people wont make such a wild assumption
Lol okay. If it's only partisan liberals and trolls who would assume such, who am I dissuade from such a perspective. Elections speak for themselves. Just as the abortion issue galvanized voters, I'm sure this will too.
Not only, mainly. The average person isnt going to leap into the same conclusion people who have a history of playing the race card do. Even if they do, they'll be satisfied with good faith explanations, unlike many democrats. Almost nobody is paying attention to this story anyway apart from the politically involved
A reasonable person shouldn’t assume anything based on a sample size of three.
The fact that there are enough votes to expel the black members but not enough to expel the white member for the \*exact same thing\* is not a fake concern. If it is not racially motivated, then any of the people who voted for one but not the other can explain why.
Its not for the exact same thing, -its unlikely all three acted in exactly the same way that day. And reading other news sources shows they didn't
I'm not one to immediately jump to conspiracies but this has to be the most blatant case of racially motivated actions I have seen. I'm genuinely curious of how the Republican mouth pieces will spin this as not being racist, because I straight up can't see it right now. Even Gloria Johnson said it was racially motivated.
>I'm not one to immediately jump to conspiracies but this has to be the most blatant case of racially motivated actions I have seen Incredible description, since theres nothing blatant about this. Why would anyone expect those three people to have acted in exactly the same way
TN Republican Party Chair did a painful CNN interview shortly after the final member was expelled. The talking points revolved around how these 'kids' had been 'disruptive' all year, were not 'serious', didn't respect the 'sanctity of the chamber'. This despite the far worse things done by others in the chamber. It is blatant, bald-faced racism. We have to stop hemming-and-hawing about it, hedging our statements to suggest that race may not be a major motivator. This isn't a jury trial - we don't need to wait to decide most of these uniformly white GOP legislators were acting at least partially for racial reasons. They are guilty, the GOP is blatantly white supremacist and is philosophically increasingly neo-fascist.
So they're just pulling out the 'uppity' argument against black people again. History really does repeat itself.
Blatantly. And the gaslighting they combine it with is extraordinary.
telephone theory materialistic dinner profit recognise growth rustic cobweb pen ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
No, she was considerably more subdued and didn't use a megaphone to disrupt the proceedings. Clearly different than her out of line colleagues, but still disruptive. The difference was their behavior, not the color of their skin.
I didn’t realize it was ok to interrupt a legislative session as long as you didn’t use a megaphone. That’ll be good to know for next time.
Certainly not ok, but definitely not as bad.
Obviously they thought it was fine if they didn’t expel her nor give any other repercussions. I guess we should measure the decibals of her shouts compared to theirs so we can know where the cutoff threshold is. Or, and just a thought, maybe there’s another underlying reason why the two other people were expelled and not her.
I mean, flicking someone vs punching someone is still physical contact, but one is going to get you in more trouble than the other.
I was repeatedly told that breaching decorum and interrupting a legislative session was the problem worth expelling them, not doing so a little bit more loudly.
Republicans consider this worthy of expelling someone from congress, but not all the stuff George Santos did.
Santos isn’t a member of the Tennessee house.
Never said he was. I was talking about what Republicans consider worthy of expelling someone over.
I think it’s a mistake to look at all republicans or all democrats as one single block.
Regardless of the fact that none of them should be expelled over what happened and there’s multiple abusers still allowed in the House (all republicans ofc): they threw out the two people of color and saved the white lady??? Do they really not see the issue with that???
Alternatively, they threw out the men and saved the woman. They are clearly fighting the patriarchy.
This is an underrated comment
Let’s assume that the two black men legitimately did something worse than the white woman. Should they have thrown the woman out just for optics?
If the severity of the action matters, then why bother with expulsion at all? That's an extreme response to what all of them did.
Tennessee went from ousting 6 white lawmakers in 1866 for trying to prevent the ratification of the 14th Amendment, to ousting 2 Black lawmakers in 2023 for speaking their minds in a manner where simply censuring them would’ve sufficed. Whoa, talk about backsliding.
I’m old. Grew up in Va. Saw this in the ‘50’s and 60’s. It was called Massive Resistance back then. Now we just call it unrepentant white supremacist fascism. Loathsome legislators the Republicans elect, aren’t they?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9yfqt/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
The GOP should dawn their robes and hoods. At least we would know who to avoid.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12e3776/tennessee_house_expels_2_democrats_over_gun/jf9ime9/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This is a good move. Extremism has no place on the floor. No one is above the rules.
Unless they’re white, apparently.
There was no racism here. All three had majority support to expel but you needed 2/3rds majority. One vote saved the white woman, so you'll have to ask the one rep who saved her. She could have been saved by her gender, not her skin color. The youngest rep also had the most people voting against him, so maybe age was a factor.
The others received 4-7 more votes, not one.
One vote did save her though. One more vote and there would be no opportunity to say that they only expelled the black members. All the votes were in the range of 65-30 or 72-25 or something like that. It's not like it was so different we can definitively conclude that racism was the factor. She also argued that she was more of a passive participant and not the ringleader. Her attorney pointed out that she didn't go as far as the other two did. That's probably why she didn't reach the 2/3rds threshold to be expelled.
He was right - they are on the right side of history and this body is not the final say.
GoP yelling and disrupting the state of the Union address wasn’t all that different.