To remove legitimately elected officials from the chamber to which voters sent them is nothing short of authoritarianism.
www.nytimes.com
"Between bills, the lawmakers also approached the podium to speak. They did not wait to be formally recognized… But the three Democrats had more than public sentiment on their side. They had more, even, than moral authority on their side. They also had a practical reason for flouting chamber rules: “Our mics were cut off throughout the week whenever we tried to bring up the issue of gun violence,”
Mr. Jones told WKRN…Tomorrow, the House will vote on whether to expel the three lawmakers for talking out of turn."
That’s a deceitful way to say the three broke House rules by speaking without being recognized (“formally” recognized says the author, as if there’s any other way) and having their microphones cut off, then brought a megaphone into the chamber to stage a protest with people in the gallery. Why would that be OK? Oh, yeah - they had public sentiment, moral authority and a practical reason - at least from their perspective.
“…why the House leaders would choose to target two young Black representatives and one of just 11 women in the 99-seat House over a protest on the chamber floor.”
Maybe because the two young Black representatives and the one woman were the ones that repeatedly broke House rules?
Said another Democratic House member “Joined my colleagues this am in calling out the Tennessee state legislature for trying removed 3 elected members for exercising their right to protest following the Nashville school shooting that left 3 children & 3 adults dead.“ Sure, the 3 had a right to protest - outside with the public protest, not on the House floor.
Here’s the pictures NYT ran:
View attachment 739943
Here’s the picture they didn’t run:
View attachment 739944
www.breitbart.com
