Sessions gets annoyed with child crying during a hearing: ‘Enough with the histrionics.’

[ensho]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/04/sessions-crying-child/


Yesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay nationals to bring their foreign partners into the United States on the same basis as straight couples. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the only Republican who bothered to show up, grew impatient during the testimony of Shirley Tan; she faces deportation back to the Philippines, though her partner of 23 years and her children are American citizens. The New Republic reports that Sessions mocked Tan’s child for crying:

ne of Tan’s children started crying within seconds of the start of her testimony. … For most people, the sight of a 12-year-old boy in tears at the prospect of his mother being deported halfway around the world would invoke some sympathy. Unmoved, however, was Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, ranking minority member of the Committee and the only Republican to bother to attend the hearing. At the sight of the weeping boy, according to a Senate staffer who was at the hearing, Sessions leaned towards one of his aides and sighed, “Enough with the histrionics.”
-snip-
there is a video that caught it
--------------------------


may he fall down

[Swede]

1. What a great statesman.

Where the heck do these people come from?

[RagAss]

10. They come from church !

[liskddksil]

2. "Conservatism - its not an ideology- its just being a dick"

Bill Maher.

[Hepburn]

5. That statement belongs on a T-shirt, IMO.

Not bad as a bumper sticker either. So few words, so much truth!

JMHO

[nichomachus]

8. I second that -- maybe for next T-Shirt contest n/t

[crikkett]

77. zOMG I laugh out loud even as I think to myself

'well he should know about being a dick'

Well Done

[Generic Other]

3. why are these family value people so anti-family?

And why doesn't the couple just get married?

[MountainLaurel]

6. Answer to your first question

Their family values only extend to white, Christian, heterosexual families with children.

Answer to your second question: They're a same-sex couple.

[Generic Other]

14. Oh, I didn't realize that

So if they travelled to a state that allowed same sex marriage, it still wouldn't make a difference?

They deserve better treatment. This video made me upset to watch. Senators should be ashamed of themselves.

[Chovexani]

18. This is why civil unions are a crock of worthless shit

And why "leaving it to the states" does not work. "Leaving it to the states" does absolutely nothing to confer FEDERAL marriage benefits, which is why couples in Massachusetts still have to file federal taxes separately. Even if same-sex marriage is legal in your state, you don't get a damn thing in terms of federal marriage rights.

The inequality is especially glaring when it comes to the issue of transnational couples. "Fiance visas" and the like? Nope. The DHS treats your foreign partner as if they were a stranger to you, regardless of how long you've been together and even if you have children together and your children are American citizens.

[Raineyb]

4. What an asshole.

And to think someone wanted him to be put up as a judge. I hope he rots in hell.

[louis-t]

7. Kid probably started crying as soon as Sessions

walked into the room. "Aw, we're fucked now," Jeff, being a complete asshole does not make you uniquely qualified to become a judge. Asshole.

[nichomachus]

9. Babies can sense evil n/t

[louis-t]

69. Well, he was 12, but still...

[cboy4]

11. Who wouldn't cry listening to their mother lay out such potential gloom and

doom .. as well as bring up such a horrific past.

That young man is old enough to perfectly understand the worst case scenario and it's hardly good.

I think he did an excellent job keeping himself from completely breaking down and sobbing his eyes out .. something that would have been completely understandable.

But see, most Republicans lack the human emotion called compassion.

[mrbarber]

12. Hey Sessions.....

Fuck you and the holier than thou horse you rode in on.

[bridgit]

13. He's such a creepy-strange little dude

[Vickers]

15. He must've REALLY been pissed when Alito's wife started "crying" during

the confirmation hearings.

:sarcasm:

[Chovexani]

16. Typical coming from the "Family Values" party

[vadawg]

17. As much as a prat of a guy he is, i get the point of not having kids at hearings

theres nothing worse than when someone is on trial and people involved in the case in the gallery start to shout stuff or cry, its not good for the court. I dont know if the kids were there intentionally to try to change some minds ofr not, but it would be probuably better not to have them there.

[Chovexani]

20. ...

So, in your cultured opinion, during a hearing on an issue that has a direct impact on families with children, children should not be present because they might "change some minds".

Of course they were there to change some fucking minds, THEIR MOTHER IS GOING TO BE DEPORTED IF THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS. THEIR FAMILY IS GOING TO BE BROKEN APART.

For fuck's sake.

[vadawg]

21. definetely dont have the children there if you dont want it to turn into a show

same as people who get up at congressional hearings and shout slogans, it dosent work, all it does is make people think they are idiots or in this case that the children are being used to try to get an emotional response rather than a logical one

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

23. nope, i just dont think that during testimony etc that people from the gallery etc should be getting

involved whether that is by shouting or crying, in court it is one thing that judges hate, you can feel for the people but it does interfere with testimony etc. If you cant see that then thats not my problem.

[bluedawg12]

25. The idea of "histrioinics" is that it's staged - Jeff Sessions dropped his mask

of concern for families - when it comes to gay families.

A 12 year old boy is appropriate at such hearings and the possibility that the boy was upset because of the topic of parental deportation rather than histrionics is just cruel. Cruel in a very Republican sort of way.

[vadawg]

26. i think that all children should attend such hearings, just not hearings that involve them

would you want a child to be present at the hearings between his parents in a bad divorce case, no. This is a major problem in court and causes a lot of disruptions and the judges hate it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. This is entirely different than a divorce and you should (hopefully) know that

[vadawg]

30. divorce was just an example i gave, it dosent matter the case or circumstance

if it involves the child its better to not have them there if its going to be emotional, as i said for a lot of people it looks like a set up and even if its not, its not conducive to the testimony.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

31. If this doesn't pass, his parents are going to be ripped apart

I think it's conducive to the testimony to see the real life effects.

[vadawg]

33. so you would be happy to allow the kids of anyone on trial for instance to sit behind them crying

and you dont think this would in amy way effect the jury, the whole point i am making is that if you want to be able to effect testimony by having crying children for example then its a bad idea, whether you agree with the testimony given or not.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

34. His parents aren't criminals

Your point is moot.

[vadawg]

36. they may not be criminals but as congress is looking at this it is a point of law

or would you rather that immigration or whatever law is involved just gets thrown aside without any testimony or deliberation.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

73. There is deliberation and testimony going on, so once again you make zero sense

[vadawg]

75. okay so imagine you are in court for something whether innocent or guilty

and the person you allegedly wronged children are sitting there crying and looking at you, do you think this would mean a fair deliberation, hell no, as ive said repeatedly i would remove the children of anybody involved in a case from the court in a heartbeat and this is accepted procedure in many courts, i just dont think anybody thought about having the child here or if they did they did it for the wrong reasons.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

76. This isn't a matter of innocent or guilty

So once again, your point is moot.

[bluedawg12]

41. Then keep blubbering Republican adult wives out of confirmation hearings.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/12/fox_news_will_vicious_dems_pay_for_driving_alitos_wife_to_tears.php

"Fox News: "Will Vicious Dems Pay for Driving Alito's Wife to Tears?"
Reported by Melanie - January 12, 2006

The theme of Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (January 12, 2006) was the supposed viciousness of Democrats (it's an election year folks) who presumably made Samuel Alito's wife cry yesterday during Alito's confirmation hearings.

The program opened with a FOX NEWS ALERT, a chyron that read, "Will Vicious Dems Pay for Driving Alito's Wife to Tears?" and this from Cavuto: "This is a Fox News Alert!"

[vadawg]

43. hell yes, during any testimony etc keep the emotion away, it always clouds the issue as hard as

that sounds, in any court or testimony you want to take the emotion out so a fair desicion can be made.

[bluedawg12]

46. Calling it "histrionics" is bulshit. That's bias! That is not objective.

Imagine, one ofthe trier of facts disparages a family member by calling the child's spontaneous emotion as histrionics. There were other ways to handle that - unless of course one views it through the Republican slash and burn and dehumanize perspective.

[vadawg]

49. yup i agree with you on this point, my problem is with having the child there to begin with

i personally would have removed the child before it started.

[bluedawg12]

47. BTW- Set up the rules for who can be in the gallery before the proceedings

if you don't, then, don't bully children for failure to set up the rules in advance.

[vadawg]

50. yup see post 49, the child should not have been there in the first place.

i reguarly remove children and others from court if there is a belief they may disrupt or interfere with proceedings.

[bluedawg12]

52. Then Sessions was wrong in not seeing to it and wrong in his biased outburst. n/t

[vadawg]

54. yup, i think hes a plamf, my problem is with the child being allowed there in the first place.

[bluedawg12]

56. My problem is with adults in power publicly bullying children and making biased statements. n/t

[Raineyb]

70. And those who excuse it.

I know you're not excusing it bluedawg.

[vadawg]

71. lol captain bleeding obvious. n/t

[bluedawg12]

39. A twelve year old should be there--especially when it involves them.

Twelve year olds, 8th graders routinely go to Washington D.C. as a civics lession, these are future adult citizens.

Emotions are unpredictable--even in adults, quite a few Republican wives have pulled some stunts- understanding the emotional impact on the family is the lesson for Jeff Sessions and his ideological brethren to learn.

[vadawg]

42. not if hes gonna get emotional, im not wanting to beat up this kid but his parent should have known

as i said earlier if you know its gonna get emotional and it involves the child dont bring them in, many judges will actually get the deputy to take kids out of the court in such circumstances because its not fair on the child or the court. Forget about this particular case and imagine would you want the child there if their mother or father was being sentenced to jail time, hell no.

[bluedawg12]

45. The parents weren't being sentenced to jail time -

this particular case is the question at hand.

Keep Republican wives out of Senate nomination hearings - they cry and are disruptive.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/12/fox_news_will_vicious_dems_pay_for_driving_alitos_wife_to_tears.php

Fox News: "Will Vicious Dems Pay for Driving Alito's Wife to Tears?"
Reported by Melanie - January 12, 2006

The theme of Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (January 12, 2006) was the supposed viciousness of Democrats (it's an election year folks) who presumably made Samuel Alito's wife cry yesterday during Alito's confirmation hearings.

The program opened with a FOX NEWS ALERT, a chyron that read, "Will Vicious Dems Pay for Driving Alito's Wife to Tears?" and this from Cavuto: "This is a Fox News Alert!

[vadawg]

48. okay then, do you think that having children watching their parents served with deportation orders

is good, should i call the kids in when i have to serve their mothers or fathers with ICE detainers or deportation orders, this is a situation were the testimony and evidence should be looked at without the added emotions of having a kid sitting there having to listen to his parent trying not to be deported. As i have stated during the testimony etc you dont want emotion as you want to come to a fair decision according to what the law allows, or in the case of congress a fair desicion on whether they need to change the law.

[bluedawg12]

51. The rules about the gallery should be set up in advance regarding kids or anyone. n/t

[vadawg]

53. see earlier post were i agreed with you on this,

[bluedawg12]

55. Then Sessions was wrong in attacking the boy, Sessions failed. n/t

[vadawg]

58. yup, but i also think the parents should take some blame, i dont know their reasons

for bringing him, whether they were innocent reasons or not but it was a mistake.

[bluedawg12]

61. The parents were following the law there was no prohibition against a 12 year old being there.

Also, the matter was of vital interest to the boy and family, tough shit that Sessions was discomfitted.

[vadawg]

63. yeah but the parents were dumb to not realise that the boy would suffer

whether they were following the law or not. As i said i would have removed the boy if it was in my court.

[bluedawg12]

65. Sessions was ignorant not to consider the suffering of children in not passing the law.

If it was anyone's Court and the trier of fact blurted out such a biased statement then he/she should recuse himself and counsel should ask for a mis-trial.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. And what is the logical response?

Rip a family apart?

[vadawg]

35. unfortunately if thats where the evidence/testimony goes

or do you watch every case/testimony and say that the most important thing is whether the family stays together or the law is upheld.

[Lex]

59. If the law is ripping a family apart, I'd say the most important thing is to examine why.

Newsflash: Laws get overturned that aren't just.

[vadawg]

62. i think that is the whole point of congress looking at this law

problem is lots of laws rip families apart, which ones to tackle first and is it good to put the kids through the emotional ringer in the meantime.

[bluedawg12]

64. Exactly right. The principle is keeping families together.

The hearing was before lawmakers to enact fair laws.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

74. So you think there can possibly be justifiable evidence/testimony to break up a family simply due to

sexual orientation?

[crikkett]

78. what if they didn't have anyone to watch him?

If only this country valued its children, we'd be much better off.

[madokie]

19. May he fall down hard

what a dick

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Last time the Senate voted on a version of this bill

Then Senator Obama voted against it, with the Republicans. Has he said if he will sign it if it passes?

[Are_grits_groceries]

29. Sessions has a perfectly valid argument.

How can we hear his histrionics and whining if the baby doesn't stop???

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

32. True

But in this case, it was actually a 12-year-old boy whose parents may be split apart and one deported, because they happen to be gay.

[Are_grits_groceries]

38. Sessions has always been an ass.

I would hate to have him as a teacher. He has no empathy (there goes that word again). I think some people need an empathy enema to clear out all the bile they have collected.

[bluedawg12]

44. A boy crying at the prospect of deporation of his mom. makes it harder for Sessions to hear

"... his top aide, Brian Benczkowski, who compares gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality."
- http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/04/sessions-crying-child/

[JVS]

37. Is anyone else curious to know his thoughts on "compassionate conservatism"?

[bluedawg12]

57. Excellent! Sessions gets a 0% in gay civil right and a meager 7% from NAACP.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Jeff_Sessions_Civil_Rights.htm

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Proponents of the motion say:
If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped.
Reference: Bill S1510 ; vote number 2001-300 on Oct 11, 2001

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias.
Reference: Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to 'disadvantaged business enterprises'
Reference: Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1998-23 on Mar 6, 1998

Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
This legislation would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete for federally funded transportation.
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)48; N)52
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture; Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1997-275 on Oct 23, 1997

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.
Sessions co-sponsored a Constitutional Amendment:
Supports granting Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HJR36 on Mar 13, 2001

Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
Sessions scores 20% by the ACLU on civil rights issues

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.
Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: ACLU website 02n-ACLU on Dec 31, 2002

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.
Sessions scores 0% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):
The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006

Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.
Sessions scores 7% by the NAACP on affirmative action
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

40. He lacks empathy.

[bluedawg12]

60. His top aide is an apologist for torture. How ironic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/04/sessions-crying-child/#comment-5672218
Sessions opposes the bill because, he said, it would be “providing an additional avenue for abuse of the marriage preference for immigration into our country.” Perhaps he’s listening to his top aide, Brian Benczkowski, who compares gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/06/musasey-appoints-torture-apologist-as-his-chief-of-staff/

Mukasey appoints torture apologist as his chief of staff.
Today, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed Brian Benczkowski to serve as his chief of staff. TPMMuckracker reminds readers that Benczkowski served as one of the Justice Department’s torture apologists, arguing that if torture is conducted to prevent an attack “rather than for the purpose of humiliation,” it doesn’t violate the Geneva Conventions’ ban on “outrages upon personal dignity” and thus is likely acceptable:

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. <...>

In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Benczkowski argued that “to rise to the level of an outrage” and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct “must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned.”

Last month, Mukasey declared that people who perpetrated torture “cannot and should not be prosecuted” or even investigated.

[bluedawg12]

66. Uniting American Families Act

This bill or a variation of it started 9 years ago: 106th Congress Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2000 H.R. 3650 February 14, 2000 sponsered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act
"The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.<1><2>

The UAFA was introduced during the 111th Congress, to the United States House of Representatives on February 12, 2009 by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).<3> There are currently 105 cosponsors of this bill in the United States House of Representatives.<4>

The full text of the UAFA, further expanded to provide rights to the children or step-children of the foreign-born partner, is included as Title II of the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709), an immigration reform bill, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 4, 2009 by California Congressman Michael Honda (D-CA). <5>

The UAFA was introduced in the United States Senate on February 12, 2009 by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).<6> There are currently 19 cosponsors of this bill in the United States Senate.<7>"

........

http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/6985.htm
Uniting American Families Act
S. 424, H.R. 1024

The Problem
Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may sponsor their spouses (and other immediate family members) for immigration purposes. But same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are not considered “spouses,” and their partners cannot sponsor them for family-based immigration. Consequently, many same-sex, bi-national couples are kept apart or torn apart.

What is the Uniting American Families Act?
The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would remedy this injustice and allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners (called “permanent partners” in UAFA) for family-based immigration.

The legislation amends the definitions sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to include definitions for “permanent partner” and “permanent partnership.” The Act defines “permanent partner” as an individual who is at least 18 years of age who is in a committed relationship with another individual at least 18 years of age who is not a first, second or third-degree blood relative, with the intent that this be a lifelong commitment. The individual must be financially interdependent with his or her partner, cannot be married or in another permanent partnership and must be unable to enter into a marriage recognized under the INA with the partner.

UAFA will provide lesbian and gay individuals the same opportunity as different-sex, married couples to sponsor their partner. Like different-sex couples, there are requirements such as providing proof of the relationship — including affidavits from friends and family or evidence of financial support. As with current immigration laws for married couples, UAFA would impose harsh penalties for fraud, including up to five years in prison and as much as $250,000 in fines.

[hayu_lol]

67. Two yapping dogs we would all be better off...

if we didn't have to listen to them:

Sessions: Alabama

Gingrich: Georgia

Where they come from says a lot.

[bluedawg12]

68. So true. A look at: Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Controversies

Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III (born December 24, 1946) is the junior United States Senator from Alabama. He is a member of the Republican Party, and the new ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Controversies

Sessions had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers (including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr), on a case of election fraud for the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating black voters in predominantly black counties, finding 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of approximately 1.7 million ballots cast. The three civil rights workers were acquitted after four hours of jury deliberation.<4>

On September 9, 2005, after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Sessions called his former law professor, Harold Apolinsky, co-author of Sessions' legislation repealing the federal estate tax, which had lost momentum in Congress, and left a voicemail: " Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with."<13>

Sessions was one of only nine opponents of Senator John McCain's anti-torture amendment. Sessions supports former Vice President Dick Cheney's proposal to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from any ban on the use of torture.<14>

Sessions has been opposed to parts of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as a "piece of intrusive legislation."<4> In 2006 he was in favor of letting it expire, and also said that Congress should consider if it was needed in some northern cities and states.<15> He later voted in favor of extending it.<16><17>

Sessions has advocated the extension of FISA legislation to legalize the Bush Administration's wiretapping techniques. He compared worries about government overreach to "two dramatic errors some years ago in a situation just like this, on emotion driven by our civil libertarian friends," specifically the lack of sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA as well as prohibitions on obtaining intelligence from "dangerous" sources. Sessions was indirectly criticized for this phrasing by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who replied " 'The civil libertarians among us' — and then he listed all the bad things he thinks the civil libertarians among us have done. I hope every one of us — every one of us in this Chamber — supports the civil liberties of the United States of America because if you don't, you don't believe in the Constitution."<18>

Sessions has been one of the most vocal critics of the reauthorization of PEPFAR in 2008. On July 14, when the bill went to debate, Sessions prepared an amendment that would allow the so-called "Helms Amendment" banning HIV-positive patients from entering the United States to be maintained, a ban that the bill would repeal. He is also opposed to the current price tag of $50 billion over five years.<19>

Sessions opposes approval of the Uniting American Families Act. In June 2009, during testimony by a 42-year-old Filipino woman who was scheduled to be deported in April 2009 despite being the mother of two American children and having a relationship for 23 years with an American woman, Sessions was audibly heard relaying to one of his aides "enough with the histrionics" when the woman's 12-year-old son began crying during the testimony. <20>

[Odin2005]

72. Jeff Sessions really likes kids and families, NOT!!!

:puke:

I'm not a parent, but I get annoyed when other people without kids bitch when kids get whiny in public. I have Asperger's Syndrome and so am very sensitive to annoying noises and if I can deal with it other people should be able as well.

[Touchdown]

80. A 11 y/o seat kicker at Star Trek is another matter entirely.

The mother did nothing, said nothing. She acted as if her little darling could do no wrong.

I can agree that we should all have a little more tolerance when it comes to children in public, but that stops when I have to shell out $10 for a movie.

[Touchdown]

79. Not to make light of Sessions, but what if a Senator brought his son to work?

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/congressmans_son_wont_shut_the