SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER.

The affirmative action corollary to the Peter Principle surely applies to ward-heeler politicians, and newly elected representative Summer Lee, who checks all those boxes, found herself taken flat aback and dismasted.

Riley Gaines appeared in a House hearing on Tuesday, and she left one Democrat congresswoman infuriated. Gaines was testifying on the dangers of men competing against women in sports, something that caused Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) to accuse her of being "transphobic," a lazy retort if there ever was one.

I've always liked the cut of Ms Gaines's jib, and she surely understands what making them play by their own rules is about.

Order of events:
-Lee says my stance is transphobic bigotry
-I respond by saying if I'm a transphobe, Lee is a misogynist
-Lee moves to have my words removed from record
-Her move is withdrawn so technically she's still a misogynist

They can dish it out, but they cant take it pic.twitter.com/MKCd5M1DwO

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) December 6, 2023

The representative apparently believed she could play by Penn's rules, and toss out a "transphobic," not understanding that Ms Gaines has had lots of practice dealing with that stuff and nonsense.

A lengthy discussion ensued, with Gaines at one point interrupting to address the fact that Lee had first called her "transphobic." Then, after the huddle was over, Lee leaned forward and moved to withdraw the point of order, i.e., her demand to have Gaines' words removed from the record.

This is another example of Democrats being able to dish it out but not being willing to take it. When someone accuses a woman of being "transphobic" for simply believing that men beating up on women in sports is wrong, they should be fair game for the same level of criticism. If Lee doesn't like that, maybe she should keep her lazy insults to herself.

It is not bigotry to believe that women's sports should be protected, both because they represent a space for women to succeed and earn accolades (and scholarships) and because, in some sports, the participation of men is physically dangerous. Gaines has put her reputation on the line to stand up for what she thinks is right. If Democrats like Lee disagree with that, they should be expected to make an actual argument backed by data, not just name-call.

The parliamentarian correctly ruled that the witness was responding to an observation the right honorable gentlewoman had made in her opening statement.

What followed was hurried consultation and presumably a few explanations for Lee on why witnesses are allowed to respond to such attacks by a member. Lee then withdrew her demand.

Rule XVII, clause 1(b) prohibits Members from engaging in “personalities.” That is a rule cited to the Speaker or chair to bar personal attacks from other members that are deemed unparliamentary. There is no definition of what words are considered to be violative of the rule.

However, Lee was attempting to use this against a witness who was defending herself against her own personal attack. It is a dangerous extension. Members of Congress generally are protected under the “speech or debate” clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. The privilege protects legislative proceedings and generally does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments. This was the holding in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, when Sen. Proxmire was found to be acting outside of the clause in making media comments regarding his golden fleece award.

Members often knowingly make defamatory comments in congressional debates, but then decline to repeat those same words in public to avoid any legal accountability.

Perhaps in that explanation, Professor Turley has explained why those college presidents were so pusillanimous despite being handled much more roughly by Representative Stefanik. "Democrats have embraced an anti-free speech agenda to silence opposing viewpoints. That desire becomes insatiable even as citizens seek to rebut personal attacks from members in a congressional hearing."  It never occurred to those college presidents that the anti-free speech agenda could be applied to them.