logo
Tennessee congresswoman uses shocking slurs for black and trans people... then laughs off calls to apologize

Tennessee congresswoman uses shocking slurs for black and trans people... then laughs off calls to apologize

Daily Mail​24-04-2025

A Republican lawmaker has refused to apologize after referring to transgender people as 'fairies' and calling another black representative a 'boy'.
Tennessee Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger made the reference while speaking about Texas Democrat Al Green during a recent interview.
Green, 77, uses a cane and made headlines after interrupting President Trump's speech to the House by waving it and shouting in protest at the president.
In an interview this week, Harshbarger recalled the moment saying: 'Al Green was over here with his cane and I'm like, 'Gosh dang it, boy'.'
The use of 'boy' in reference to a black man is seen as being racially coded, depending on the speaker and tone of voice used. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the word can be used as a racial slur.
She added: 'He does not need that cane. That cane is a prop. I swear it's not real.
'One of my colleagues said, 'Unscrew the gold part off of it and see if there's a gun in there'. I'm, like, 'I don't know about that man'. He's just Weird Al.'
When the interviewer said: 'It's better than what the previous administration was having as fundraisers, with the transgenders...' Harshbarger responded by calling trans people 'fairies.'
She said: 'Listen, I never saw so many fairies in the White House dancing around. And I'm like—I don't know where they got them. My job is to love them into the love of Christ, and I gotta watch what I say.
'But look, remember what I told you. I better not say it. I think they need more grandmothers in Congress. That's all I'm gonna say, and I'm gonna leave it at that.'
The clip has sparked controversy for her use of the phrase, with Green holding a press conference on Wednesday condemning her language.
He said: 'This is especially sensitive for me because, as a child, I remember my father being stopped by a peace officer, and the officer referred to my father as 'boy.'
'And my mother was 'girl.' And it wasn't just that one time. It was the way society addressed people of color who were of African ancestry at the time.'
'It wasn't said to indicate that you are youthful. It was said to demean, to degrade, to denigrate.
'Friends, it's not about Al Green. It's about whether Black people in this society are going to allow slurs such as this to be normalized. We cannot allow the normalization of these kinds of slurs.'
During his press conference, which he hosted alongside other Texas community leaders, he never referenced Harshbarger by name.
Green uses the cane for more stability while walking, adding that although there isn't a concealed weapon inside he could use it to defend himself.
In response, Harshbarger posted on her X account and refused to apologize for her language.
She said: 'The weather is warming up, so naturally, the snowflakes are starting to melt! I was discussing one of my colleague's erratic behavior during President Trump's Joint Address, and now he—along with the rest of the Radical Left—is blowing it out of proportion in a desperate attempt to get attention.
'BOY oh boy, you just can't catch a break between the FAKE NEWS and young men wielding canes!'
Green had also called out Harshbarger for using the term 'fairies' during the same interview.
The House would go on to censure Green in a sharp rebuke of his actions, voting largely along party lines 224 to 198.
Ten Democrats joined their GOP colleagues to vote 'yea' on the resolution while two voted present.
But ahead of the vote, Green said despite any punishment for his actions, it would have been worth it.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scots schools to convert gender-neutral toilets to single-sex after Supreme Court ruling
Scots schools to convert gender-neutral toilets to single-sex after Supreme Court ruling

Daily Record

timean hour ago

  • Daily Record

Scots schools to convert gender-neutral toilets to single-sex after Supreme Court ruling

Currently, 52 schools across 11 council areas in Scotland only offer gender-neutral toilets Around 18 Scottish schools that previously offered gender-neutral toilets will convert back to single-sex facilities following a legal ruling. The schools, in Aberdeenshire, Argyll and Bute, the Scottish Borders and Shetland, will add separate bathrooms for boys and girls. It comes after a landmark ruling at the UK Supreme court, which declared a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. ‌ Figures obtained by the BBC show that 52 schools across 11 council areas in Scotland only offered gender-neutral toilets. Of those, 10 are located in Shetland. ‌ court ruling before deciding how to respond. Meanwhile, City of Edinburgh Council said it was "considering what changes may need to be made". The local authority plans to provide an update over the summer. Five other councils - Clackmannanshire, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, Midlothian and Perth and Kinross - confirmed they had at least one school in their area which offered no single-sex facilities. ‌ They did not provide an update on any changes to provision since then. South Ayrshire, Moray, Stirling and South Lanarkshire councils said none of their schools offered any gender-neutral provision. In April, a Scottish judge ruled that all state schools must provide separate male and female toilets following a legal case brought by parents against Scottish Borders Council. ‌ The decision, handed down at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, came after Sean Stratford and Leigh Hurley challenged the council's policy at Earlston Primary School, where their eight-year-old son had been a pupil. Rosie Walker, solicitor for the parents and partner at Gilson Gray LLP, welcomed the judgment. ‌ She said at the time: "This case, on top of the Supreme Court decision last week, gives focus to the importance of protecting sex-based rights a nd single-sex spaces." Ms Hurley, 39, who works at the school as a pupil support worker, first raised concerns in late 2023 about the school's broader transgender inclusion policies, which included allowing a pupil to socially transition and participate in sports in line with their gender identity. She later discovered the school planned to have no sex-segregated toilet facilities, and that children could face punishment for "misgendering" peers. ‌ Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. She said: 'We just want all children to be safeguarded. We have great empathy for any child, but we just wanted our rights respected at the same time, and that wasn't happening.' The couple ultimately withdrew their son from the school, citing emotional distress and concerns about their younger daughter, who would have also been expected to use gender-neutral toilets once she enrolled. Stratford, 42, said: 'We've won, but common sense says we should never have been in this position in the first place. We brought this to their attention when it was still a building site.'

Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases
Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases

Reuters

time2 hours ago

  • Reuters

Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases

June 13 (Reuters) - Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January, his administration has bombarded the U.S. Supreme Court with emergency requests seeking immediate intervention to free up his initiatives stymied by lower courts. The strategy is paying off. Once a rarely used pathway to the nation's top judicial body, its emergency docket now bulges with an unprecedented volume of requests for rapid attention by the justices in clashes over Trump's far-reaching executive actions. As the Republican president tests the limits of executive power under the U.S. Constitution, Trump's administration has made 19 emergency applications to the court in less than five months, with one other such application filed by lawyers for migrants held in Texas who were on the verge of deportation. The court already has acted in 13 of these cases. It has ruled in Trump's favor nine times, partially in his favor once, against him twice and postponed action in one case that ultimately was declared moot. Trump's wins have given him the green light to implement contentious policies while litigation challenging their legality continues in lower courts. The court, for instance, let Trump revoke the temporary legal status granted for humanitarian reasons to hundreds of thousands of migrants, implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military and take actions to downsize the federal workforce, among other policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justice who Trump appointed during his 2017-2021 first presidential term. Six more emergency requests by the administration remain pending at the court and one other emergency request was withdrawn. Among the requests still to be acted upon are Trump's bid to broadly enforce his order to restrict birthright citizenship, to deport migrants to countries other than their own including politically unstable South Sudan and to proceed with mass federal layoffs called "reductions in force." Emergency applications to the court involving Trump policies have averaged about one per week since he began his second term. His administration's applications this year match the total brought during Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden's four years as president. "The Trump administration uses every legal basis at its disposal to implement the agenda the American people voted for," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Reuters. "The Supreme Court will continue to have to step in to correct erroneous legal rulings that district court judges enter solely to block the president's policies." The administration has "not sought Supreme Court review in all the cases it could, and part of the story may be that the government is appealing what it thinks are strong cases for it," said Sarah Konsky, director of the University of Chicago Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic. Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who wrote a book about the court's emergency docket, said in a blog post on Thursday that the results favoring Trump should not be attributed only to the court's ideological makeup. At a time when Trump and his allies have verbally attacked judges who have impeded aspects of his sweeping agenda, there is a "very real possibility that at least some of the justices ... are worried about how much capital they have to expend in confrontations with President Trump," Vladeck wrote. The onslaught of emergency applications has diverted the attention of the justices as they near the end of the court's current term. June is usually their busiest month as they rush to finish writing opinions in major cases. For instance, they have yet to decide the fate of Tennessee's Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Among the emergency-docket cases, the court most recently on June 6 allowed Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in his drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal data on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration systems and blocked a watchdog group from receiving records on DOGE operations. The court also has allowed Trump to cut millions of dollars in teacher training grants and to fire thousands of probationary federal employees. On the other side of the ledger, the court has expressed reservations about whether the administration is treating migrants fairly, as required under the Constitution's guarantee of due process. On May 16, it said procedures used by the administration to deport migrants from a Texas detention center under Trump's invocation of a 1798 law historically used only in wartime failed basic constitutional requirements. The justices also declined to let the administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work already performed for the government. Trump turned to the emergency docket during his first term as well. His prior administration filed 41 such applications to the court. During the 16 years prior, the presidential administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama filed just eight combined, according to Vladeck. The court has quickly decided weighty matters using the emergency docket in a way often at odds with its traditional practice of considering full case records from lower courts, receiving at least two rounds of written briefings and then holding oral arguments before rendering a detailed written ruling. It is sometimes called the "shadow docket" because cases often are acted upon without the usual level of transparency or consideration. Some recent decisions on the emergency docket have come with brief opinions explaining the court's reasoning. But typically they are issued as bare and unsigned orders offering no rationale. Konsky noted that the justices sometimes designate emergency cases for regular review with arguments and full briefing. "But in any event, the emergency docket raises complicated questions that are likely to continue to play out in the coming years," Konsky said. Among Trump's emergency applications this year, oral arguments were held only in the birthright citizenship dispute. The liberal justices, often findings themselves on the losing side, have expressed dismay. Once again "this court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent in the Social Security data case. "The risk of error increases when this court decides cases -as here - with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the teacher grants case. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito defended the emergency docket in 2021, saying there is "nothing new or shadowy" about the process and that it has wrongly been portrayed as sinister.

Democrats make a mark in their rowdy pushback to Trump
Democrats make a mark in their rowdy pushback to Trump

NBC News

time4 hours ago

  • NBC News

Democrats make a mark in their rowdy pushback to Trump

All week, officials in the Trump administration hailed the images of protests against their deportation campaign in Los Angeles, saying their opponents were playing right into their hands. But on Thursday, the administration was put on the defensive. A video of Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., forced to the ground and handcuffed after he interrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a news conference in Los Angeles on Thursday, immediately ricocheted across social media platforms and cable news, shifting the narrative to warnings about overreach by the White House. It capped a week when the Democratic Party seemed to finally find its voice, in ways big and small, to push back against the administration. From California Gov. Gavin Newsom's questioning President Donald Trump's acuity to Padilla's move to interrupt Noem to mini-rebellions playing out at the nation's capital, Democrats began to break the hold Trump usually has on the news cycle. It comes after months of Democratic intraparty squabbling over how to move forward after a bitter loss in the presidential election. In that time, Democrats have been unable to come up with coherent, unified messaging to rebut Trump and instead have been mired in fighting about issues like whether activist David Hogg should remain part of the Democratic National Committee and who was to blame for Joe Biden's refusal to walk away from the Democratic presidential nomination earlier amid concerns of his mental decline. Last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told NBC News he was employing a flood-the-zone strategy with messaging and urging other members to do the same. And this week, the DNC voted overwhelmingly to hold a new election for Hogg's vice chair post, prompting him to quickly announce he would walk away from the position. A strategist said the resistance to Trump was a necessity after the events in Los Angeles, which Democrats say are overreach by the administration. 'Voters have been looking for this, and the circumstances have arrived,' said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist. 'And while many people will say it should have happened sooner, given the series of events — this week alone — everyone had to step up. There was no choice.' Nationwide protests planned for Saturday also threaten to overshadow Trump's upcoming military parade in Washington. On Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., demanded a bipartisan investigation into the Padilla incident as Democratic senators took turns sounding off about what they called overbearing tactics by the Trump administration that undermined democracy. When House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stood before cameras in the Capitol to call Padilla's actions 'wildly inappropriate,' shouting could be heard interrupting him: 'That's a lie!' At a hearing Thursday of the House Oversight Committee, where three Democratic governors of so-called sanctuary states were hauled before the panel, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul got salty at one point with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. 'You stated that you're a proud registered Democrat?' Greene asked. 'Yes, I did," Hochul shot back. "Is that illegal now, too, in your country?' At another point in the hearing, Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., interrupted and repeatedly asked whether Republicans would subpoena Noem. He irritated committee chair James Comer, R-Ky. to the point that Comer snapped: 'Just shut up!' That all followed relentless pushback from Newsom since last week. Newsom went on his own messaging campaign to rebut a barrage of insults that Trump and his deputy chief of staff and key immigration official Stephen Miller have fired at him and his California. Trump federalized the National Guard and deployed Marines to California after protests broke out in response to arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The White House repeatedly pointed to burning cars and protesters' throwing rocks as the impetus for sending troops to the state, with Trump proclaiming that if he had he not, Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground." Most of the protests, however, have taken place only in a few blocks downtown. The Los Angeles police chief said this week that the force was equipped and experienced enough to handle the events in the city on its own and did not ask for assistance from the National Guard. Democrats have pointed to Trump's deployments as a vast overreach of presidential powers and an attempt to militarize blue cities. Amid the upheaval, Newsom delivered remarks this week saying Trump was trying to install an authoritarian regime. He has taken to podcasts and sat for countless news interviews while he and his office regularly rebut Trump administration statements on X. On Thursday, he went further, raising concerns about Trump's mental acuity. In an interview on The New York Times' podcast 'The Daily,' Newsom charged that Trump 'starts making up all these things he claimed he told me about, which honestly starts to disturb me on a different level." He was referring to Trump's comments that he had a phone call Monday with Newsom that Newsom said did not happen. 'Maybe he actually believed he said those things and he's not all there. I mean that," Newsom added. White House spokesman Steven Cheung shot back in a statement: 'The attacks on President Trump are rich, coming from Gavin Newsom, who in this past election tried to gaslight and lied to the American public about Joe Biden's decline. Gavin Newsom will never be president, even as he tries to peddle these lies.' Noem and others in the administration said they did not know who Padilla was during the news conference and thought a stranger was lunging at her as she spoke. Noem contended that Padilla did not identify himself, but video showed otherwise. ' I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla called out, interrupting Noem. Padilla was forcibly removed from the room, and video showed him being forced onto his stomach and cuffed. 'If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,' Padilla told reporters. 'We will hold this administration accountable.' From the Senate floor, Warren tried to make a larger point about the incident. 'Every day, DHS agents are throwing people to the ground while they are not resisting," Warren said. "Every day Donald Trump is making this nation look more and more like a fascist state. ... We all have to ask: How far will they go? How violent will they get?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store