'Tired of it': Fuller comment draws ire, accusations of sexism in Senate
Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, testifies during a bill hearing in 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller / Daily Montanan)
Debate over legislation prohibiting towns from enacting red flag gun laws, House Bill 809, led to accusations of sexism in the Senate chamber over the weekend.
The hot button issue drew strong testimony from numerous senators, including Sen. Ellie Boldman, a Missoula Democrat.
The bill, brought by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls and carried in the Senate by Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, states, 'extreme risk protection orders violate a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.'
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 'Research has shown that states can save lives by authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that temporarily prevent a person in crisis from accessing firearms.'
Arguing against the bill, Boldman spoke about a man who killed a woman with a gun, explaining numerous red flags that should have prevented him from having a weapon.
Sen. John Fuller, R-Kalispell, then accused Boldman of being melodramatic.
'I enjoyed the histrionics of the opponent to this bill,' Fuller said.
Boldman later called his criticism 'blatant sexism' in a social media post.
Fuller's statement elicited an immediate, though quiet, reaction in Senate chambers with several members looking on in shock.
Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, asked Fuller to clarify what he had said after the Kalispell legislator finished explaining why he thought local governments shouldn't be allowed to enact gun laws.
'Histrionic is defined as undue emotion in presentation of what they believe to be true,' Fuller said. 'I believe that's the definition.'
The Senate approvedHouse Bill 809 in a 29-21 vote shortly after.
However, at the end of the meeting, when senators may make comments unrelated to agenda items, several referenced the debate over HB 809.
Sen. Jacinda Morigeau, D-Arlee, expressed frustration with how women in Senate chambers are treated.
'We live in a society where words have additional connotations beyond their dictionary definitions,' Morigeau said. 'So I must say that the use of histrionics has always been derogatory towards women.'
Morigeau said she's witnessed disrespect toward women time and time again during the Legislature. She said the body frequently consults its decorum rules for other matters, but not when it comes to the way women are treated.
'I have seen in my 73 days in here, over and over, many times, the women in this body being put down, overtly, subtly,' Morigeau said. 'And I just, I am tired of it.'
Fuller also spoke, again defining histrionics, and said, 'if someone takes offense to that, I'm sorry, I apologize, but there is nothing wrong with them being dramatic, lively and excitable in this chamber.'
Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings commented how men's speech can be perceived as 'passionate' while when women speak, it's sometimes referred to as 'emotional.' He apologized for his caucus and said the chamber needs to do better.
'We all have the right to have our arguments,' Zolnikov said, adding they also had the right to argue, 'how we want to.'
Manzella spoke in defense of her male colleagues.
'I would like to specifically thank the men in this chamber, and specifically on my side of the aisle,' Manzella said. 'Thank you, guys.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
11 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Inside the Trump-Musk Breakup
For once, President Donald Trump was trying to be the adult in the room. Trump and Elon Musk, two billionaires with massive egos and combustible temperaments, had forged an unlikely friendship over the past year, one built on proximity, political expediency, and, yes, a touch of genuine warmth. Relations between the president and his top benefactor had grown somewhat strained in recent weeks, as Trump began to feel that Musk had overstayed his welcome in the West Wing. Musk had suggested privately that he could stay on at the White House, an offer that Trump gently declined, two people familiar with the situation told us. (They, like others we talked with for this story, spoke anonymously in order to share candid details about a sensitive feud.) But Musk was still given a gracious send-off last Friday—complete with a large golden, albeit ceremonial, key—aimed at keeping the mercurial tech baron more friend than foe. The peace didn't last even a week. On Tuesday, Musk took to X to attack the Republican spending bill being debated in the Senate, trashing Trump's signature piece of legislation as 'a disgusting abomination.' Even as the White House tried to downplay any differences, Musk couldn't let go of his grievances—the exclusion of electric-vehicle tax credits from the bill, and Trump's rejection of Musk's pick to run NASA. Yesterday, the planet's richest man attacked its most powerful. Each took aim at the other from their respective social-media platform, forcing rubberneckers into a madcap toggle between Truth Social and X. Trump deemed his former aide 'CRAZY,' while Musk went much further, dramatically escalating the feud by calling for Trump's impeachment, suggesting that the president had been part of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious sex-trafficking ring, and—likely worst of all in Trump's mind—taking credit for the president's election in November. Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs For one day, Musk made X great again. The spectacle seemed to subside today, as Trump showed—at least by his standards—some restraint. The president insisted that he was not thinking about Musk and wanted only to pass the reconciliation bill that had featured in the brawl. Musk, meanwhile, has far more to lose: his newfound stardom within the MAGA movement, his personal wealth, and government contracts worth billions to his businesses. Steven Bannon, the influential Trump adviser who has long been critical of Musk, crowed that the tech billionaire's attacks on Trump were so personal that he won't be forgiven by the MAGA crowd. 'Only the fanboys are going to stick with him—he's a man without a country,' Bannon told us. Trump and Musk were inseparable during the transition and in the first months after the inauguration. At times, Musk stayed over in the White House residence, regaling reporters with tales of late-night Häagen-Dazs ice-cream binges (caramel flavor) in the White House kitchen. He grew close to Trump's powerful adviser Stephen Miller and to Miller's wife, Katie, who'd entered the administration as a special government employee alongside Musk; the trio socialized outside work. (Musk has since unfollowed Stephen Miller on X.) Musk's 5-year-old son, X, became a frequent visitor to the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago, at times scampering around the tables at Trump's private club. But friction mounted over time: a West Wing shouting match between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a heated Cabinet meeting about job cuts, clashes with senior White House staffers. Trump grew angry that Musk was bad-mouthing his tariff plan to CEOs, and was especially incensed when The New York Times reported in March that Musk was scheduled to receive a classified briefing at the Pentagon about China; the president began quietly telling confidants last month that he was getting tired of the Tesla chief. The cuts forced by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—symbolized by Musk wielding a gold-plated chain saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference—angered even some Republicans, who depended on the government services DOGE was slashing. Trump initially bought into Musk's claim that DOGE would find $2 trillion in cuts, two advisers told us. But the potential savings shrank as the chaos grew, and Trump became disillusioned 'Trump started off as more than enamored, then it faded when it turned out the trillion dollars in DOGE cuts was bullshit,' Bannon told us. 'Trump was like, Okay.' Musk's 130-day tenure as a special government employee expired late last month. Despite growing disenchanted with Washington, he suggested to the White House that he wanted to stay on, the two advisers told us. Trump declined. A representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment. 'Trump was like, You know, he's been around long enough, but he was not mad, not like, Screw this guy,' one of the advisers told us. 'It was like, It's probably time to turn the page.' The White House built Musk a dignified off-ramp, with aides putting together an exit plan that would allow Musk to leave the team on good terms. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had often found herself in the unenviable position of trying to manage Musk—a man Trump privately described as part genius, part child. But in the hours before his departure, Musk was dealt a disappointment over a government job that was very important to SpaceX. Trump had announced Jared Isaacman, an aviation entrepreneur and a Musk ally, as his pick for NASA administrator in early December. But Isaacman faced opposition on Capitol Hill, and the scheduling of his confirmation vote forced the issue last week. Trump, after hearing senators' complaints, asked Sergio Gor, the personnel director who had previously clashed with Musk, for Isaacman's vetting files. The White House was unhappy about the nominee's previous donations to Democrats, a White House official told us, and his nomination was withdrawn. David A. Graham: Elon Musk goes nuclear At the same time, Musk took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that encapsulated the entirety of the Republican legislative agenda. He privately lobbied Trump, Wiles, and House Speaker Mike Johnson to include an EV tax credit and then publicly torched the bill when they didn't, posting on Tuesday to his 220 million X followers: 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' The split has forced Republicans in Congress to choose between a president who demands their loyalty and a billionaire who helped fund their victory last year (and who could finance their opponents' campaigns, if he chooses to). Some rushed to proclaim their neutrality. 'I learned a long time ago when I was fighting to stay out of other people's fights,' Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a Trump ally, posted yesterday on X. (A former wrestler, Mullin had a brief professional career in mixed martial arts.) Other Republicans assumed the posture of a child begging their warring parents to get along for the sake of the family. Representative Beth Van Duyne began a post on X, 'We have the best chance to save America, save the world, and bring lasting prosperity.' Then she dropped the politesse: 'WE ARE STRONGER TOGETHER!! CEASE FIRE FOR GOD'S SAKE!' For GOP leaders, the choice seems to be an easy one: They have stuck with Trump, fiercely defending the bill they wrote on his behalf and are rushing to enact before the self-imposed July 4 deadline. After Musk took credit for the party's majorities in Congress as part of his X tirade yesterday, Johnson told reporters that the glory belonged not to Musk, but to the president. A few House conservatives seized on Musk's complaints about the deficit-busting nature of the bill and suggested that they might reconsider their support if the Senate does not improve the legislation. 'He made the biggest mistake in Washington,' a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak frankly told us. 'He told the truth. He is not wrong, even if he is annoying.' But Musk might have overplayed his hand in pivoting from policy to personal attacks on the president. 'He hasn't moved a vote,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters, according to NBC News. Perhaps realizing that he was destined to lose a fight he'd started, Musk appeared to cool off late yesterday, approvingly quoting social-media posts about stopping the fight and saying that he would not follow through on his threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spaceships, which are used to transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. He might have 38 billion reasons for seeking détente: That's the number of dollars his companies are believed to receive in government contracts, deals that could be canceled by a vengeful president. Musk spent nearly $300 million supporting Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 presidential election, but slumping Tesla sales worldwide—due, in large part, to anger about his alliance with Trump—are estimated to have cost him well over $100 billion since he took his government post. Tesla stock fell 14 percent the day of Musk's fight with Trump. As of early this afternoon, Trump had not posted again about the feud. He gave brief interviews to a few reporters in which he insisted that he was not thinking about Musk, though he referred to his once–top aide as 'the man who has lost his mind' to ABC News. Trump allies circulated to reporters allegations of Musk's drug use recently aired by The New York Times ('I think the ketamine finally rotted his brain,' one told us; Musk has disputed the Times report). White House aides, stung by Musk's eruption yesterday, let it be known that Trump has no intention of speaking to Musk today and that the president plans to sell or give away the Tesla he'd bought back in March as a show of support for Musk. Asked for comment on the breakup, White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not mention Musk, saying instead that the administration will 'continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government' and that 'the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission.' Musk typically averages about 100 X posts a day. But through the afternoon today, he's posted only a handful, all promotions of his various businesses. None were about Trump.
16 minutes ago
Transportation chief seeks to weaken fuel economy standards, calls Biden-era rule 'illegal'
DETROIT -- Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a rule Friday that Biden-era fuel economy standards for gas-powered cars and trucks were illegal and moved to reverse them, paving the way for a likely reset of rules. Combined with Senate language in the pending budget bill to eliminate penalties for exceeding standards regulating how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel, automakers moving forward could come under less pressure from regulators to reduce their pollution. Ultimately, the nation's use of electric vehicles could be slowed. The moves align with the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to slash federal support for EVs. President Donald Trump has pledged to end what he has called an EV 'mandate,' referring incorrectly to former President Joe Biden's target for half of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030. EVs do not use gasoline or emit planet-warming greenhouse gases. No federal policy has required auto companies to sell — or car buyers to purchase — EVs, although California and other states have imposed rules requiring that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035. When he was in office, Biden imposed increasingly stringent emissions standards for cars and trucks. He included use of EVs in calculating the rules — an inclusion the Trump administration and the auto industry have argued was illegal and raised the bar too high for automakers to meet. The Transportation Department's memorandum Friday said the previous administration 'ignored statutory requirements' that barred consideration of EVs when setting standards. 'We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States," Duffy said. The revised rule does not itself change existing standards, but it empowers the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to make adjustments in coming months. Duffy put pressure on the federal agency earlier this year to reverse the fuel economy rules as soon as possible. Under the Biden administration, automakers were required to average about 50 miles (81 kilometers) per gallon of gas by 2031 — up from about 39 miles (63 kilometers) per gallon for light-duty vehicles today — in an effort to save almost 70 billion gallons (265 billion liters) of gasoline through 2050. The rules, finalized in 2024, increased fuel economy 2% per year for passenger cars in every model year from 2027 to 2031, and 2% each year for SUVs and other light trucks from 2029 to 2031. Mileage rules — in place since the 1970s energy crisis — work alongside the EPA limits on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for the largest source of the nation's planet-warming emissions, and cars and trucks make up more than half of those. In recent years, automakers have been manufacturing gasoline-fueled cars that are more efficient and get higher mileage. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents automakers, called Duffy's announcement 'a positive development" that adds 'important clarity' to federal mileage rules. The Biden-era standards 'were 'improperly predicated' on alternative fuel vehicles,' said John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO. But Katherine Garcia, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All program, said the Transportation Department's action will increase costs for Americans and increase pollution. 'Making our vehicles less fuel-efficient hurts families by forcing them to pay more at the pump,' she said. 'It will lead to fewer clean-vehicle options for consumers, squeeze our wallets, endanger our health and increase climate pollution.' Meanwhile, Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee added proposed language to the pending budget bill Thursday that would remove fines penalizing automakers that don't meet fuel economy standards with their gas-powered vehicles. Automakers can buy credits under a trading program if they don't meet the standards. Manufacturers whose vehicles exceed the standards earn credits that they can sell to other carmakers. The memo and bill text landed this week as Tesla owner Elon Musk and Trump engage in a public spat online, with Trump suggesting that Musk 'only developed a problem' with his budget bill because it rolls back tax credits for EVs. Musk disputes that. ___ Daly reported from Washington. ___ ___
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Federal Reserve's New Supervision Chief Will Wield Crypto Authority
The Federal Reserve — a key regulator of U.S. banking — is about to have a new vice chairman for supervision, Michelle Bowman, who will ultimately guide how the Fed oversees the financial system, possibly including how stablecoin issuers are regulated. After a tight party-line confirmation vote in the Senate approved the Kansas Republican's nomination 48-46, Bowman, who has already been serving as one of the Fed board's governors, will now be elevated to one of its leadership roles. The supervision job was created after the 2008 global financial meltdown and is meant to help focus the central bank's regulatory role as distinct from its better-known job marshaling U.S. monetary policy. Banking has been a sore spot for the crypto industry, and the Fed — alongside the two other bank agencies, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — had taken a highly cautious crypto stance. The sector and its lawmaker allies have blamed the agencies for pressuring the banking system to cut off digital assets businesses and insiders from banking services, jeopardizing the industry's health, though this changed after Donald Trump became U.S. president again this year. In April, the Fed joined the other regulators in withdrawing earlier constraints on banks' interactions with the industry. The Fed's potential role over stablecoin issuers remains murky as the regulatory legislation is still being debated. Republicans lawmakers have worked hard to sideline the central bank from stablecoin duties, but the latest legislation being considered still foresees the Fed regulating stablecoin issuance in the banks it oversees, plus serving a role in assessing whether foreign regulators are up to snuff to handle issuers outside the U.S. While Democrats had favored a Fed duty as a watchdog over nonbank issuers, the current legislation being debated on the floor of the Senate puts the OCC in that position. In her new job, Bowman will serve under Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who has stated in the past that he'd defer to the vice chairman to lead the supervisory agenda. She replaces Democrat predecessor Michael Barr in the position, though he stayed on the board. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
