On October 1st, a new policy went into effect banning visas for unmarried partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations officials. This new regulation will also impact U.N. ambassadors, U.S. embassy staff, employees of international organizations working in the U.S., and foreign military members stationed in the United States. Partners under these categories will need to provide proof of marriage to enter the country. Unmarried couples have until the end of 2018 to submit proof of marriage or leave the country within 30 days.
In July, the U.S. mission informed relevant U.N. members, “Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” and therefore “partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible.” The changes began in October, giving a three-month window for unmarried couples to act. This decision, it has been said, will further the equal treatment of same-sex and straight relationships. According to a statement on the State Department website, the new visas “are based on a same-sex marriage in the same way that we adjudicate applications for opposite gender spouses.”
Many critics, however, were quick to point out that this policy may, in fact, cause hardships for same-sex couples. Samantha Power, the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., noted that only 12% of U.N. member states actually allow same-sex marriage— and only 26 countries worldwide. This decision reverses then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s 2009 policy that granted visas to partners of U.S. and foreign diplomats, on the understanding that marriage equality was still a work in progress. Akshaya Kumar, Deputy U.N. Director at Human Rights Watch, explained that this may “[force] those living in countries without marriage equality to choose between a posting at UN headquarters or family separation.” If couples are married in the U.S., they may face discrimination in home countries where same-sex marriage is illegal.
Foreign Policy reports that “limited exceptions” will be offered to diplomats from countries where same-sex marriage is not legal but “that government would have to provide documentation proving that same-sex marriage was illegal and commit to accepting same-sex partners of U.S. diplomats.”
The new policy will affect approximately 105 families from the United States. It is unclear how many foreign couples will be affected by this change. This decision comes as a blow to the LGBTQ+ community, after the legal recognition of marriage equality in the U.S. in 2015, and advocacy groups worldwide. Many LGBTQ+ organizations and human rights groups have expressed concern that this policy will be far more discriminatory than equalizing.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaking at Saint Anselm College during the U.S. election. (Photo by Andrew Harnik, Associated Press)
For many years, there have been questions over Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) claim of Native American ancestry during her time at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. In her 2012 Senate race, her opponent, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), attacked Warren’s honesty over her claims of Native American ancestry.
President Donald Trump has labeled her “Pocahontas,” which has been condemned by many as a racist epithet. At a rally in Montana in July, President Trump offered $1,000,000 to a charity of Senator Warren’s choice if she took a DNA test and proved her Native American roots. This week, Senator Warren took the president up on that offer.
On Monday, Senator Warren released an Ancestry DNA test she had taken, as well as a letter from a geneticist who had analyzed the results. The geneticist, Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante, found that the majority of Senator Warren’s ancestry came from Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, and Utah. There were markers on 5 genetic segments from Senator Warren that matched Native American markers. The Native American markers seem to come to Senator Warren from an ancestor eight generations prior, meaning the closest Native American in her family was a great-great-great-great-great-great-Grandparent.
Although small, Dr. Bustamante noted that this is a higher percentage than a random standard sample DNA set would have. Senator Warren has spoken about family gatherings in Oklahoma, where she was born, where the family spoke about their Cherokee heritage. Although they cannot provide documentation of that heritage and do not appear in any tribal register, experts say that that is not uncommon. As one article explains, “During the late 1800s and early 1900s, many Native Americans did not join tribal rolls for a host of complex reasons, including residency requirements, fear of discrimination, and opposition to land allotment policies.”
The timing of Senator Warren’s decision to take, and release the results of, a DNA test has not gone unnoticed. After being an oft-named potential candidate in 2016, Senator Warren appears to be taking the steps to actually run for President in 2020. As the Washington Post reported on Sunday, Senator Warren has spent the last six months laying the groundwork for a Presidential campaign, speaking with Democratic candidates in this year’s midterm elections across the country, and sending staffers to New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin – all either early primary states or must-win general election states.
Another 2020 potential candidate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), announced her plans to travel to Iowa, the first state to hold a presidential caucus, at the end of the month. The swing through Iowa will come after a visit to South Carolina and before a trip to Wisconsin. A poll by CNN showed former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE), who has been very active in campaigning for Democratic candidates across the country, leading a slew of candidates with 33%. Senator Harris pulled 9%, while Senator Warren was at 8%. Congressman John K. Delaney (D-MD-6), who visited the Hilltop last month and was in New Hampshire over the weekend, polled at <1% in the CNN poll.
President Trump has been campaigning for re-election through much of his Presidency, holding rallies of various sizes across the country in both swing states and safe Republican states.
For the second time this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened hearings on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. The hearings that took place today had a very specific purpose: to investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982. Dr. Ford is one of three women to publicly say that Brett Kavanaugh either sexually assaulted them or was present while they were sexually assaulted.
Many Americans drew comparisons to similar hearings that took place in 1991, when Dr. Anita Hill presented her claims of sexual harassment against then-Judge Clarence Thomas. Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court after Dr. Hill’s testimony failed to convince the all-male Judiciary Committee and an overwhelmingly male United States Senate.
In Dr. Ford’s opening statement, she presented her testimony as a “civic duty” rather than a personal choice. She said she battled with whether or not to go public with her experience with Judge Kavanaugh for weeks but decided that it was her duty to do so, regardless of the personal impact it had on her and her family. “I am terrified,” she admitted to the Committee.
Dr. Ford provided the Committee with a detailed account of the incident as she says it happened. The Hilltopper has chosen to publish in her own words to avoid mischaracterizing Dr. Ford’s comments:
“Brett [Kavanaugh] and Mark [Judge] came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. The last time he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom laughing and loudly walk down the narrow stairs, pin-balling off the walls on the way down.”
The all-male Republican caucus chose to hire Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to cross-examine Dr. Ford. A sticking point for Mitchell was Dr. Ford’s fear of flying, which led to Mitchell to ask how Dr. Ford travelled for vacation, for work, and to the hearing. Dr. Ford acknowledged she had a fear of flying but that she had to put it aside to attend the hearing, as she did not think it was feasible for the Judiciary Committee to travel to California to meet with her in her home state. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed out that they had extended that offer to her; Dr. Ford said she was unclear what the offer had been.
Another line of questioning from Mitchell related to a 2018 polygraph test that Dr. Ford took, the summary results of which were presented to the Committee. Further documentation of the results could not be released because Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, denied Dr. Ford’s request that the polygraph technician be questioned as an expert witness.
Mitchell wanted to find out who paid for the polygraph test. Dr. Ford was initially unsure as to who paid for it but, after a lunch break, her counsel said that they paid for the polygraph “as is routine” and that they were working pro bono for Dr. Ford.
Democratic senators questioned Dr. Ford themselves. Other than Dr. Ford’s opening statement, when she described in detail the sexual assault claim, the biggest moment of the hearing came when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Dr. Ford how certain she was that it was Judge Kavanaugh who assaulted her, as two separate men have come forward to say that it was them, not Judge Kavanaugh, who assaulted her in 1982. She said she was “100%” sure it had been Kavanaugh.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath that she was 100% sure Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. (Photo by Getty Images)
Dr. Ford also spoke at length that she tried to make her story known before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated. Reporters and members of Congress, she said, did not respond to her comments and tips in time. This is contrary to the Republican narrative that the allegations were “sprung” upon them at the last minute to try and stop Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, to use language Judge Kavanaugh himself used repeatedly in his afternoon testimony.
During her testimony, Dr. Ford was collected and calm for the entirety of her time in the hot seat. Her voice wavered and, at times, she blinked back tears, but she maintained her composure. At points, she appeared genuinely sorry she could not be more specific for the Committee. CNN Political Commentator Chris Cillizza described her as “decidedly credible.” He continued, “She struck me as a normal person thrust into an impossible situation. Someone who was doing what she believed to be the right thing.”
When the Committee took a lunch break, Fox News’ distinguished senior journalist, Chris Wallace, said “This was extremely emotional, extremely raw and extremely credible and nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and the impact it had had on her life and not have your heart go out to her. She was obviously traumatized by an event.”
“I don’t think we can disregard Christine Blasey Ford and the seriousness of this,” Wallace said.
Judge Kavanaugh began his testimony just before 5 PM Eastern. Whereas Dr. Ford was calm, Judge Kavanaugh was indignant with rage, shouting most of his opening statement, banging his hand on the table, and breaking down in tears several times.
In his opening statement, Judge Kavanaugh said that Dr. Ford’s claim was a “calculated and orchestrated political hit.” He went on to say, “I will not be intimidated by withdrawing from this process. Your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit. Ever.”
Judge Kavanaugh added that he felt the allegations had “destroyed my family and my good name. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.”
The calendar entry says, “Go to Timmy’s for skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, and Squi.” The final name, “Squi,” is the nickname for another of Kavanugh’s friends. These are all individuals that Dr. Ford said were present at the party where she was assaulted, and the location of “Timmy’s” corresponds with her statement that the assault occurred at a home “without any parents present.”
After Mitchell’s questioning of the July 1st entry, Republican Senators chose to question Judge Kavanaugh themselves, instead of using the special counsel and sexual assault prosecutor they hired to, as Senator Grassley said, “de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attacked Senate Democrats for partisanship. (Photo by Andrew Harnik, Getty Images)
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was the first Republican Senator to question a nominee directly today. He used his time to attack the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for orchestrating “a sham” and hoping to “destroy” Judge Kavanaugh’s life, as well as telling Republicans “if you vote ‘no’, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing that I have seen in my time in politics.” He continued by saying that Judge Kavanaugh was as much a victim as Dr. Ford.
The remaining Republican Senators scarcely questioned Judge Kavanaugh, instead expressing their sympathies for having to face such allegations.
Judge Kavanaugh sparred with the Democratic members of the Committee, shouting at Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Durbin, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) as they attempted to question him about the FBI potentially reopening an investigation into his background to flesh out Dr. Ford’s claims. Judge Kavanaugh said that he believed that there had been enough of a delay in the process and that the Committee was doing an investigation.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the fact that Dr. Ford’s friend Leland Keyser, whom Judge Kavanaugh used as an example of someone who said that the assault never happened, actually said that, while she did not remember the evening specifically, she believes Dr. Ford.
Many students across the campus watched the hearings today. In the Gallo Café of the Roger and Francine Jean Student Center Complex, both televisions were on news coverage of the hearings and many students, administrators, professors, and members of the monastic community, made note of the proceedings. Walking across campus this afternoon, many students could be overheard discussing the hearings, or recent Tweets about the hearings.
The Hilltopper reached out to many students for comments, but most declined to comment, citing the personal nature of the topic.
One student who did choose to comment was Ed Frankonis, ’19. Frankonis said that he watched Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony and that he “was not impressed by how emotionally charged [Judge Kavanaugh] was.”
Nicolette Theroux, ’19, said that she only saw a few minutes of the hearing and didn’t feel informed enough to comment on their substance but added: “All I know is it took a lot of strength and courage for Dr. Ford to take the stand today and I’m grateful she did so.”
The Hilltopper reached out to Timothy Madsen, ’19, Chairman of the Saint Anselm College Republicans for a comment. Madsen replied that neither he nor the College Republicans “have any comment to make.” The Hilltopper also reached out to Olivia Teixiera, ’20, President of the Saint Anselm College Democrats, but she did not return the request by the time of publishing.
A vote is expected on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. A nomination does not have to receive a favourable recommendation from the Committee in order to proceed to a vote before the full Senate, which is expected to occur early next week. Justice Thomas, for example, did not receive a favourable recommendation in 1991 but was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 52-48 vote.
Many reports indicate that there are four Republicans who are undecided on Judge Kavanaugh: Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and one Democratic Senator, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Joe Alexander ’17 campaigning for state representative in Pinnardville. Joe is running as a Republican for state representative in Goffstown. (Photo courtsey of Joe Alexander ’17)
Since then-Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for President in 2008, young people have been a rising tide in American politics. Record numbers of young people are volunteering for campaigns, turning out to vote, and taking an active role in the direction of the country. Young people have also been running for office at record rates. According to a recent Politico article, more than 20 millennials are running for the United States Congress in battleground districts in 2018. There are a handful of organizations that exist to aid young people in running for office, such as the progressive Run For Something and the conservative RNC Youth Coalition.
Saint Anselm College has not been exempt from the groundswell of activity by young adults in America’s political landscape. A sure boon to this is the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and the Kevin B. Harrington Student Ambassador Program, which brings a circus of top-level candidates, figures, and organizations on to campus and gives Saint Anselm students direct access to them.
Two former Kevin B. Harrington Student Ambassadors have run for office themselves in the past four years, during their time as students on the Hilltop; Joe Alexander ’17 and Cody Aubin ’18. The Hilltopper reached out to them, as well as Casey Pease, on leave from a Political Science program at UMass-Amherst, who is a friend of several Saint Anselm College students and recently ran for State Representative in his home district in Western Massachusetts.
Alexander, 23, is currently running for State Representative in Goffstown, New Hampshire. He said his favorite part of running for office is, “Having good conversations with voters. Most voters are receptive to candidates knocking on doors. Many people want to talk about the issues in town and around the state and value their power to vote. I like talking about the issues to the voters and hearing their perspective.”
Aubin, 23 years old but 18 and 19 when he ran for State Representative in Manchester, had a similar feeling. He told me “My favorite part of running for office was learning what issues were important to my neighbors and what really impacted them in their day to day lives. Even if the issues did not directly impact someone, the depth of knowledge that many people had about issues facing our community and state was inspiring and refreshing.”
Aubin noted the need for more young people to get involved. “Running for office at a younger age provides different and fresh perspectives into the political arena, as well as an age representation that is severely lacking in our political system,” he said. “At the time I was running for office, the average age of the New Hampshire House of Representatives was 68 years old.”
Alexander added, “The only way to have an effect on government is to get involved. I chose to run because I wanted to be a conservative voice for the town.”
Pease, 21, believes that the time is critical for young people to get involved, saying, “Our generation needs to start taking a lead on addressing climate change, college debt, and out of control income inequality. We are the ones most affected by these issues, and we need to start solving them. Now.”
Aubin offered advice for students thinking about running for office, telling them “to wholeheartedly pursue it and run on what is important to you and your community. Issues are not as black and white as they are portrayed and a young person’s voice is valuable to our public discourse. If you know and understand what you are talking about, people will recognize that, listen, and support you if they agree with you.”
Pease was clear that there is no need for younger candidates to wait. “It may seem like an impossible thing. People may say you’re too young. Well, you’re not,” he said. “Do it. But you can’t do it alone. Find a few people who can help advise and serve on your campaign committee.”
Alexander’s advice was more straightforward, “The worst thing that happens is you lose,” he said. “Learn from your mistakes and run again.” He is living this advice. Alexander ran a write-in campaign for State Representative in Concord in 2016, his senior year at Saint Anselm College, and won the Republican primary but came about 200 votes short of defeating the Democratic incumbent. He has since moved to Goffstown, where he serves on the town’s budget committee and is seeking one of the five seats for the town in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
One of the obstacles that many young people see when thinking about running for office is balancing their student responsibilities and the demands of running for office. On this, Alexander said, “I am a full-time graduate student at the University of New Hampshire. It is tough balancing working full time and going to school with the needs of the campaign trail. I have worked hard to knock on as many doors as possible this cycle. Knocking on doors is the most effective way to reach voters but takes time and daylight.”
Aubin, who ran during the fall semester of his freshman year at Saint Anselm College, told me “I had a lot of support throughout the election. The other gentleman who ran with me representing our party worked very closely with me to campaign. He would go door-knocking and do the ‘grip-and-grin’ part of the campaign, while I would do phone calls for voters from my dorm room.”
Pease’s pointed to a different problem: money. “The high cost of campaigns coupled with being a low-income college student was incredibly difficult,” he said. This is consistent with the larger theme of “big money politics” that has become commonplace in the national dialogue since the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), with whom Pease traveled across the country as a staffer.
For Aubin, the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ) served as an inspiration in his adventures in politics. He said “[McCain] often said, along with then-Senator Joe Biden, that it was never right to question someone else’s motives in politics for your own political gains. It is always appropriate to challenge their judgment, but never their motives.”
For Pease, the inspiration came from closer to home. His grandmother was the first Selectwoman in his hometown of Worthington, Massachusetts and served for more than twenty years.
Saint Anselm College has called itself New Hampshire’s home for politics for many years now. Each election cycle, presidential hopefuls make their way across the Hilltop and local candidates gather in the NHIOP for the WMUR Granite State Debates. But in the dorm rooms, apartments, and common areas, the students of the College themselves are making their voices heard and finding their own ways to get involved in our nation’s politics. In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and hometowns across the country, there are openings for young people to become active and play a critical role in their community. Whether it’s as simple as casting a ballot, volunteering for a campaign, or taking the next step and running for office, the moment is ripe for the next generation to step up.
Saint Anselm College is located in Goffstown’s Ward 5 for electoral purposes. Voting takes places at Bartlett Elementary School (689 Mast Road, Goffstown NH 03102). The New Hampshire State Primary is this Tuesday, September 11th and polls are open from 7 AM to 7 PM. Students intending to vote will need to bring appropriate documentation with them proving their primary domicile is in New Hampshire. A student ID will work for this purpose. Starting in June of 2019, students will need a New Hampshire drivers license.
Prospective Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh began his confirmation hearings today.
This morning, President Donald Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court sat down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the next step of his confirmation process.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the Court of Appeals for D.C., was appointed by President Trump in July 2018 to fill the seat on the Supreme Court currently held by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the longest-serving of the current justices. Kennedy was seen by all Supreme Court observers as the swing vote on the Court, providing decisive votes on cases related to healthcare, same-sex marriage, and a woman’s right to choose.
Judge Kavanaugh’s career is rich in conservative ideology, which many worry will throw off the delicate balance of the Supreme Court that Kennedy has held in check for more than thirty years. One of Kavanaugh’s first positions out of law school was a fellowship with then-Solicitor General Ken Starr, who led the legal case in the impeachment trial against President Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh was the chief author of Starr’s report on Clinton’s conduct with Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh went on to serve as the Staff Secretary in the White House of George W. Bush, where he had great control over which papers and files went into and out of the Oval Office. It was Bush who nominated Kavanaugh to the Court of Appeals for D.C. in 2003, but Kavanaugh’s nomination was caught up in a slew of delayed judicial nominations during the Bush Administration and he was not confirmed for the Court until 2006, when he received a 57-36 vote with 4 affirmative votes from Democrats, only one of whom is currently serving in the Senate (Senator Tom Carper of Delaware).
Today’s confirmation hearings did not feature Judge Kavanaugh answering any questions from the Judiciary Committee, as first days rarely do. As committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) began the process of initiating the hearings, a slew of high-profile Democratic senators attempted to delay the proceedings. The main concern of Senate Democrats, as Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) explained during his allocated time, is that there is a 35-month gap in Judge Kavanaugh’s documents provided to the Judiciary Committee. The gap covers most of Judge Kavanaugh’s time as White House Staff Secretary under George W. Bush, which Judge Kavanaugh has said was a critically formative time in his career.
Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) all made motions to delay the hearing to give Senators more time to read more than 40,000 pages of documents that were released less than 12 hours before Senator Grassley delivered his opening statement. Many of the Democratic Senators who tried to the delay the hearing are considered to be frontrunners for the 2020 election.
Many of the early opening statements from Republican members of the Committee were drowned out by protestors, with no fewer than ten protestors standing up at separate points during the morning. Protesters shouted towards the senators about their fears of Judge Kavanaugh’s conflicting comments on whether or not a sitting president can face legal proceedings (he wrote that he believed President Clinton could when he worked for Starr’s investigation but wrote that President Bush could not when he was on the Court of Appeals), the fate of the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion, access to health care, and the sanctity of same-sex marriage. These concerns were echoed by Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, with Senator Harris telling Kavanaugh that she was not sure that a Justice Kavanaugh would treat everyone equally.
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee largely praised Judge Kavanaugh’s career and directed their attacks to the Democratic side of the aisle. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) lambasted Democrats for asking for more documents to be released, arguing that more pages from Judge Kavanaugh have been released than any other Supreme Court nominee. It is true that more pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s records have been released. Still, those released do leave large swaths of his career uncovered and more than 40,000, have been released in the last 24-hours.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) used his opening statement to argue that opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rooted in anger over the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump. Senator Cruz echoed Senator Graham’s comments.
The only Republican on the Judiciary Committee who questioned Judge Kavanaugh’s record was Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Senator Flake warned Judge Kavanaugh to expect hard questions in the coming days about his positions on executive privilege and the rights of the president. He cited President Trump’s tweet from Monday about Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a cause for concern over the White House. Senator Flake is retiring at the end of the current Senate term.
Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), a common critic of the president, countered Senator Flake and argued that the only question that needed to be asked of Judge Kavanaugh was if he had the character and temperament to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
Just before 5:00 PM, Judge Kavanaugh began to deliver his opening statement. He played off of the comments of Senator Sasse, speaking about his friends and his family. He highlighted that he coaches his daughters’ basketball team and that he volunteers in a food pantry on the weekends. He also talked about his long record of attendance at various games of the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Redskins with his father. Judge Kavanaugh did not address any potential judicial opinions or political issues during his opening statement, which is to be expected.
Democrats appear to be limited in their ability to do anything other than delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. They do not have the numbers to reject the nomination on their own after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) lowered the vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees last year during the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. There are only two Republican senators who are considered to be possible to vote against Judge Kavanaugh, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). Both Senators have met with Judge Kavanaugh privately and seem less likely to vote against him after doing so, having received private assurances from Judge Kavanaugh that he will protect Roe v. Wade (1973).
Many observers, however, are not confident that Judge Kavanaugh will protect Roe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), or Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) if the issues come up during his time on the Supreme Court, which they likely will. CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin predicted that within five years of Judge Kavanaugh potentially joining the Supreme Court, more than 1/3rd of the country could have banned or severely restricted access to abortions and reproductive health services.
Senator Grassley has said that the hearings may continue through the weekend in order to expedite Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Ashley Motta ’17 (left), Sarah King ’18 (center), and Garrett Meyer ’18 (right) after voting in Goffstown in the 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives recently voted to pass HB 1264, a bill that would change the eligibility standards for voting in New Hampshire. The bill is expected to pass the Senate, and at that point, it will be up to the governor to determine whether or not the legislation becomes law. Sununu’s record on voting rights for college students is mixed, and there is concern among Democrats and college students that he will sign the legislation. Sununu has remained opposed to HB 372, a similar bill that would have restricted college students’ access to voting.
The bill that most recently passed by the House of Representatives makes a four-word change to the voting requirements in New Hampshire. The four words are “for the indefinite future.” Without these words, Democratic legislators say that college students could have their right to vote where they go to school threatened. College students who choose to still vote in New Hampshire would then have about two months to become New Hampshire residents or face criminal charges.
Voting where one goes to school is a constitutional right. In Symm v. United States (1979), the United States Supreme Court affirmed a student’s right to register and vote in the town they go to school. However, state-by-state efforts to disenfranchise students have persisted.
Democratic legislators, including state senator Donna Soucy, an alum of Saint Anselm College, argue that the legislation is a direct affront to college students. However, their opposition is deeper than that. Senators Soucy and Jeff Woodburn argue that the legislation would make New Hampshire less appealing to younger residents, hurting the state’s economy.
New Hampshire College Democrats President Olivia Teixeira ’20 spoke passionately against HB 1264. In opposing the legislation, she tied the issue of voting rights with core tenets of Saint Anselm’s Benedictine values. “Especially here at Saint Anselm,” she said, “we are dedicated to serving our surrounding community and leaving it better than when we came, and having a part in electing local legislators for the area is no different.”
Saint Anselm students are eligible to vote in Goffstown municipal elections in addition to the state and federal races that get more attention. In the past municipal race in Goffstown, one Saint Anselm alum, Joe Alexander ’18, won an election to the Goffstown Budget Committee.
Teixeira, who also serves as the president of the Saint Anselm College chapter of the College Democrats, said she was impressed with how much students on campus have been involved with the issue. “Over the past few months, I have seen the true power of student voices speaking out against these bills in the State House and fighting for their right to vote in a place that in every other sense has been accepted as our home,” Teixeira said.
Saint Anselm students have been active voters in the area for years. In the 2016 election, various campus clubs organized rides to the polls for students – a service that both Democrats and Republicans took advantage of. However, Tim Madsen ’19, the president of the Saint Anselm College Republicans, declined to comment on the legislation.
Vice President of the Saint Anselm College Democrats Haley Bragdon-Clements ’21 stressed that the issue of voting rights is not, in her mind, a partisan issue. “When the right for students to vote comes under attack it is our job to come together in opposition of such bills. This should not be a partisan issue as all of us are at risk of losing our voice,” she explained. Bragdon-Clements went on, “I would love for the College Democrats to work with the College Republicans. This is a time where we can come together and fight for something that is absolutely essential to our democracy, our right to vote.”
Whether or not the campus Republicans join the campus Democrats in opposing HB 1264 and similar measures, it will ultimately be Governor Sununu’s decision if the bill passes the Senate as expected. Sununu has maintained a general opposition to disenfranchising students but has avoided commenting specifically on whether or not he will veto HB 1264 if it gets to his desk. Without a definitive statement from the governor, the fate of students’ access to voting in New Hampshire remains uncertain.
Cover image taken from Granite State Progress; in-text photo courtesy of Sarah King ’18.
First Lady Barbara Bush, wife of the 41st president and mother of the 43rd.
She and Abigail Adams are the only women in history who hold the distinction of being the wife of one U.S. president and the mother of another. On Tuesday, April 17, 2018, Barbara Pierce Bush passed away peacefully at her home in Houston holding the hand of her husband, George Herbert Walker Bush to whom she was married for more than 70 years. She was 92.
Barbara Bush will always be remembered for her role as the matriarch of one of America’s most iconic political families. Her loyalty to her family was a key component of Mrs. Bush’s character. Sometimes, her devotion got her in trouble, like in 1984, when she said that her husband’s opponent for vice president, Geraldine Ferraro, was something “that rhymed with rich.” The comment reflected Mrs. Bush’s unrelenting love for her family. Years later, despite advancing age and poor health, she joined her son, Jeb, on the campaign trail extensively throughout his failed 2016 campaign for the White House.
Her down-to-earth demeanor won her more friends than enemies, though. She was open about the fact she wore fake pearls and her wit made her a top campaign surrogate in four national campaigns. Even though she was careful not to overshadow her husband, she won the affection of the nation and came to be known as America’s grandmother. It was a fitting role given that she was often surrounded by her own grandchildren while on the campaign trail.
Sarah King ’18, who wrote her senior thesis on the role of the First Lady, said she was deeply upset by Mrs. Bush’s death. “People often only associate Barbara Bush with her love story, which is surely a beautiful aspect of her life,” King said, “but I think of Mrs. Bush as the woman who held an infant with AIDS close to her chest, as the woman who won over a particularly difficult Wellesley crowd by calling for a female president, and fought for not only childhood but adult literacy.”
Mrs. Bush’s advocacy is a less-known aspect of her extensive time in the public eye, but it is an important part nonetheless. Throughout her husband’s four years as president, the First Lady traveled to classrooms around the nation to promote reading. It was a message her daughter-in-law, Laura Bush, would reiterate eight years later when Barbara’s son, George W., became the 43rd president.
In his statement on her passing, President Donald Trump acknowledged Mrs. Bush’s extensive work on the issue. “Amongst her greatest achievements was recognizing the importance of literacy as a fundamental family value that requires nurturing and protection. She will be long remembered for her strong devotion to country and family, both of which she served unfailingly well,” the president said in a statement.
Former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama also released a statement upon news of Mrs. Bush’s death. In their statement, they said they were “grateful for the way she lived her life – as a testament to the fact that public service is an important and noble calling; as an example of the humility and decency that reflects the very best of the American spirit.”
As news of Mrs. Bush’s death spread throughout the nation and Saint Anselm’s campus, Sarah King helped to frame Mrs. Bush’s legacy in the context of other First Ladies. “When it comes to First Ladies it is so easy to want to place them in boxes or pit them against each other based on personality, but Barbara Bush reminds us that it’s okay to defy those expectations. She was unapologetically herself from start to finish while never diminishing those around her.” Few would disagree.
According to a directive from the White House, U.S. flags will be flown at half-staff until Mrs. Bush is buried.
Cover image from KMOV.com; portrait image from the White House Historical Association.
Despite warnings that Russia would retaliate, President Donald Trump addressed the nation last night and announced that the United States would launch precision airstrikes against military targets in Syria. The United Kingdom and France are joining the United States in the assault. Syria has been accused of repeatedly violating international law by using chemical weapons against civilians.
Shortly after the president’s announcement, the Russian ambassador to the United States said there would be “consequences” for the president’s decision. Russia has since called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. That meeting will occur at 11:00 am EST on Saturday, April 14. A statement this morning by Russian President Vladimir Putin “condemned” the strike, citing concern for civilians on the ground.
While Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that there would not be another attack on Syria unless they continued to use chemical weapons, President Trump said he was “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.”
President Trump has taken decisive action in a region that his predecessor, President Barack Obama, did not. Infamously, former President Obama referred to Syria’s use of chemical red lines as a “red line” that would necessitate a response from the United States. In the end, President Obama went to Congress for support of retaliation against Syria. Congress did not approve of the request, and no action was taken by the Obama Administration.
A tweet from Donald Trump when President Obama considered a similar airstrike against Syria.
Interestingly, President Trump called on the president to go to Congress at the time. In this strike, the Trump Administration did not seek permission from either Congress or the United Nations. Whatever the president’s history on the issue, he has made clear that the United States will not tolerate repeated breaks with international law.
The decision drew negative responses from both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats were wary of the president’s decision. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) tweeted, “So Mattis doesn’t want to strike Syria because it risks dragging U.S. into a broader war with Russia and Iran, but he has to do it anyway because Trump tweeted about it. Welcome to the Trump national security nightmare we’ve been waiting for.”
Hillary Clinton’s running mate from the 2016 election, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), called the strike “illegal.”
Some conservative supporters of the president also opposed the decision to launch military strikes. Michael Savage, a conservative radio host, tweeted his opposition, doubting whether Assad was even behind the attacks.
Debates about legality are common after these kinds of attacks, but they echo the ones launched last year by President Trump under similar circumstances. This round of strikes attacked one research facility near Damascus where the weapons were sometimes produced as well as two additional facilities, one that was being used to produce sarin gas and another that acted more as a military command post.
The international response seems to be largely supportive, especially given the inclusion of the United Kingdom and France. As of now, Russia’s retaliation seems confined to the boundaries of the United Nations, but a military response may await.
For the second time this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened hearings on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. The hearings that took place today had a very specific purpose: to investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982. Dr. Ford is one of three women to publicly say that Brett Kavanaugh either sexually assaulted them or was present while they were sexually assaulted.
The Hilltopper 