Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled on June 14. The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation. The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote. “There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking,” the opinion read.
Speaking at a press conference, President Donald Trump called the decision “very powerful” and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.” Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden called the ruling “a momentous step forward for our country.” “The Supreme Court has confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity. That everyone should be able to live openly, proudly, as their true selves without fear,” Biden said. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, wrote in his dissent that “even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination, the context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute’s terms were understood to mean at that time.” Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s second Supreme court appointee, acknowledged the social and political progress achieved by members of the LGBTQ community, but nonetheless dissented. “They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment,” Kavanaugh wrote.
A number of LGBTQ groups celebrated the court’s ruling, including the Human Rights Campaign, whose president, Alphonso David, said in a tweet that the decision is a “landmark victory for #LGBTQ equality.” Sarah Kate Ellis, the president of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, said in a statement that the decision “is a step towards affirming the dignity of transgender people, and all LGBTQ people.” But the ruling was also sharply criticized by the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, whose president issued a blistering statement about Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards,” said Carrie Severino, a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas. “This was not judging, this was legislating — a brute force attack on our constitutional system.” Gorsuch grounded his opinion in the plain text of the law. He acknowledged that when the law was passed, Congress may not have been thinking of gay, lesbian and transgender rights. The conservative justice said Congress might not have “anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” but, he said, the “express terms of the statute give us one answer.” “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit,” he wrote in the ruling.
Huge news: #SCOTUS affirms that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This is a landmark victory for #LGBTQ equality.
The court’s ruling was on separate cases: one concerning whether the law encompasses claims of sexual orientation brought by Gerald Bostock, and the estate of Donald Zarda, and the other concerning a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, whose challenge marked the first time the court heard arguments regarding the civil rights of a transgender individual. Stephens, who died in May, mustered the courage back in 2013 to tell her co-workers about something that she had struggled with her entire life: her gender identity. Not long after, she was fired as the director of a funeral home. Stephens’ former boss, Thomas Rost, testified in the lower court that she was fired because she was “no longer going to represent himself as a man.” A lower court ruled in her favor, holding it is “analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” Aimee Stephens’ wife, Donna Stephens, also welcomed the court’s ruling, saying in a statement that Aimee was “a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people.” “I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Donna Stephens said.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week: 1. In Explosive UN Speech, President Donald Trump Denounces Globalism, Praises Nationalism
President Donald Trump delivers a speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
In his September 25 speech at the UN General Assembly, US President Donald Trump urged all the other nations to reject globalism and embrace nationalism while he was interrupted by derisive laughter from other world leaders. Over the course of the bombastic address, Trump highlighted the (imaginary) achievements of his presidency, lashed out at enemies, Iran foremost among them, and railed against multilateralism in its spiritual home, the UN general assembly. In one of the more remarkable moments in the history of the annual UN summit, the chamber broke out in spontaneous laughter at Trump’s claim that “in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.” Clearly taken aback, Trump said: “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK.”
President Donald Trump arrived late for the summit, only coming an hour before he was due to speak. When he arrived at the green marble podium, Trump expounded on his visceral dislike of multilateral institutions, which he portrayed as significant threats to US sovereignty. “Americans govern America,” Trump said. “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.” With regards to its emphasis on sovereignty and nationalism, the 34-minute speech echoed much of his first UN General Assembly speech last year.
Foreign policy observers note that the main contrast with the earlier statement was the countries that he targeted as enemies of the US. In contrast to last year’s speech (when President Trump infamously denounced North Korea and hits President Kim Jong-un), President Donald Trump used this year’s address as an opportunity to condemn the Iranian government and call for regime change. “Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond,” said Trump. In contrast to his strident criticism of the Iranian government throughout the speech, President Donald Trump praised the governments of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, stating that they have pledged “billions of dollars to aid the people of Yemen and Syria.” He made no mention of the role of Saudi and UAE forces in the Yemeni conflict, where they have been accused of war crimes because of the civilian death toll from their coalition’s bombing campaign. They are also accused of dragging their heels over efforts to find a peace settlement. Trump, however, claimed his Gulf allies were “pursuing multiple avenues to ending Yemen’s horrible, horrific civil war.”
Overall the international community has reacted negatively to President Donald Trump’s speech, noting that its tone and theme of the address are in direct contradiction to the core values that the United Nations had promoted since its founding nearly 75 years ago. In response to the speech, UN secretary general António Guterres said President Trump’s fiery rhetoric shows that “democratic principles are under siege” throughout the world. Additionally, French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the spread of global lawlessness, “in which everyone pursues their interest,” and noted that the policies of President Trump are partially to blame for this troubling trend. On the other hand, the governments of Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have praised President Trump, arguing that his speech was a “very welcoming statement.”
2. Senate Judiciary Committee Votes to Send Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination to the Full Senate for Final Vote
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted this week to advnace Bett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Senate for a final vote.
On September 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Brett Kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment for the US Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual assault but says it will request that an FBI investigation is conducted to determine the extent of Judge Kavanaugh’s misconduct. The FBI investigation is a caveat put forth by retiring Republican Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who said he wants the FBI to investigate the claims of sexual misconduct before he will vote to confirm or not confirm Kavanaugh in the Senate, even though he voted in favor of Kavanaugh during the meeting Friday. In a statement following the vote, the committee explained in a statement: “The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current, credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.” The committee vote came after a day of emotional testimony from both Judge Kavanaugh as well as Christine Ford, one of the women accusing him of sexual misconduct. During the hearings, Judge Kavanaugh was criticized for his poor performance, erratic behavior, an inability to answer even the most simple questions. These actions have led some critics to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh is not fit for the Supreme Court even if the investigation clears him of any serious wrong-doing.
Senator Jeff Flake was the deciding vote and did not commit to either side until early in the morning of September 28. In a written statement, Flake said: “I left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as I had certainty.” “What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence.” But before the vote was expected to take place at 1:30 p.m., senators met behind closed doors. They reconvened around 2 p.m. Flake said he asked to delay the vote before the full Senate by one week to allow an FBI investigation. That is when Flake explained he needed more information before he could promise to vote for Kavanaugh in the Senate.
The Judiciary committee vote was on party lines; 11 Republicans voted in favor of recommending Kavanaugh, 10 Democrats voted against. Majority leader Mitch McConnell will now call for a vote in the Senate to confirm him. The Republicans control the Senate with a narrow 51-49 majority, but as the midterms are approaching, it may not stay that way for long (estimates show that the Republicans will likely have a net gain of three seats, giving them a 54-46 majority, at the same time as they lose control of the House of Representatives). Three senators have not taken firm positions on Kavanaugh: Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Commenting on the vote, President Donald Trump said he did not yet pick an alternative if the Senate doesn’t confirm Kavanaugh. He also said he would not interfere in the process. “I’m going to let the Senate handle that. They’ll make their decisions,” Trump told reporters at the White House Friday afternoon. Based on the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee gave him a preliminary endorsement, as well as the fact that his testimony seemed to at least partially persuade the three undecided Senators, it is likely that Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed by a 52-48 margin. Despite his confirmation, Brett Kavanaugh will likely develop a reputation as a mediocre and ethically-challenged Supreme Court Justice appointed by one of the worst Presidents in US history.
3. US, Mexico, and Canada Agree To New Trade Agreement
The US, Mexico, and Canada agreed on a new trade deal this week meant to replace the 25-year-old NAFTA agreement.
On September 30, the United States, Canada, and Mexico reached an agreement to update the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 pact that governs more than $1.2 trillion worth of trade among the three nations, after nearly one year of tense negotiations. The new deal (known as the United States-Mexico Canada Free Trade Agreement) will not go into effect right away. Most of the key provisions do not commence until 2020 because leaders from the three countries have to sign it and then Congress and the legislatures in Canada and Mexico have to approve it, a process that is expected to take months.
Overall, the treaty itself includes many new provisions governing trade between all three countries. One such area of change is in the automotive production industry. To qualify for zero tariffs beginning in 2020, a car or truck made in any of the three countries must have 75 percent of its components manufactured in Canada, Mexico or the United States, a substantial boost from the current 62.5 percent requirement. Additionally, a new rule in the agreement stipulates that a significant percentage of the work done on the car must be completed by workers earning at least $16 an hour. While many economists think these new rules will help some North American workers, they also warn that both new and used car prices may rise and that some small cars may no longer be made in North America because they would be too expensive under the new requirements. There are also concerns that automakers might not make as many cars in North America to export to China and elsewhere overseas because costs would be higher in the USMCA region than making the vehicles in Asia.
In addition to the changes regarding the automotive industries in all three countries, the treaty includes several other provisions. The agreement stipulates that Canada must open up to US dairy products, potentially benefitting American dairy farmers (a reliably Republican group that will credit President Trump for boosting their economic fortunes), increased environmental and labor rights, increased intellectual property protection, and an improved dispute resolution process. Moreover, the new treaty gives American pharmaceutical corporations and increased market share in both Canada and Mexico.
Overall, the leadership of all three countries praised the new trade agreement as a positive step and an example of constructive dialogue between different countries. In a Twitter post, President Trump praised the agreement as a “great deal for all three countries” that goes a “long way to solving the many deficiencies and mistakes in NAFTA.” Despite much praise for the agreement, some observers argue that it does not address the underlying issues of worker exploitation and environmental degradation. Additionally, it is also claimed that the main purpose of the new trade agreement is to improve President Trump’s already strong popularity in the industrial Midwest and ultimately will have a negative impact on the US economy.
Late last night, our deadline, we reached a wonderful new Trade Deal with Canada, to be added into the deal already reached with Mexico. The new name will be The United States Mexico Canada Agreement, or USMCA. It is a great deal for all three countries, solves the many……
4. China Postpones Military Talks with US Over Sanctions
China cancelled its annual military talks with the US this week due to new US sanctions.
China has postponed joint military talks with the United States in protest against Washington’s move to impose sanctions on the Chinese military for buying Russian fighter jets and surface-to-air missile systems. The Defense Ministry said in a statement on September 29 that it had recalled Navy Chief Commander Shen Jinlong from a visit to the US and postponed talks between Chinese and US military officials in Beijing planned for next week. The statement added that China’s military reserved the right to take further countermeasures against the latest US-imposed sanctions, without giving further details. Earlier in the day, China’s Foreign Ministry had summoned US Ambassador to Beijing Terry Branstad and “lodged solemn representations over US sanctions against (the) Chinese military.”
The US State Department imposed the sanctions on September 27 on the Equipment Development Department (EED), a branch of the Chinese military responsible for weapons procurement, for engaging in “significant transactions” with Russia’s major weapons exporter Rosoboronexport. The sanctions are aimed at blocking the EED and its director, Li Shangfu, from the possibility of applying for export licenses and participating in the US financial system. According to the US State Department, the sanctions on Beijing are linked to its decision to purchase 10 Russian SU-35 fighter jets in 2017 as well as S-400 surface-to-air missile system-related equipment in 2018.
Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said that China’s decision to buy fighter jets and missile systems from Russia was a typical act of cooperation between two sovereign countries and Washington had “no right to interfere.” The ministry spokesman also warned that the United States would face “consequences” if it did not immediately revoke the bans. The Trump Administration views China’s purchases from Russia as a breach of a sweeping US sanctions bill enacted in 2017 titled Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA.
The S-400 system, whose full name is the Triumph Mobile Multiple Anti-Aircraft Missile System (AAMS), is an advanced Russian missile system designed to detect, track, and destroy planes, drones, or missiles as far as 402 kilometers away. The defense system is capable of downing US F-35 stealth fighters. China became the first international buyer of Russia’s S-400 Triumph in 2015 as part of a 3-billion-dollar deal and received the first batch of the missile systems in April. China will reportedly receive a total of two S-400 regiments, and the second regimental set is expected to be delivered by the end of 2018.
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week: 1. Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Begin
Amid much protest, the long-awaited Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh began this week.
The Senate confirmation hearing of President Donald Trump’s choice to be the next judge on the US supreme court, the ultra-conservative Brett Kavanaugh, began on September 4, amid much protest by Senate Democrats and activists. In his opening speech, Kavanaugh recounted his relationship with former Justice Kenedy, noting that he clerked for him in 1993 shortly after graduating law school, and announced that “Supreme Court judges must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent,” reflecting is strict constructionist judicial outlook. Despite his support for a more conservative judicial outlook, Kavanaugh also noted that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution” and that political opinions should not be the main things that inform a judge’s opinion.
Despite the neutral tone of Brett Kavanaugh’s opening statement, the hearings regarding his confirmation soon heated up. Leading Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed much concern regarding historically secretive and opaque vetting process and the lack of oversight regarding the release of documents related to Judge Kavanaugh’s time working for the Bush Administration. Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) led the calls for delay of the confirmation hearings until the documents related to Kavanaugh’s background were released to the public. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced the actions on the part of the Democrats, arguing that they are a direct violation of long-standing Senate procedures. In addition to protests within the Senate, close to 300 individuals were arrested for protesting against Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Despite much concern regarding his record and fear that his nomination will overturn much progressive reform that has been implemented over the past century, Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings went somewhat smoothly and he was cleared for a full Senate vote to be held on October 1. Based on the make-up of the Senate, it will be likely that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed with between 54-57 Senate votes, with Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul being the only Republicans who might oppose his confirmation and several vulnerable Senate Democrats (Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnely, Jon Tester, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heitkamp, and Sherrod Brown) potentially voting in favor of his confirmation.
2. Syrian Military Begins Assault on Idlib, the Last Rebel-Held Enclave In The Country
The Syrian government (backed by Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces), launched an assault on Idlib, the last rebel-held stronghold in Syria this week.
On September 8, the Syrian Government began a major assault on Idlib, the last substantial area in the county under the control of the anti-Assad “Free Syrian Army.” The assault began with a joint Syrian/Iranian/Russian airstrike on the center of the city, which is to be followed up by a ground invasion with forces from all three countries. The city of Idlib has been under control of anti-Asad rebels since early 2015 and a successful recapture of the city by pro-Assad forces may result in the conclusion of the Syrian Civil War. Thus far, an estimated 5,000 individuals have fled the city to areas in the Northern part of Syria. The airstrikes came two days after Russia, Iran, and Turkey held a summit to discuss the fate of Idlib. A call at the summit for a ceasefire in Idlib, made by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was rejected by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who maintain the province is inhabited by western-supported terrorists who threaten to destabilize the Middle East.
Overall, the international reaction to the Syrian airstrikes in Idlib have been mixed. US President Donald Trump denounced the bombings and is reportedly considering intervening in Syria to remove Assad from power. Additionally, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Turkey would neither watch from the sidelines nor participate in such a game “if the world turns a blind eye to the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people [in Syria]” in a Twitter message posted in Turkish, English, Arabic, and Russian. Despite much criticism of the assaults by opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that the airstrikes were justified, correctly noting that many of the anti-Assad rebels subscribe to the ideology of Wahhabism and represent a major threat to both the Christians and Shi’a Muslims of Syria (two groups that comprise nearly 15% of Syria’s total population). The Russian government has also announced that it may consider attacking US military personnel who are working to train and arm the last remaining Syrian rebel groups.
Turkey has been trying to stop the bloodshed in Syria since the crisis broke out. Without discrimination, we rushed to the help of our Syrian brothers and sisters. Today, as in the past, we do not any of our Syrian brothers or sisters to suffer – even from a nosebleed.
3. New York Times Publishes Anonymous Op-Ed By Trump Administration Official
The New York Times this week published an anonymous Op-Ed discussing the chaos going on within the Trump Administration
An unnamed senior Trump administration official assailed President Donald Trump’s “amorality” and reckless decision-making in a New York Times op-ed published on September 5, and said that they are part of a “resistance” working to prevent President Trump from implementing the most destructive aspects of his agenda. “The dilemma — which (Trump) does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the article reads. “I would know. I am one of them.” The New York Times said disclosing the name of the official, who is known to the publication, would jeopardize the official’s job, and that publishing the piece anonymously was the only way to deliver an essential perspective to its readers. The op-ed came on the heels of reports based on a damning book about Trump’s presidency by journalist Bob Woodward and amplified the sense that top advisers to the President have serious concerns about his conduct in office and leadership abilities.
President Donald Trump quickly lashed out against the article immediately after its publication, dismissing it as “really a disgrace” and “gutless” and assailing the author and The New York Times for publishing the anonymous opinion piece. He then pivoted to his accomplishments, claiming that “nobody has done what this administration has done regarding getting things passed and getting things through.” President Trump later Tweeted a sharp and unsubstantiated attack on the New York Times, questioning if the author of the op-ed exists. If the author does exist, the organization should publicly identify the individual, Trump said.
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!
The op-ed offers a firsthand account that corroborates key themes of Bob Woodward’s book in that that some of the President’s top advisers have a dim view of the commander in chief and are quietly working to thwart Trump’s most reckless and impulsive decisions from becoming a reality. The author writes the resistance inside the Trump administration is not the same “resistance” of the left against the President and said they “want the administration to succeed … But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.” The result, the official writes, has been a “two-track presidency” in which Trump’s own worldview — uttered both in public and private — diverges from some key actions taken by the administration, like those involving additional sanctions against Russia.
The official also alleges there were “early whispers within” Trump’s Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would require a majority of Cabinet officials to declare to Congress they believe the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Explaining the “resistance” effort, the senior administration official offers a damning portrait of Trump’s character and leadership ability. The author argues the “root of the problem is the President’s amorality” and assails Trump’s “reckless decisions,” “erratic behavior” and what the official describes as the President’s “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” leadership style.
Trump administration officials, struggling to mount a defense to Woodward’s tell-all book, were stunned when the op-ed was published Wednesday afternoon, left guessing and quietly pointing fingers at other officials as they tried to figure out who wrote it, even texting reporters reasonable guesses. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed the New York Times for publishing the op-ed, saying “they should not well have chosen to take a disgruntled, deceptive, bad actor’s word for anything and put it in their newspaper,” and called it “sad” that the senior administration official made a choice to write the op-ed. Additionally, Vice President Pence (who was rumored to have written the op-ed) was quick to denounce it and stated that he played no role in its publication. Overall, the release of such a document shows that the Trump Administration is in serious trouble politically and that there are severe divisions amongst its members.
4. Trump Administration Meets With Venezuela Generals To Discuss Possible Coup Against President Maduro
The Trump Administration secretly met with several Venezuelan dissidents this week to plan out a coup against Venezuela President Nicholas Maduro.
On September 9, it was reported that the Trump administration held secret meetings with Venezuelan military officials to discuss a potential coup against President Nicolas Maduro. Since Maduro came to power in 2013, Venezuela has suffered from hyperinflation, a decimated economy, a food and drug shortage, and a growing refugee crisis. According to the report, there were plans for a coup in May of this year. However, when US officials declined to cooperate, plans for Maduro’s overthrow fell apart. The report comes just a month after two explosive-laden drones blew up near Maduro in an apparent assassination attempt. Jorge Arreaza, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, denounced efforts to overthrow his government. “We denounce in front of the international community, the plans for intervention and the support of military plots against Venezuela by the United States government,” he said in a Twitter post.
Denunciamos ante el mundo los planes de intervención y apoyo a conspiraciones militares del gobierno de los Estados Unidos contra Venezuela. En los propios medios estadounidenses salen a la luz nuevas y groseras evidencias: https://t.co/1vvuusfgrb
The relationship between Venezuela and the US has steadily declined over the past 20 years due to the fact that the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela is highly critical of US foreign policy throughout the world, correctly noting that it has only served to further enrich the economic and military elites within the US at the expense of the poor and oppressed throughout thw world. The already mediocre relationship between both countries declined even further since President Donald Trump assumed office last year. Along with Iran, Venezuela has been one of the countries that President Trump has repeatedly threatened military action against. For example, President Trump said in August of 2017 that “the people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.” The Trump Administration has thus far not responded to the report directly, but did say that it supported dialogue with Venezuelans who “demonstrate a desire for democracy.”
Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week:
1. President Donald Trump Selects Brett Kavanaugh As His Supreme Court Nominee
President Donald Trump announced his selection of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court this week.
In a prime-time address on July 9, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court. Presenting Judge Kavanaugh at the White House, President Trump described him as “one of the finest and sharpest legal minds in our time,” and stated that he is a jurist who would set aside his political views and apply the Constitution “as written.” Kavanaugh was selected from a list of “25 highly qualified potential nominees” considered by the Trump Administration. The main reasons cited by President Trump for the nomination of Kavanaugh included his “impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law” with the emphasis that “what matters is not a judge’s political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.” In his remarks, Judge Kavanaugh, who once clerked for Justice Kennedy, said he would “keep an open mind in every case.” But he declared that judges “must interpret the law, not make the law.”
In choosing Judge Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump opted for a veteran of Republican politics with close ties to the Bush family. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1990, Kavanaugh worked as a law clerk for Judge Walter Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shortly before clerking for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. After his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr as an Associate Counsel in the Office of the Independent Counsel;in that capacity, he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation Before joining the Bush Administration in 2003, Judge Kavanaugh worked for the Bush 2000 campaign in Florida.
The reaction to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination has been split along party lines. Senate Republicans (with the notable exceptions of Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Rand Paul) have generally expressed strong support for Kavanaugh’s nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that Kavanaugh is “highly regarded throughout the legal community” and intends to hold confirmation hearings before the November midterm elections. Several vulnerable Senate Democrats such as Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) have also announced that they might support Kavanaugh. Additionally, several liberal legal scholars such as Akhil Reed Amar and Alan Dershowitz expressed support for Kavanaugh’s nomination.
On the other hand, Many Senate Democrats such as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kalama Harris (D-CA), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) denounced Brett Kavanaugh’s selection and intended on opposing his confirmation. Additionally, social conservative organizations such as the American Family Association and March to Life expressed concerns about Kavanaugh’s views on social issues, stating that he lacked the “backbone” to overturn cases such as Roe V. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
2. President Donald Trump Embarks On European Tour, Antagonizing Allies With Unorthodox Behavior
President Donald Trump embarked on his second European trip this week, frustrating allies with his unorthodox and unpredictable behavior and actions.
On July 8, President Donald Trump embarked on a weeklong European trip that took him through a series of meetings at the annual North Atlantic Treaty Organization gathering, a stop in Great Britain to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May, Queen Elizabeth II and other political leaders, and a visit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helenski, Finland. But in typical Trumpian manner, the President blew through all the diplomatic norms of engaging with American allies, instead alienating and puzzling them through his unpredictable actions.
In talks in Belgium with the leaders of the 29-country Atlantic alliance, President Trump escalated his criticism of American allies in Europe, demanding that NATO countries double their military spending targets and saying that Germany was “captive to Russia” because of its energy imports. The president ultimately left reaffirming his support for the alliance but offering vague threats of a potential American withdrawal. President Trump’s remarks sent officials scrambling for answers, triggered ripples of dismay among defense officials and alarmed members of Trump’s own party enough that one worried aloud the President is trying to “tear down” the nearly 70-year long alliance that has helped to unify Europe in the face of threats from countries such as Russia.
The reaction to President Donald Trump’s NATO trip has generally been negative. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN), a major critic of President Trump, stated that he is concerned that the President is trying to “tear down” NATO and “punch our friends in the nose.” through his harsh and unpredictable rhetoric. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), typically a strong supporter of Trump stated that he subscribes “to the view that we should not be criticizing our president while he is overseas, but let me say a couple of things. NATO is indispensable.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and European leaders pushed back against Trump’s blistering attacks on Germany and other partner nations, as they attempted to downplay notions that the alliance may be fracturing. “The strength of NATO is that despite these differences, we have always been able to unite around our core task to protect and defend each other because we understand that we are stronger together than apart,” Stoltenberg told Trump over breakfast.
3. Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted For Hacking The Clinton Presidential Campaign And The Democratic National Committee
Twelve Russian operatives were indicted in the Russia-Trump probe this week due to their theft of documents related to the Clinton 2016 campaign.
On July 12, the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The allegations came in the latest indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Elections and ties to President Donald Trump’s successful campaign. According to the indictment, the officers worked for a military agency known as GRU, which hacked into computers of individuals working on the election with the goal of stealing and releasing documents unfavorable to Hillary Clinton, who advocated a hard line against the Russian government and called for the removal of Vladimir Putin from power.
Starting in June 2016, the intelligence officers released thousands of documents using online pseudonyms, such as “Guccifer 2.0” and “DC Leaks.” They used a network of computers around the world, to conceal their identities. They also broke into the computers of those charged with overseeing elections, including state election officials and secretaries of state (primarily in key states such as Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, Arizona, and Wisconsin), as well as companies in charge of election technology and software. In total, the indictment charges 11 spies with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money. Two of the defendants are charged with a separate conspiracy to commit computer crimes. The indictment comes just days before President Donald Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
The reaction to the indictments has resulted in a mixed reaction from American political leaders. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have called on President Donald Trump to cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin in response to the allegations. Additionally, Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) responded to the indictments by calling on President Trump to expand the already-strong sanctions the US has in place against Russia and work with the international community to remove the Putin regime from power. In its response to the indictments, In an unusual response to the Russian indictments Friday, the Trump Administration issued a statement full of bullet points emphasizing that no Americans were charged and further reiterating that Russia’s supposed election meddling did not impact the actual vote in the 2016 Election and that President Trump was not personally aware of efforts by the Russian government to influence the election in his favor
