Stuff YOU Should Know
Barr Faces Senate Hearing
Donald Trump has chosen a replacement for Jeff Sessions, who resigned from his job as attorney general in November. His pick is William Barr, who served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under the George H.W. Bush administration. Barr has also been a private attorney and served in the CIA during the 1970s.
This appointment brings with it a lot of complications. Whomever Trump appoints to the role of attorney general will be responsible for–among other Justice Department tasks–overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Barr is known for his defense of presidential power and his belief that sitting presidents should not be indicted for a crime. Many critics of Trump see this belief as a conflict of interest for Barr as possible attorney general.
The new nominee must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Last week, Barr underwent a confirmation hearing before a Senate committee. Overall, Democrats were happy about Barr’s responses to their questions about the Mueller investigation. Barr stated that he believes the investigation should be allowed to continue. Barr also said that he would not fire Mueller without good reason, and that he would make as many of Mueller’s findings public as possible. Barr also said that he would act without allegiance to any particular political party or special interest. However, Democrats are also very concerned that Barr would not commit to making Mueller’s full report public.
No date has been set yet to vote on whether or not to move Barr’s nomination to the full Senate. The record remains open to submit questions until the evening of January 22.
What Do You Think? Imagine that you are a member of the Senate confirmation committee. What question would you ask William Barr? Why?
Gillibrand 2020?
The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary continues to heat up! Last week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York threw her hat into the ring, joining Senator Elizabeth Warren and others who have announced their intention to run for the highest office in the land.
Senator Gillibrand stands out from other potential candidates for several reasons. First, she is relatively young–only 52–and is a mother. She says that she will fight for America’s children as hard as she would fight for her own, and that her presidential campaign will reflect this by focusing on health care, education, and job training. As a senator, Gillibrand is best known for being a supporter of women’s issues. Legislation she has worked on includes improving federal family leave (paid time off for people with a new birth or other family issues) and fighting against sexual assault in the military. She has also worked hard to elect more women to office, and she was one of the voices at the forefront of the #MeToo movement. In fact, Gillibrand alienated some Democrats when she spoke out against Democratic senator Al Franken (Minnesota) when he was accused of sexual misconduct. She has also been an outspoken critic of Trump, calling several times for his resignation, and stating that public officials’ behavior should be held to a higher standard than the general public, not a lower one.
Gillibrand was originally a representative from the Albany, New York area when she was appointed to the Senate in 2009 to fill the seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton when she became secretary of state under President Obama. Gillibrand was re-elected to the Senate in 2012 and 2018.
Dig Deeper How many Democrats have already announced their intention to run for president in 2020? Use Internet resources to come up with a list. Of these, who do you think would make the best candidate? Why?
Time Running Out for Brexit?
Brexit–the upcoming British separation from the European Union (EU)–hit another serious hurdle this week. Parliament voted down Prime Minister Theresa May’s latest proposed Brexit deal. In fact, they voted it down by 230 votes, making this the biggest defeat for any British government in modern history. As it stands, Britain is still scheduled to leave the EU on March 29, but with no deal on the table. This means that critical issues–such as trade deals, or what to do about UK natives living in the EU (or vice versa)–haven’t been figured out yet. So, what next?
Basically, there are four options for how Britain can proceed, all with advantages and drawbacks. First, Parliament could attempt to work out another deal with the EU, hopefully with more success this time. Second, the British government could hold a second Brexit referendum–in essence, put the issue to the voters. The British people voted in favor of Brexit once before, in 2016, but seeing how difficult the process actually is might have caused them to change their minds. On the other hand, some feel it would be undemocratic to put the issue to a second vote–after all, it already passed once. The third option would be to try and extend the March 29 deadline, though experts wonder if additional time would actually help solve this stalemate. And finally, Britain could depart the EU on March 29 as planned, but with no formal deal in place. This unprecedented move could cause unknown economic difficulties, border closings, and even food shortages. So it is widely considered to be the worst of the four available options.
For now, however, the world can do little but wait and see.
What Do You Think? The article describes four possible options for Brexit from here on out. Which option do you think would be best? Why?
To Cover or Not to Cover?
You may remember the protest in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 that ended tragically when a white supremacist drove his car into the crowd, killing a protestor. The protest had begun around the city’s removal of a Confederate statue, and the ensuing tragedy accelerated a national conversation about what to do with monuments, statues, and plaques commemorating controversial historical figures. While some cities chose to leave them alone, others took them down, covered them up, or relocated them to museums.
In Alabama the conversation continues. In 2017, the state passed a law called the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act which prohibits changing or removing historical monuments which have been in place for more than forty years. After Charlottesville, however, the mayor of Birmingham decided to cover up a 52-foot monument at the center of the city commemorating Confederate soldiers. The city surrounded the base with a plywood wall so that the words on it couldn’t be read. In response, Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall sued the city, saying that it was in violation of the Memorial Preservation Act.
Last Monday, an Alabama judge ruled against Marshall. The judge also overturned the Memorial Preservation Act. He argued that if the state told the city that it couldn’t cover up the statue, it would be infringing on Birmingham’s right to free speech. He said the city has a right to reject a message of white supremacy, and that the law impeded the city’s ability to do this.
Alabama Attorney General Marshall’s office says that it will appeal the ruling.