Connect with us

Politics

Protestors Call for Puerto Rico Governor’s Resignation

Published

on

  • Protestors in Puerto Rico have been demonstrating for the last three days calling for Governor Ricardo Rosselló to step down.
  • The demonstrations come after 900 pages of leaked private messages showed the governor and other officials using sexist and homophobic slurs against political opponents, women, and others.
  • Many of Rosselló’s political allies have withdrawn their support and two government officials involved in the chat resigned this weekend, but the governor has said he will not step down.
  • The chats were first leaked just one day after six government officials were arrested and charged with funneling $15.5 million worth of federal contracts to politically connected consultants. 

Protests

Thousands of people took to the streets of Puerto Rico on Monday in the third consecutive day of protests calling for Governor Ricardo Rosselló to resign.

The protests took a turn after demonstrators gathered near the governor’s mansion, and police fired tear gas and pepper spray into the crowd. The island’s police commissioner later told reporters that protesters had thrown rocks, bottles, and tear gas canisters at the officers.

Demonstrators are calling for Rosselló to step down after leaked messages from a group chat on Telegram showed the governor and 11 men in his inner circle repeatedly using sexist and homophobic slurs to insult political opponents, women, and others.

The excerpts from the messages were first leaked to the media by an anonymous source on Thursday. Then on Saturday, Puerto Rico’s Center for Investigative Journalism published nearly 900 pages of messages from that group chat.

In those chats, Rosselló himself reportedly used sexist slurs to describe the former New York City Council Speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, and used profanities when talking about the federal oversight group working Puerto Rico’s debt crisis.

Rosselló and others joked about shooting Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan. They also made homophobic comments about Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin, and talked about manipulating public opinion and discrediting journalists and other opponents of the governor.

All of the individuals involved in the scandal, which has been dubbed “Chatgate” and “Rickyleaks,” were either current or former administration officials.

Notably, that included Secretary of State Luis Rivera Marín, Interior Secretary Ricardo Llerandi, Public Affairs Secretary Anthony Maceira, and Cheif Financial Officer Christian Sobrino.

Response

In addition to the protests, Rosselló has also seen significant political backlash.

Many of the governor’s political allies have withdrawn their support for him. Puerto Rico’s Senate president and House majority leader said they lost faith in Rosselló. Both those leaders were mocked in the messages even though they are members of the same political party.

Representative Jenniffer González-Colón, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting member in the U.S. Congress, said that Rosselló should not run for re-election in 2020, and that he should “immediately reflect on his role as governor.”

Other political figures and members of the island’s House and Senate have also come out against the governor. Prominent Puerto Rican celebrities like Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda and singer Ricky Martin have also voiced support for the protests and condemned Rosselló.

Over the weekend, Secretary of State Marín Puerto and Cheif Financial Officer Sobrino resigned. Rosselló, however, is refusing to step down.

After the messages were leaked, Rosselló released a statement where he apologized for the comments, and said he had been under a lot of pressure and working long hours, adding that the messages were just him releasing tension.

He said he would fire the members of his administration who were in the chat, though he also said he would keep the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Public Affairs- meaning the two highest-ranking officials in the chat that did not resign would still be in office.

Rosselló also said in the statement that he will announce a government reorganization and anti-corruption measures in the next few days.

This is a very painful situation for me, as governor, as a human being and as a Puerto Rican,” he added. “But I recognise there is no other way out and there is no worthwhile forgiveness on my part that does not include corrections and clear signs of intent to change.”

During a radio interview Monday, Rosselló insisted that it is in Puerto Rico’s best interest for him to stay in office. “I have to lift myself up. And I have to move forward to do what’s best for Puerto Rico,” he said.

The Tip of the Iceberg

Part of the reason these messages are such a big deal and have created such a big response is that for many Puerto Ricans, this is the result of a lot of built-up frustration with a governor who ran as an anti-corruption and pro-transparency candidate.

The first leak to the media came just one day after federal authorities revealed a massive corruption investigation into high levels of the island’s government when they arrested six people and filed criminal charges against them for illegally directing nearly $15.5 million in federal contracts to politically connected consultants.

Those arrested included Rosselló’s former education secretary and the former executive director of the Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration. After that scandal, there were already calls for Rosselló to step down.

Both of these incidents only add to the frustrations over how Rosselló handled the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, which killed upwards of 4,645, according to a new Havard study.

Puerto Ricans are also upset about Rosselló’s controversial education policies, as well as the country’s nearly 12-year-long economic recession that many feel he has done little to fix.

On Monday afternoon, a lawmaker introduced legislation to bring impeachment charges against Rosselló.

However, leaders in Puerto Rico’s House and Senate, both of which are controlled by the governor’s party, said that they will give him more time to think about his future before starting impeachment proceedings.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (Al Jazeera) (The Los Angeles Times)

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading