- Topping off a night of partisan theatrics, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ripped President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address following the conclusion of his speech.
- Pelosi’s move came after Trump broke years of tradition by not shaking the speaker’s hand before he began.
- During Trump’s speech, the father of a Parkland shooting victim shouted at Trump after the president said he would protect the Second Amendment. That man was then escorted from the room.
- Trump also awarded conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the SOTU. While not met with immediate controversy, the award sparked both criticism and applause on social media.
Pelosi Rips Trump’s Speech
Though Tuesday’s State of the Union was undoubtedly President Trump’s biggest night of the year to address American audiences, partisan theatrics were arguably the biggest headline by the end of the night.
From beginning to end, the address was capped with tense moments between Trump and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, culminating in Pelosi’s decision to rip Trump’s speech in two after he finished speaking.
The tension began when Trump failed to shake Pelosi’s hand upon approaching the stage. After Trump handed her his speech, Pelosi then reached out her hand to shake his, however, she did so as Trump was in the process of turning away to face the podium.
Trump also did not shake Vice President Mike Pence’s hand. As per tradition, the vice president and speaker both sit directly behind the president during his address.
The move by both has been interpreted a variety of ways on social media, with some saying that Trump deliberately ignored Pelosi because she launched the impeachment trial that began in the House of Representatives. Others noted how quickly Trump turned away, suggesting that he just didn’t see her hand.
It’s very likely Trump didn’t even see Nancy’s hand.— @JoMichigan (@JoMichigan1) February 5, 2020
After reviewing it over, it appears that Trump turned and didn’t see her hand extended.— Dane Zeiner (@ZeinerDaine) February 5, 2020
While it is entirely possible Trump simply missed Pelosi’s gesture, his decision to not shake her hand breaks long-standing tradition. Last year, he shook both Pelosi and Pence’s hands. In 2018, he shook the hand of then-speaker Paul Ryan. Upon simple review of SOTU addresses from former presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr., all shook their respective speakers’ hands.
The tension between the two then escalated when Pelosi broke protocol in addressing Trump as he entered the room.
“Members of Congress, the President of the United States,” she said.
Notably, that line omits a key part of the phrase the speaker is supposed to say: “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.”
Following Trump’s address, reporters asked Pelosi why she decided to destroy Trump’s speech.
“Because it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative,” she responded.
Also following the speech, many on social media felt divided by the move. By Wednesday morning, a large portion of the top trends concerned the moment, with people using hashtags like #PettyPelosi, #PelosiMeltdown, #NancytheRipper, and #NancyIsABadass.
On the president’s personal Twitter page, he’s retweeted nearly two dozen people, all of whom posted tweets critical of Pelosi. Likewise, Trump retweeted a message from the official White House Twitter that condemned Pelosi’s action.
“Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member’s reunion with his family. That’s her legacy,” the tweet reads.
On the other side of the debate, Freshman representative Rashida Tlaib gave her support for such a move.
“I would have shredded it,” she said on Twitter.
Parkland Dad’s Outburst
Moments during Trump’s address were also met with controversy. Soon after finishing a statement about how he will protect the Second Amendment, Trump was met with an outburst from a person in the crowd.
That man turned out to be Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed during the Parkland school shooting in 2018. Guttenberg had been invited to the address by Pelosi, and since his daughter’s death, he has become an active advocate for gun control.
Following his outburst, Guttenberg was escorted from the House chamber by a plain-clothed police officer. During this time, Trump did not acknowledge Guttenberg and continued with his speech.
Later Tuesday night, Guttenberg issued an apology via Twitter, where he said he was overcome with emotion in the moment.
“Tonight was a rough night,” he said. “I disrupted the State Of The Union and was detained because I let my emotions get the best of me. I simply want to be able to deal with the reality of gun violence and not have to listen to the lies about the 2A as happened tonight.”
“That said, I should not have yelled out,” he added. “I am thankful for the overwhelming support that I am receiving. However, I do owe my family and friends an apology. I have tried to conduct myself with dignity throughout this process and I will do better as I pursue gun safety.”
Guttenberg then received further support from people like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Parkland survivor David Hogg. Also on Twitter, #ImWithFred trended Tuesday night.
Limbaugh Awarded Medal of Freedom
In a move that wasn’t met with immediate controversy in the House chamber, Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host who’s been vocal about his support for Trump.
The award comes just a day after Limbaugh announced that he had been diagnosed with an advanced stage of lung cancer,
“Almost every American family knows the pain when a loved one is diagnosed with a serious illness,” Trump said of Limbaugh during his address. “Here tonight is a special man, someone beloved by millions of Americans who just received a Stage 4 advanced cancer diagnosis. This is not good news, but what is good news is that he is the greatest fighter and winner that you will ever meet. Rush Limbaugh, thank you for your decades of tireless devotion to our country.”
First Lady Melania Trump bestowed that medal upon a very ecstatic Limbaugh; however, others such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ihan Omar were critical of the award.
“The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an extraordinarily sacred award,” Osacio-Cortez said. “We’re talking about putting someone on the same level as Rosa Parks, you know, for example in terms of their contributions to American progress. Rush Limbaugh is a virulent racist.”
Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low
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.
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)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
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.
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)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
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.”