ELECTION 2016 EXTRA EDITION The Independent Student Newspaper
the
of
B r a n d e is U n i v e r sit y S i n c e 1 9 4 9
Justice
Volume LXIX, Number 11
www.thejustice.org
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
TRUMP
■ Republican Donald Trump
Waltham, Mass.
edged out Democrat Hillary Clinton in a surprising upset on Tuesday night. By MAX MORAN JUSTICE editor
Swear words, mumbles and sobs burst from students at the Intercultural Center early Wednesday morning when the American people elected Donald Trump as their 45th president. Brandeisians overwhelmingly opposed Trump in both the Republican primaries and the general election due to his policy proposals and many derogatory statements on the campaign trail toward marginalized groups. Trump, 70, defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton, 69, despite a complete lack of prior political experience. Prior to his election, he was a real estate mogul and reality television star. He ran on his business experience and pitched himself as an outsider shaking up Washington politics, which he considers systematically corrupt. Trump won after claiming the crucial swing states of Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, along with surprise wins in Wisconsin and Michigan. Polling data and analysis in the days before the election almost universally put Clinton ahead, both in national polls and
See TRUMP, 2 ☛
HEATHER SCHILLER/the Justice
TEARS AND FEARS: Students watching the election results in the Intercultural Center on Tuesday expressed sadness and outrage when it became clear that Trump had won.
GOP sees majority in both houses ■ Republicans swept the House and the Senate after Tuesday evening's electoral victories. By PERI MEYERS JUSTICE SENIOR WRITER
The Republican party saw victory from the top down in the 2016 general election, clinching a majority in both chambers of Congress. As of approximately 4 a.m. on Wednesday morning, Republican seats in the House of Representatives were estimated to fall from 246 to 235, well clearing the 218 seats needed to cement a majority. Most districts stuck to the status quo, replacing Republicans with Republicans and Democrats with Democrats. Six districts flipped from one party to another, with one turning Republican and five turning Democratic. Of the 100 seats in the Senate, 34 were up for election. The most competitive battleground states were Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
For tips or info email editor@thejustice.org
Of those open seats, all but Nevada went to a Republican candidate. As of 4 a.m. on Wednesday, there was no conclusive result for the New Hampshire Senate race. Republicans lost one seat in the Senate in Illinois, where Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth defeated Republican incumbent Mark Kirk by a doubledigit margin of 14.7 percent. One of the most notable congressional races took place in Florida. After dropping out of the Republican primaries, Marco Rubio had said in May that he would not run for reelection and looked forward to life as a private citizen again. However, Rubio reversed his decision in June, announcing that he would indeed seek a second term, contrary to his previous statements. “Control of the Senate may very well come down to the race in Florida,” Rubio said of his decision to run again in a Jun. 20 statement on his website. “That means the future of the Supreme Court will be determined by the Florida Senate seat. It means the future of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal will be determined
Let your voice be heard! Submit letters to the editor online at www.thejustice.org
See CONGRESS, 2 ☛
INDEX
Massachusetts voters legalize pot for recreational use in ballot question ■ Massachusetts residents will be able to legally use marijuana for recreation from Dec. 15 on.
53% Vote Yes on Marijuana in MA
By ABBY PATKIN JUSTICE EDITOR
Massachusetts became one of the latest states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, with a ballot measure winning out by a slight margin in Tuesday's election. Marijuana, previously legal only for medicinal use in the state, will now be legalized statewide starting Dec. 15. The legalization measure, Ballot Question 4, was approved with 53.6 percent of the vote as of approximately 4 a.m., according to the Boston Globe. The question proposed legalization for individuals at least 21 years of age, with regulations similar to those for alcoholic beverages. The measure also included stipulations for the new Cannabis Control Commission, which will regulate marijuana use in the state. While the measure found opposition from leading Massachusetts political figures like Governor Charlie Baker and Boston Mayor
OPINIONS BY THE NUMBERS
Based on projections from 94% reporting
47% Voted NO 53% Voted YES MIRA MELLMAN/the Justice
LEGALLY GREEN: Over 53 percent of the Mass. electorate legalized marijuana. Marty Walsh, it saw big support from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. “Prohibition has failed to keep marijuana out of our community. It has failed to keep marijuana out of the hands of our young people. And
3 4
it has cost law enforcement and society millions and millions of dollars to enforce,” said Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, in an Oct. 5 Boston.com article. “We need to end prohibition and replace it with a taxed and regulated system
See POT, 2 ☛
COPYRIGHT 2016 FREE AT BRANDEIS.
2
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2016
●
news
●
the justice
TRUMP: President-elect calls for unity in victory speech this morning
LEFT SPEECHLESS
CONTINUED FROM 1 HEATHER SCHILLER/the Justice
Many were shell-shocked after the victor was declared.
CONGRESS: Runoff election to be held for empty LA seat CONTINUED FROM 1 by the Florida Senate seat. It means the direction of our country’s fiscal and economic policies will be determined by this Senate seat. The stakes for our nation could not be higher.” Rubio ultimately won by a margin of 7.9 percent, defeating Democratic opponent Patrick Murphy. “This is an extraordinary place,” Rubio told supporters after the race was called on Tuesday night, according to the Orlando Sentinel. “Florida is a collection of all the things that make us the greatest nation on Earth. … Florida is America, and it’s such an honor to be able to represent this extraordinary state.” No candidate won the race for the open Louisiana Senate seat, and a runoff election will be held on Dec. 10. In all, Republicans now take up
52 seats while Democrats have 47. In Massachusetts, no senatorial seats were up for election. As for the House of Representatives, all nine districts were solidly blue. This year’s congressional elections are especially significant following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, as Senate approval is required for the president to appoint and confirm a replacement. Sitting President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, has been caught up in the longest wait for a Senate confirmation hearing in Supreme Court history. Even so, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in the Senate. If the Democratic minority took a page from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and filibustered any Justice nominated by the president, Republicans would need an additional eight Democrats to override that.
within Wisconsin and Michigan. As it became clearer that Trump would win, students at the Intercultural Center’s election-watching party grew quieter and more subdued, interjecting with shouts of anger as new data came in against Clinton. The crowd of about 25 kept eyes glued to a projection of CNN’s election coverage. They moaned audibly as Trump pulled ahead in the Pennsylvania count. A few students audibly cried as their friends consoled them. Jade Eckels ’18, watching the election, said she felt “pretty speechless.” Casey Cho ’18 described feeling “deeply surprised, especially with Wisconsin and Michigan. I don’t think anyone expected this.” He reasoned that there has been “a really big shift in a lot of these Midwestern rural areas.” Siwar Mansour ’19, an international student, said, “The fact that Trump has made it this far is very, very sad and worrisome. It says a lot about the people who are apparently being ignored.” “This country’s fucked,” she said. The crowd had mostly dispersed by 1:20 Wednesday morning, before the race was officially called. Trump’s win threw the stock market into turmoil as well, with projected Dow Jones shares dropping by around 800 points in afterhours trading as the votes were being counted. This represents the biggest projected loss since trading
resumed after Sept. 11. Clinton did not give a concession speech early Wednesday morning but reportedly did call Trump to concede the race. Her campaign chair, John Podesta, told supporters, “Your voices and your enthusiasm mean so much to her and to Tim [Kaine, her running mate] and to all of us.” Trump emphasized unification in the wake of a brutal campaign, saying that Clinton “fought very hard” and that “we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.” In his victory speech at Trump Tower in New York City, Trump said that the country needed to “come together as one united people” and reached out to voters who opposed him for “guidance and help” in reuniting the nation. He went on to outline a vision of America’s future in which each citizen can “realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten men and women will be forgotten no longer.” He thanked his campaign allies and spokespeople for their help on the campaign, joking that “this political stuff is nasty and it’s tough.” Trump became well-known — and widely despised — for his many controversial statements and actions on the campaign trail, which observers considered derogatory toward marginalized groups. In the same speech in which he declared his candidacy, Trump proposed building a massive wall along the Mexican-American border, saying he would “make Mexico pay for it.” He also said of Mexican immigrants, “They’re bringing drugs.
They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Later, after a mass shooting in San Bernadino, California, perpetrated by suspected Islamic State sympathizers, Trump called for “a complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the United States, until such a time as our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on.” He has since adjusted this plan to state that Muslims would be subject to “extreme vetting.” In October, the Washington Post published video and audio of Trump in 2005 saying that he could “grab women by the pussy” because he was starring on the TV show “The Apprentice.” “When you’re a star, they let you do anything,” Trump said of women during the private conversation with Access Hollywood anchor Billy Bush. Other Trump scandals included implying that the mother of a fallen American soldier didn’t speak on the Democratic National Convention stage because her Islamic faith prohibited it; shaking uncontrollably when imitating a physically disabled reporter; refusing to release his most recent federal tax returns and being shown to have not paid taxes for 18 years due to bankruptcies in the 1990s; allegedly scamming customers of his Trump University online for-profit school; and saying that “Second Amendment people” may react if Clinton had been elected and nominated Supreme Court justices.
SHOCK AND DISMAY POST-RETURNS
POT: Mass. voters reject charter schools measure CONTINUED FROM 1 and finally control marijuana in Massachusetts,” he added. Common arguments in favor of legalization also included that it will raise state tax revenue and ensure that users are receiving a safer, regulated product. Opponents, on the other hand, argued that legalization will put the state’s efforts to combat its ongoing opioid epidemic at risk, in addition to increasing the possibility of drugrelated health crises. “Here in Massachusetts, we face the possibility that any new revenue would be vastly insufficient to cover the cost of ambulance rides, emergency room visits, and treatment. ... And these are just the hard costs; they don’t include the suffering of the injured and their families,” Baker, Walsh and state Attorney General Maura Healey wrote in a joint March 4 Boston Globe op-ed. Also on the ballot on Tuesday was Massachusetts Ballot Question 1, which proposed allowing the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to issue an additional slots-only license. The measure was voted down with by 60.9 percent of the vote, according to the Globe. Similarly, voters decided against Question 2, which would have authorized the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions for existing charter schools per year. In the end, 62.1 percent of Massachusetts voters decided against the measure, according to the Globe. The charter school measure had received support from Baker and a
number of community activists, but the opposition included a large array of school committees, labor unions and political organizations for people of color, such as the NAACP and the Black Political Task Force. On the other hand, Massachusetts voters turned out overwhelmingly in favor of Question 3, which prohibits certain methods of farm animal containment that restrict animals’ movement. A number of animal rights organizations faced off against agricultural groups in the weeks leading up to the vote, with voters ultimately turning out 77.7 percent in favor of the new restrictions, according to the Globe. Under Massachusetts state law, citizens can propose laws and constitutional amendments for approval by the electorate, according to the website for the Attorney General of Massachusetts. To get an initiative on the ballot, citizens must have the measure certified by the attorney general, collect a certain number of voter signatures — this year it was 64,750 — and file them with local election officials and the secretary of state. Then, if enough signatures are gathered, the measure is sent to the state legislature to be approved for the next biennial state election. According to mass.gov, certain matters are excluded from making it onto the ballot, including measures that relate to religion; judges and courts; singular towns, cities or districts; and appropriations of state treasury funds, among various other subtopics. Measures are also excluded under state law if they are inconsistent with rights granted under the Massachusetts state constitution.
YDALIA COLON/the Justice
Students watching the electoral returns in the Intercultural Center Swig Lounge on Tuesday night looked on in shock as the polls began to come up Trump. Many began to swear and cry as it became clear that Trump had secured the presidency.
the justice
●
forum
●
wednesday, november 9, 2016
3
On the Issues During this election cycle, both immigration and gun control have been controversial topics. The Justice asked the president of Brandeis Democrats, Jacob Edelman ’18, and the president of Brandeis Conservatives, Mark Gimelstein ’17, about these issues and more. Their back-and-forth dialogues are included below.
Immigration Mark Gimelstein: I do believe that our immigration laws need to be reformed, but I’m going to talk specifically about legal immigration because our illegal immigration laws are very clear, and I agree with those. Our legal immigration laws, currently as it stands, are very open to any type of immigrant in the world. We have very high levels. We don’t have any quotas anymore. We have high levels of immigration. We have, I think, over a million immigrants every year coming into our country, and there are no standards we have immigrants to hold to anymore. That was not always the case. It was not the case during Ellis Island; it was not the case before Ted Kennedy went and signed the new immigration law in the ’60s to drastically change the makeup of the immigrants we brought into this country. And I believe we should have an immigration system in place which looks at each immigrant’s skills, their financial responsibility, whether or not they’re going to go on welfare when they come into this country, crime rates, health status, etc. This is the same thing that was done during the Ellis Island period. I’m a big believer in immigration; I’m the son of immigrants because my parents came from the Soviet Union. But I do believe that, at the same time, we need to — since we do have a welfare state, especially — we cannot have open borders. We need to be selective about the immigrants we bring into this country. We have, as a country, the right to choose who we want and who we don’t want. We have borders. We are not in a borderless society, so, therefore, I think America should be selective, and we should be choosing immigrants that benefit our society, benefit our economy, enrich our lives. Jacob Edelman: Yes, I’d say that the immigration laws for both legal and not legal immigration on the books both need a pretty substantial amount of reform. First, I will speak about legal immigration. I’ll say that there needs to be a more streamlined system. The system as it is right now — it can oftentimes take many, many years for somebody to legally enter the United States. Even if they’re somebody who’s skilled, even if they’re somebody who has a certain level of education or technical experience, it takes them a fair amount of time to enter this country, and I believe that if somebody has a skill that they can offer us, that yes, it should be much easier for them to enter our country. I feel that they can really be an asset to our community. MG: I agree with your premise. I just think that our main problem right now is we don’t do that selectivity. I think our problem is that we lump all immigrants together and say that they’re all equal, which I don’t believe. There are different qualities in immigrants. You know, you’re going to have more German engineers, for instance, than in other countries. Obviously, this is off the top of my head, as some sort of example I’m trying to make, but the point is that every different immigrant has a different characteristic,
and I think that we should be looking at people that can benefit our economy, who will be financially independent, who will “enrich our lives,” as [you] said. I think we’re in agreement about this, but I think that requires us to change our immigration laws to be more selective. Right now, we don’t have any selectivity, as far as I can understand the laws. … It should be about who do we want, what is our society about? And we should try and have immigrants that fit our society’s wants and needs — not the other way around. JE: My rebuttal to that is I believe that Mark strikes a bit too hard a tone on this for my taste. I believe that we live in a society where we believe that when you give somebody a chance to do something — that they can achieve things that were not before imagined. Such was the nature of the founding of our country, and such is kind of the American Dream for many, many families. Many of this country’s greatest figures were either the children of immigrants or immigrants themselves who came here, and they didn’t necessarily have many of the assets of which Mark speaks, but they did have work ethic, and they did have dreams, and they were given opportunities once they arrived. So I believe that, in terms of being highly selective and how we choose who can enter this country, I believe that that’s a bit of an abandonment to the American spirit. MG: To respond, I am not against immigration; I am not against immigrants. I am the son of immigrants, and I agree with [you]. I think that one thing that we overlook, though, is [that] even during Ellis Island, the golden age of immigration, we turned people back. We didn’t accept everybody that came into this country. All that I’m saying is, let’s return to that period in time where we have immigrants that fit our culture, that fit our expectations, and who will not go on welfare and who will contribute to society. I think that that’s a main thing that we should be considering that [you] overlook, respectfully. JE: And what I will say is that oftentimes, in this country, when you give somebody a chance, they will do great things. You know, you go back to Ellis Island, and we certainly did turn away a lot of people who I do not believe deserved to be turned away. Such has been the nature of turning away immigrants, refugees and many other people to our country, so I would argue that, in terms of choosing who we let in: Are they safe, do they have a dream, can they fit in? Yes, they can be welcomed to our country. —Editor’s Note: The immigration law that Mark Gimelstein ’17 referred to is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), which Ted Kennedy supported but did not sign into law, as Gimelstein said. Also, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States does give preference to immigrants with valued skills and education, contrary to Gimelstein’s statement.
Gun Control Jacob Edelman: Right now, it is far too easy … for people with certain types of mental illness to receive weapons, for people who have had certain types of criminal charges brought against them in the past who should not be in possession of guns and weapons, for people who are on the terror watchlist to own a weapon. … Among other things, there needs to be a tightening of ownership of assault weapons in this country, because, far too often, there have been mass killings with these weapons. … I don’t believe that one needs to own a gun which can put out more than several rounds per second. Mark Gimelstein: I come at this with the perspective that gun laws, federally, in specific states, in many cases, are even too restrictive. I think a large problem is that there isn’t more of a fidelity to the 2nd Amendment, and that’s basically bred by the fact that people are not allowed to do concealed carry in many states, and concealed carry is responsible for the saving of thousands upon thousands of lives. ... If you look at mass shootings in the country year by year, … they have occurred in gunfree zones. … The way I would approach this is to put more guns in the hands of good people, because I come from the perspective that you cannot stop lawbreakers from breaking laws. … In terms of [your] specific points: ... number one, the terrorist watchlist — there’s no due process whatsoever to be put on the list, … and since the 2nd Amendment is a right, just as the 1st Amendment is, no one should be deprived of their basic, fundamental, Godgiven rights … without due process, … [and] we have to look at [mental health] from a caseby-case perspective. … JE: Just going back to [your] first point about criminals not paying attention to the law — ... I believe that, through something called the “bad man” theory of the law, that what the law is meant to do is to inform evildoers in society what the punishment will be if they break the laws. ... If you have an effective law, it will be followed. … Federal standards exist so that these laws exist across the country — fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. That’s how it works in almost every single other first-world country in the world. There are fewer gun deaths because there are stronger gun laws, plain and simple. MG: I would actually push back on that statistic. John Lott, who’s a renowned economist on guns — he did a study on England, for instance. … If you were to look prior to the gun laws being implemented, violent crime, murders and all these bad things we both agree are bad were actually even lower prior to the implementation of gun laws. And I would just ask [you] a question: … Why have gun-free zones been the target in Aurora, the target in Louisiana, the target in Columbine, the target in Virginia Tech, the target in Sandy Hook? … JE: You name these very high-profile public shootings, … and these are the sorts of shootings that stand out over the ones which cause the vast majority of casualties in our country, and the vast majority of casualties in our country could be prevented by stronger laws that apply to the weapons that are owned by domestic abusers or the weapons that are
being trafficked illegally between the states, or the weapons that have certain features that make them more tactical for use, so I would argue that you can’t harden every single target, but that by loosening gun laws ... in an attempt to harden civilian targets as much as possible, to create some sort of civil defense society where everybody is a police person or everybody is an enforcer of the law — I just think that’s an irresponsible premise. MG: You talk about the vast majority of gun deaths — we should be looking at those, not the high-profile ones. We can look at that. The vast majority of gun deaths in this country happen at the hands of pistols, and … the big cluster of pistol gun deaths, they occur in big inner cities like Chicago, Detroit and inner-city New York City, even. You can look at any place you want. Those are all gun-free zones, as well. … I’m not saying that every single person should be a vigilante; that’s not my premise. I’m saying that if you are somebody that passes the license, you are a responsible gun owner, you don’t have a criminal record and you pass all the different legal boundaries to owning a concealedcarry permit, I think you should be allowed to use your gun. It’s impossible for a person to have a CCL in New York City. … That’s a problem we should be addressing. I think that we should have responsible people be able to self-defend themselves against people who are bad in this world and who will break laws no matter what the situation is. JE: The strengthening of gun laws comes down to a fairly simple premise: that if you reduce the number of guns in our country, if you strengthen the penalties for people who would break laws that are meant to protect responsible gun owners and if you create a more responsible society that’s more responsible both in the guns that it uses and in the mentality that it assumes when they approach the idea of gun ownership, that will create a safe society, rather than loosening laws to increase the number of guns and increase the number of very bad potential situations which could arise. MG: To summarize in my perspective: Since the 1990s, gun ownership has proliferated — has doubled, in the United States. … In that same period in time, violent crime, murders, all the things that we find bad, have decreased by half. So, my main premise is that … responsible gun ownership … is the best solution to limit crime. … We [cannot] allow criminals to basically have an open season on sheep, on helpless sheep who have no opportunity to defend themselves against people that are out there in a society of wolves. —Editor’s Note: Mark Gimelstein’s claim that “there’s no due process whatsoever to be put on the [terror watch] list” is false, as reasonable suspicion and evidence is required, according to the Terrorist Screening Center. Also, Chicago, Detroit and New York City are not gun-free zones, and it is not “impossible” to have a concealed carry permit in New York City, as Gimelstein claimed. Gimelstein’s claim that gun ownership has doubled is also false, according to NORC at the University of Chicago.
EDITOR’S NOTE Mark Gimelstein ’17 is a columnist for the Justice. These dialogues are the first two of a series that will be featured in Forum throughout the rest of the year.
4
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2016
●
NEWS
●
THE JUSTICE
2016 Election Results Electoral Votes Hillary Clinton
276 seats Donald Trump
218 seats
Presidental Election Results Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
WA MT OR
MN
ID WY
CA
VT
ND
NV
s that are con-
AZ
CO
KS
IL
TX
WV
VA
KY
NJ
CT
MA RI
DE MD DC
NC
TN AR
SC MS
rms that are
PA
OH
IN
MO
OK
NM
NY
MI IA
NE UT
NH
WI
SD
ME
AL
GA
LA
AK
FL HI
s that are con-
ms that are
Senate goes Republican
s that are con-
Dems 31 Men 31 men ay. I will keep 14 Women14 Women
2 Independents 2 Independents 2 Undeclared
2 Undeclared
Reps. 45 men 6 Women
45 Men 6 Women
w Hampshire House goes Republican 235 seats 184 seats
Results as of 4 a.m.