Republicans have a constitutional duty to condemn Trump’s racist attacks

From left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., respond to remarks by President Donald Trump after his call for the four Democratic congresswomen to go back to their "broken" countries, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. All are American citizens and three of the four were born in the U.S. From left, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., respond to remarks by President Donald Trump after his call for the four Democratic congresswomen to go back to their "broken" countries, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, July 15, 2019. All are American citizens and three of the four were born in the U.S. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The president of the United States issued a series of racist tweets this week telling some members of Congress to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Though he did not name them at first, his tweets appear to have been directed at four Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.

No one seems to be surprised by yet another diatribe from Mr. Trump. The nation has, tragically, grown accustomed to such language from its commander in chief, from claiming he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose political support to calling Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man” and deploring refugees from “shithole countries.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s tweets have been, unquestionably, a distraction from the critical business of the country: Congress must soon raise the debt ceiling again to prevent the government from running out of cash; the Trump administration has once again taken steps to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to find safety in the United States; there are children still being detained at the border after being separated from their parents.

Behind Mr. Trump’s tweets is an attempt not only to delegitimize his political opponents but to appeal to nativist tendencies, suggesting that citizens born in other countries or born to immigrant parents are somehow less American than others. That is antithetical to the values of this country, for which generations of immigrant Americans have sacrificed to the point of shedding their blood on foreign shores.

Some have pointed out that, true to form, Mr. Trump has his facts wrong. Three of the four congresswomen were born in the United States. But Mr. Trump’s remarks would have been reprehensible even if they all had been born in Canada or Haiti, Somalia or China. To echo what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said at a press conference addressing the president’s remarks on Monday: “No matter what the president says, this country belongs to you, and it belongs to everyone.”

These comments need to be called out as racist, xenophobic and sexist. They are wrong, full stop. The president’s lack of restraint has perhaps briefly unified Democrats in outrage, but they seem to have had little impact on Republicans. Only a small number of G.O.P. members of Congress have criticized the president’s tweets or even indicated that they are disturbed by them.

While we may have come to expect this sort of behavior from the president, it should not be treated as normal. Especially if they ally themselves with Mr. Trump’s public policy goals, members of Congress have a moral obligation and constitutional duty to denounce such remarks and to defend their colleagues against such attacks. Public debate and public decency require minimum standards. The United States Constitution and its separation of powers presumes those standards. Our national leaders should not stand by in silence while the voices of the elected representatives of the people are delegimitized by the head of the executive branch. What is left of the parameters of civil discourse in the United States must be defended.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Mike Macrie
1 year 2 months ago

Cut

Mike Macrie
1 year 2 months ago

Yes there is Subtle Racism in the United States as I previously defined for you. There is also Judicial Racism, Police Stops Discrimination, Immigration Racism, Political Racism, Health Care Racism, institutional racism,
So what specific type of Racism that meets your definition are you talking about because Racism covers many areas ?

Christopher Scott
1 year 2 months ago

This Is a non issue sideshow, a diversion away from the real issues the media, Hollywood, Wall St and the bishops don’t want to talk about. Who was cavorting around with Jeffrey Epstein?

Ysais Martinez
1 year 2 months ago

.

L Hoover
1 year 2 months ago

Thanks to America Magazine editors and Jesuits everywhere who remain faithful to the teachings of Christ. You have helped me remain Catholic and want to be there for all the good priests who can tell the difference between good and evil, between the inclusivity of Christ and exclusionary rejection, between the truth and distortion, delusion and lies. This article that calls Republicans to stand up for American values shows that you are worthy as patriots and devoted servants of God. Blessings!

Marion Husler
1 year 2 months ago

Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church racist and xenophobic too?

"2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

Or is the sentiment of racism ok so long as you use fancy ivory tower words, or you are a woman of color?
Of course the answer is that the sentiment is the sentiment, and President Trump's sentiment is aligned with the CCC. So you are calling our catechism and church racist.
I dont know who you are or why you are writing this political hit piece in the Jesuit Review, but I and many others, judging from comments here, will appreciate if you get your facts straight, and your logic errors corrected on this and any other matter.

J Jones
1 year 2 months ago

Marion: the Catechism of the Catholic Church absolutely does NOT in any way shape or form mandate what is happening here. It does NOT mandate one standard of conduct for brown female citizens and elected officials who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants and a second standard of conduct for white male citizens and elected officials who are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

That is exactly what Trump is engaged in. One standard for him and another standard for them. That is the functional definition of racism.

And that is exactly what the Republicans and Trump's supporters are supporting and enabling and endorsing with their silence and parroting of Trump's words. The CCC does NOT support or endorse Trump or his supporters in this double-standard which, again, is textbook racism.

Crystal Watson
1 year 2 months ago

A segment on the PBS NewsHour tonight about why what Trump said to the Congresswomen *is* racist, and about how he is purposely making racial divisions worse because he thinks it will help him get re-elected ... https://youtu.be/M1imwywbSkg

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

Hey America editors, does 4 in favor and 187 against give you some idea of how influential your edicts are with Republicans? If you try to beat Trump in a food fight or a certain type of contest (which only my sense of delicacy and fear of your censors keeps me from detailing), you are almost certain to lose.

Christopher Scott
1 year 2 months ago

Love it or leave it was a popular saying during the Vietnam war era directed at the anti-war protestors.... It was not a term directed at racial minority’s, it was basically directed at white hippies who were burning their draft cards and threatening to move to Canada. The leftist are taking advantage of people’s lack of historical knowledge and using the phrase out of context by redefining its meaning and use

Trump is basically making a statement against socialism. Leftist, like Bernie, keep tell us how great it is in Scandinavia and other parts of the world (apparently Bernie hasn’t been following the European News) which makes one wonder why do so many people prefer to move to the US...and why don’t they go to a country that offers better opportunities?

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

Yes the anti war hippies ,who were mostly of Judeo/ Christian European ethnicities were told " love it or leave it".Trump did not say "love it or leave it".He said "go back where you came from".

Christopher Scott
1 year 2 months ago

It’s basically the same sentiment... it’s not a racist statement, it’s a political statement and everyone with common sense knows it. The left keeps hammering away away at Trump being racist, homophob, xenophob, nazi, fascist with concentration camp etc they’ve overused these words without proof and rendered these words meaningless and fewer and fewer people listening anymore. A white suprematist in no longer a kkk member, it’s anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Keep hammering away, fewer people care

Crystal Watson
1 year 2 months ago

Everyone knows Trump's attack on the four women of color is racist. His supporters know that. The dead-head horde at his rally last night knew it is racist. That is why they love it and him. He is inciting violence and people who support him will share his responsibility for what comes of that.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

The two statements are not at all the same thing."Love it or leave it," is a generalized ideology,a simplistic nationalist trope intended to tell people that you should not question, criticize or object to the political directions of your leaders. You are not supposed to think because after all, you have elected officials who think for you. At any time since the freeing of the slaves , Black people have been told to "go back to Africa" even if they are descended from ancestors who arrived in 1619. Descendants from the May Flower[1620] may be told , "love it or leave it" ,but "go back where you came from" is reserved for people regarded as" other".

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

Is it a constitutional duty?Probably not.The Constitution did not even prohibit slavery;it took a horrific war .Sadly the history of the country with its Constitution, is seeped in racism.But there IS an ethical obligation to condemn Trumps racist remarks.

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

The constitution does prohibit slavery. You must be confused with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas who vilified people of color and condoned the beating of slaves.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

The original constitution,[ the one that did not prohibit slavery] .Sorry I was misinterpreted . Like I said; It took a war, and THEN an amendment.There is no Constitutional amendment prohibiting racist speech,racist beliefs including by a president.On the contrary he has first amendment rights too. [ See above post].I don't get why you are so offended by my saying there is a ETHICAL duty to speak out and denounce him for his racism?

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

Because I originally misconstrued what you were saying. Sorry

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

The 14th amendment of the constitution protects the citizenship and privileges of persons of color. The federal actors during the time knew people who regarded people as inferior may raise up out of jealousy and dislike, and try to enact State laws allowing for a license to discriminate and not allow them to enjoy all the same civil rights as white people enjoyed. It is every elected official's constitutional duty to stand up against racism and any racial epithet of a standing president. That's what the legislative body is supposed to do. The house voted with only four Republicans backing a measure for Donald Trump's remarks as racists. The resolution passed among mainly partisanship lines.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

As long as the president is not making a racist law or policy,against minorities or any one,then he is not in violation of the 14th amendment . Obviously he cannot force anyone to go back to where they came from.That would violate equal protection under the law,which emanates from the 14th amendment.The obligation to denounce, is an ethical one;it's not in the Constitution. However the influence of his bully pulpit, his tweets, cannot be underestimated.Therefore his racist statements are dangerous, but not unconstitutional.

The prohibition against making racial epithets in a work place is a violation of EEOC regulations.Laws are acts of legislatures, regulations are administrative codes,.The Constitution is a frame work what delineates what laws and regulations can be made.The president[, as an employee, and as an employer], is in violation of EEOC regulations. Congresses's constitutional obligation is to decide whether his violation of that EEOC code meets with the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. But they also have an ethical obligation to denounce his racism!

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

The argument is about denouncing Trump's remarks. Much like Omar was denounced for her previous anti-Semitic comment, which she apologized for. Trump will never apologize for anything publically because in doing so he would have to admit he was wrong, and he simply doesn't have enough humility as a person to muster up the courage. His policies against immigrants are racist, and he does continue to force people to go back to where they came from, even those seeking asylum that is supposed to be protected by law. How is any of this not unconstitutional in your eyes? I am not going to argue over the semantics of the headlines you don't agree with when the issue has a deeper meaning regarding the dignity and livelihood of people. Trump telling lawmakers to go fix other countries problems if you don't like America is stupid and a complete disregard for our commonality for each other.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

I agree that denial of peoples rights to request asylum is unconstitutional.I agree he is racist, unethical and obnoxious, and a danger to the country, but the only POLICY that you sighted is the denial of peoples rights in seeking asylum. THAT is where he comes in conflict with the 14th amendment;people have a right to equal protection under the law.But that is not my decision to make ;that is the SCOTUS decision to make. Scotus upheld his travel ban and people from those countries,in seek of asylum cannot be allowed in this country as per his POLICY[executive order] .Statements are not laws, denying people access at the border to make asylum claims is a POLICY subject to Constitutional review by SCOTUS. As was the travel ban.It is also something that the Congress might be able to write laws to address to restrict Trumps border policy's.

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

Thank you for the dialogue, Rose. Trump’s statements are dumb. There is no value added in arguing that speaking up against a president who is demeaning people because of their race or ethnicity isn’t a constitutional duty. When doing so is in every Republican’s constitutional right to do so. They just choose not too! Why is that? Pelosi was ineffective in leading the house Republicans. Their constituents are leading them into oppression and silence. If you really think about the “love it or leave it” slogan why do you think migrants come here? It isn’t because they hate America, but because they want a better future for themselves and their families which they don’t see happening where they are. Being a Republican isn’t a prerequisite to becoming or being an American.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

You're welcome ,same here, Gabe. There is no value added, except attempting truthfully to answer a question.It was not even until I read some posts saying that it was not a" constitutional duty", did I even think about it as a question.I was focused on my outrage and until I read those posts, constitutional and ethical were interchangeable in my mind. Then it became an interesting question.
"They have a constitutional right to do so, they just choose not to.Why is that?" I have to answer THAT?![lol]

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

In the meantime, Representative Omar has introduced a bill comparing a boycott of Israel to the boycott of Nazi Germany. Obviously, Trump would rather run against her than against Biden. So keep those comments coming folks. And remember, incoherent rage is a very effective strategy in political campaigns.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

"Omar's resolution seeks to push back against US laws banning the boycott of Israel, and affirms the right of Americans to organize boycotts of foreign countries ,if they so wish"[fox news] And what's wrong with that?Are American citizens obligated to buy Israeli?The resolution does not call for a boycott, but for our right to boycott.Considering laws that have been past restricting Americans' right to choose their boycotts,a resolution protecting our economic free speech does not seem unreasonable.She was not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany,she was presenting our history of boycotts, including of Nazi Germany due to their persecution of the Jews.; how anti- Semitic can you get!

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

Those of us who are less skilled in interpreting subtlety and nuance will come away with the impression that Representative Omar has just compared the state of Israel to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa. Let her keep talking and let the chips fall where they may. That is, after all, why we have elections. You obviously have a right not to buy Israeli products. I have an equal right to say negative things about Representative Omar. Is this a great country, or what?

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

So you are admitting you're an idiot.

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

Your clever use of empirical data and logic has shown me the error of my ways.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

Andrew; I know you are not an idiot, and you were not announcing that you were.You were simply announcing that you are a partisan.I apologize.

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Opting Out
1 year 2 months ago

.

J Jones
1 year 2 months ago

Jose, the tragedy of your positions is that, as a gay married man, you seem unaware that the same people are coming for you and your rights and will soon, if they have their way in removing sexual orientation as a protected class in employment and provision of healthcare and in the right to refuse service. The very people you despise are the people standing between you and the pariah status the Trump administration and conservative Catholics are hoping to encode in law for you and your husband. As I have said before, the people you say you hate will not abandon your family and rights even as you abandon others in your support of Trump (and, no matter your reasons, support it is).

Opting Out
1 year 2 months ago

J Jones....Jose, the tragedy of your positions is that, as a gay married man, ....

I am thankful I did not provide you my home address because given that you are left first, Catholic (?) last, here you resort to doxing me, typical of the Left fringe. Shall I look for you to give me a brain hemorrhage like your Antifa buddies did to gay journalist, Andy Ngo, will you stalk and inflict bodily harm on me when I dine at restaurants like your left wing nut job Red Hen Restaurant owner, Stepahnie Wilkinson triumphantly declared to the adulation of Washington Putz, or will you merely revel in decapitating me like your good friends NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and VA Governor Ralph Northan embrace in how they kill new born delivered babies?

I cant hear what you are saying, J Jones, because your actions are bloodying me. Bill Clinton caused more suffering to LGBT with his demonic DADT policy, and Hillary and Obama did absolutely nothing for LGBT, than the recent Trump administration combined. You are a partisan hack, and as I have stated in the past unplug from the internet .

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

Jose M Castellano Hernandez we get it, your gay and a republican. You pulled out all the stops to assert your sexuality, political position and even your HIV status. You continually criticize articles on the site as poor editorials and authorship yet you seem to spend a lot of time reading and commenting on them.

Your antics are often unnecessary and so far off topic no one even knows where to begin to unpack all your BS. Why don’t you slowly walk away from the keyboard, say three Hail Mary’s and come back when your ready to have an argument about the article instead of carrying on about how much of a victim you are while make believing Trump is your hero. Lord only knows why Trump makes you feel safe and secure inside by sharing his disgust and disdain for others that don’t agree with him. It might possibly have to do with his narcissistic personality.

And don’t bother coming for me with your tired song about commies, dictators, and wing nuts. You already played it for us with J Jones.

J Jones
1 year 2 months ago

I agree with you 100% that Clinton was wrong to agree to the "compromise" which was DADT. He should have found the courage to stand firm on his commitment to allow LGBT Americans to serve openly in the military. He would not have succeeded but he would have done the right thing. The GOP and their Democratic supporters in Congress would have followed through with their promise to legislate a total ban; Clinton could have vetoed it; the GOP and their Democratic supporters would have overridden Clinton's veto; and the court fight would have started AND ended much faster. I grew up on war-mobilized military bases and believed and believe it was unconscionable to impose on the LGBT community the travesty that was perpetrated against African Americans, asked to put their lives on the line for our collective and individual freedoms while their rights were curtailed by law and society.

You have repeatedly identified yourself here, Jose. I do understand thinking better of it and being afraid in these frightening times when so many are unsafe. Violence is a crime and a sin, and it should always be fully investigated and competently prosecuted.

Again, people like me will continue to fight for the civil rights and safety of every American, even those who will not stand up and decry the racism and xenophobia practiced routinely by the current President of the United States. If SCOTUS rules against the three LGBT plaintiffs who have brought employment discrimination cases to SCOTUS and the TRump/Pence Administration does as it is expected to do, people like me will protest when the Trump/Pence Administration strips the LGBT community of its protected status which outlaws employment discrimination against them, just as we protested DADT.

For the record, I do not believe Trump is homophobic. I do not believe it is his individual goal to discriminate against the LGBT community. I believe he has made a trade to get what he wants, which is the power of the Presidency. And what he is trading is the civil rights of the LGBT community (and the the civil rights of women and the humanity of immigrants). And THAT is why Mike Pence signed on to this ticket. Mike Pence is willing to trade everything (including the humanity of immigrants) to get what HE wants: the marginalization of the LGBT community and a total ban on abortion. I pray every day I am wrong.

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

You aren’t being doxed, Jose. You’re the boy who cried wolf.

rose-ellen caminer
1 year 2 months ago

That's the gist of it; There's are more of US [ right wing bigots] then of you, so we don't need nuance, We have Fox [how did that Iraq war they promised would bring you glory, work out!] and being a no nothing party works for us!We don't need nuance, we don't need reality ; we have an agenda and we are using our fists.

FRAN ABBOTT
1 year 2 months ago

Sorry to be a killjoy, but this discussion has really deteriorated. Please try to refrain from personal insults and name calling. Thanks in advance.

Andrew Strada
1 year 2 months ago

The problem with the Internet is that it makes it too easy for total strangers to exchange snarky rough drafts. People feel passionately about some topics and at times I find myself succumbing to the temptation to poke the hornets' nest with a sharp stick. Of course, I also find myself swearing at people who drive too slowly and make me late for Mass. Perhaps we should all take a deep breath because regardless of what happens in 2020, we still have to live in the same country with each other in 2021.

Opting Out
1 year 2 months ago

The Democrats’ War Has Only Begun

Still smarting from the strong-arm tactics the Democratic National Committee used to quash Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign, progressives see a repeat in the DNC’s recruitment of Joe Biden.

The schism in today’s Democratic Party may be ideologically irreconcilable. Neoliberals in the Clinton-Obama-Biden vein aren’t merely less progressive than real progressives—they are not progressive at all. Democratic centrism and progressivism are discrete movements with little but identity politics in common.

Progressives subject most social and economic problems to a Marxist class analysis that calls for redistribution of wealth from the rich to the less-rich. Whether the issue is poverty, climate change, health care or the cost of college, progressives turn to government regulations and the tax code.

Democratic centrists of recent decades share a faith in free markets with their Republican counterparts. Presidents Clinton and Obama, representatives of their party’s centrist faction, didn’t push for a higher minimum wage, free four-year college tuition, or a steeply progressive tax regime. ObamaCare not only preserved private insurance companies but gave them subsidies. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren support a Medicare for All scheme that would abolish private insurers; Joe Biden opposes it and Kamala Harris has equivocated.

Progressives don’t want fewer wars of choice; they want none at all. Add that fundamental divide to the Democratic establishment’s stubborn refusal to pivot toward the left, or even respect it, and it’s possible to imagine a not-so-distant future in which progressive voters leave the Democrats to form a new party—or stop voting entirely.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-war-has-only-begun-11563490811

G Reeder-Ferreira
1 year 2 months ago

Pivoting further to the left would guarantee Trump’s re-election. The Democrats will have to move or signal towards more conservative policies in order to gain votes.

J Jones
1 year 2 months ago

The topic of the article is the racist, xenophobic language and conduct of the President of the United States and the responsibility of Congress to reject it.

Chuck Kotlarz
1 year 2 months ago

Another website references Toni Morrison in a 1975 speech at Portland State University. Some quotes follow.

“It’s important, therefore, to know who the real enemy is, and to know the function, the very serious function of racism, which is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining over and over again…

…race itself has never been the real issue. This is, and has always been, about using distraction as a tool to create a dynamic that maintains white supremacy and the access white people have to power and profit."

JR Cosgrove
1 year 2 months ago

The quote from 45 years ago is spot on today but only if one word is inserted, “liberal” as

Maintain liberal white supremacy and the access liberal white people have to power and profit

JR Cosgrove
1 year 2 months ago

This false meme of widespread racism is being pushed by urban elitist globalist utopian white liberals from their coastal enclaves. Think media, press, entertainment, academia, Silicon Valley, and the politicians they support.

THOMAS E BRANDLIN, MNA
1 year 1 month ago

Baloney! Again the Editors of America Magazine and the mainstream leftist media try to redefine the term racism. Every criticism of people of color is not racist. Get a grip and joint the real world. Quit being jesuitical. Journalism is to report the news; not to shape it.

ALTONETTE STONE
1 year 1 month ago

An individual does not have to use the term "race" for a statement to be offensive, bias, unchristian, or racist. Certainly Trump has criticized this country, made false and offensive comments about Muslims, Hispanics and blacks. One is in denial in claiming the comments were not racist. Furthermore, one ought to know that such behavior and beliefs are contrary to biblical scriptures and sinful.

Helen McCaffrey
1 year 1 month ago

ALL racism is to be condemned.Rep. Omar just called for the racial profiing of ALL WHITE MEN. Please condemn her comments. Or Comrade Ocasio=Cortez constantly references WHITE supremacy - and white privilege - CLEARLY racist hate speech. Please condemn her. ANY reference to race IS racist. It is not limited to a single group.

J Jones
1 year 1 month ago

Helen, you are incorrect that any reference to race is racist. Most references to race are RACIAL. Racial references become RACIST when prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism is directed against a person or group of people on the basis of their race or ethnic group.

White supremacy is a description of a racist ideology and could conceivably be held by a person any race or ethnicity. Ditto white privilege. That refers to a structural and cultural dynamic which grants privilege to white persons while denying that same privilege to non white persons.

Advertisement

The latest from america

The judges are Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate court judge in Chicago, and Barbara Lagoa, a federal appeals court judge in Atlanta.
Why are there so many Catholics on the nation’s highest court?
Allyson EscobarSeptember 21, 2020
Ginsburg died at her home in Washington of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer.
This production of ‘Godspell’ is striving to be the benchmark for a possible future for theater.
Lindsay ChessareSeptember 18, 2020