T

he events of Jan. 6, 
2021, 
have 
been 
a 

topic 
of 
Republican 

revisionist 
history, 
willing 

ignorance 
and 
delusional 

falsehoods for over a year now. 
Leaders of the Republican 
Party have gone from blaming 
former 
President 
Donald 

Trump at least in part for the 
insurrection, to absolving him 
of all responsibility. Those who 
were once labeled domestic 
terrorists 
are 
now 
being 

labeled 
political 
prisoners, 

with Trump and his fiercest 
allies now floating pardons for 
the insurrectionists, claiming 
that they would mend alleged 
atrocities being committed by 
federal prosecutors.

Republican 
members 

of 
Congress 
all 
are 
but 

guaranteed 
to 
dodge 
any 

question regarding the day, 
and 
conveniently 
somehow 

never seem to have heard 
about the barrage of asinine 
comments from their fellow 
colleagues. Yet, through all of 
this, Republicans continue to 
claim they aren’t saying what 
they are, and don’t believe 
what they do.

In the span of a little under 

a week, this attitude finally 

changed with the leader of 
the Republican Party and the 
party’s 
official 
committee 

both finally admitting what 
political 
observers 
have 

long noted. The Republican 
Party at large believes that 
the 
insurrection 
was 
just 

and normal, a mere moment 
of 
political 
protest 
and 

discussion, and Donald Trump 
wanted former Vice President 
Mike Pence to single-handedly 
overturn the election. 

The 
first 
of 
the 
two 

admissions of guilt came from 
Trump himself when he went 
the furthest he ever has in 
his criticism of Mike Pence, 
this 
time 
outright 
saying 

that Pence alone could have 
overturned the will of over 80 
million voters. Though Trump 
has long critiqued Pence for 
his failure to reject electoral 
votes from battleground states 
— something he had no right 
to do — he has tried to phrase 
his critiques in such a way that 
he simply is asking for more 
time to consider supposed 
irregularities. Trump likewise 
posits that state legislatures 
merely ought to have had 
more time to debate newly 
found evidence of fraud, that 
of which did not exist. 

The statement was riddled 

with 
his 
usual 
gripes, 

claiming fraud and “many 

other 
irregularities” 
and 

slamming Susan Collins as a 
“wacky” RINO (Republican in 
name only). He also claimed 
that pending legislation, that 
would make it clear the vice 
president has no power to 
change the outcome, would 
take the power away from 
the vice president, something 
that is not accurate. Ignoring 
the immense hypocrisy of this 
position – how would he feel 
about Vice President Harris 
overturning election results 
and giving Biden a second 
term? This statement betrays 
the deep-rooted contempt that 
the former president and his 
backers have for democracy 
and the peaceful transfer of 
power. 

This was so abhorrent that 

even Pence directly called him 
out, disputing his claim and 
outright 
saying 
“President 

Trump is wrong.”

Even putting aside the fact 

that Trump is painfully wrong 
in regards to a vice president’s 
capacity, 
the 
idea 
of 
a 

president endeavoring to so 
blatantly, tactlessly and short-
sightedly disrupt the will of a 
majority of American voters is 
eye-opening, even for a man 
with a record like Trump’s.

Not 
to 
be 
outdone, 

Republican 
officials 
also 

made waves at the Republican 

National Committee’s winter 
summit in Salt Lake City, 
Utah. A censure resolution, led 
in part by RNC Chairwoman 
Ronna McDaniel, sought to 
condemn Representatives Liz 
Cheney, R-Wyo. and Adam 
Kinzinger, 
R-Ill. 
for 
their 

roles on the House Select 
Committee on the January 6 
Attack.

Republicans have long tried 

to dismiss the committee, 
claiming it is a partisan, 
Pelosi-led sham meant solely 
to hurt Donald Trump and 
his accomplices. That is a 
false claim, as the committee 
features the aforementioned 
two House Republicans, with 
Cheney as a co-chair of the 
committee. 
Additionally, 

House Republicans shot down 
an attempt to have an evenly 
partisan 
split 
investigation 

into the events of Jan. 6, one 
in which Republicans would 
have had subpoena power 
of their own, negotiated by 
a Republican representative 
that House Minority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy himself had 
assigned to the negotiations.

The resolution said that the 

RNC 
should 
“immediately 

cease any and all support” of 
the two Republicans, that the 
pair “support Democrat efforts 
to destroy President Trump” 
and have engaged in acts “not 

befitting” Republican members 
of Congress. While all parts 
of the statement are insane in 
their own right, one sentence 
stands out in particular: “They 
chose to join Nancy Pelosi in 
a Democrat-led persecution 
of 
ordinary 
citizens 
who 

engaged in legitimate political 
discourse.” 
The 
statement, 

which McDaniel later tried 
to backtrack, was a stunning 
admission. 

It shows that prominent 

Republicans believe that an 
insurrection meant to thwart 
the 
democratic 
process, 

which led to the deaths of at 
least seven people, injured 
hundreds, defaced the capitol 
building and forced the vice 
president 
and 
others 
into 

hiding, 
was 
nothing 
more 

than ordinary citizens taking 
part 
in 
everyday 
political 

discussion. 
The 
claim, 

however egregious it is, is 
less surprising in itself than 
the fact that the official party 
committee 
was 
willing 
to 

admit such a disgusting belief.

The GOP has now tied 

themselves to this malicious 
lie; the lie that the most 
severe attack on the United 
States 
Capitol 
since 
1814 

was just citizens using their 
voice. A voice, according to 
them, 
that 
Kinzinger 
and 

Cheney are now maliciously 

silencing. According to the 
GOP, the fault lies with these 
two honest representatives, 
not the insurrectionists or 
those who necessitated their 
intervention.

That Trump and the RNC are 

now willing to be so forthright 
about their despicable actions 
and beliefs is a sign that things 
are getting worse, not better. 
Though they have both felt 
these ways for a while — with 
their continuous push for less 
protections for voters and 
more discretion for states to 
determine 
gerrymandered 

congressional maps — the fact 
that they now feel comfortable 
outright 
claiming 
these 

authoritarian ideas outright 
is just another dangerous step 
towards the dismantling of 
our fragile democracy. The 
midterm elections are now less 
than eight months away, and 
Republicans have been told 
by their leaders that political 
violence is no big deal, that 
election 
losses, 
no 
matter 

how legitimate, are not to be 
accepted and that violence 
is acceptable in an attempt 
to overturn an election. It is 
yet another ominous sign of 
what’s to come, and a potential 
pretext for something worse 
to 
happen 
the 
next 
time 

Republicans lose an important 
election.

W

e’ve all experienced 
it. A shoulder brush 
that 
knocks 
you 

painfully to the side; a body 
in your way, oblivious to the 
path you were trying to walk; 
a sidestep, right where your 
foot was supposed to go next. 
Space that was yours, invaded. 
Invaded is a harsh word to 
use, but it is a harsh action to 
experience as well. Society 
tells women that they must be 
small in every way. Verbally, 
in how they speak and voice 
opinions. Socially, in how they 
act and present themselves. 
And physically, in how much 
space they are allowed to take 
up. We are told to be so small, 
it’s like we aren’t even here, 
like no one can even see us. 

But I see you. I see you, 

girl 
on 
the 
M-Bus, 
with 

her legs turned toward the 
wall, leaning away from the 
stranger taking up his space 
and then some. Your seat is a 
foot and a half wide, and you 
shouldn’t have to share it. I 
see you, girl at the recreation 
center, waiting by the door in 
your leggings because another 
boy took the machine you’ve 
been waiting on for the past 
20 minutes. The leggings are 
cute, and it was your turn. 
I see you, girl in class, with 
your bag on the floor and your 
hands in your lap because the 
boy next to you has claimed 
half the table. I see you, girl 
who makes space for someone 
disregarding yours. I see you, 
girl feeling invisible. 

The invasion of space, both 

physically and socially, is so 
common that we have words 
for it. “Manspreading” and 
“mansplaining” 
are 
newly 

coined terms to describe men 
over-stepping both physically 
and 
in 
conversation. 
With 

both terms, they are holding 
more space for themselves 
than they should. The problem 
is, the bigger someone makes 
themselves, the smaller the 
people 
around 
them 
are 

forced to be. In “Shrinking 
Women,” Lily Myers says that 
“she wanes while (he) waxes,” 
and that women have been 
“taught 
accommodation,” 
a 

scene displayed with crossed 
arms and legs, folding in to 
be less. Women spend more 
time watching for others in 
their path while walking than 
men do, and stay within their 
bounds of the sidewalk more 
as well. It is clear that this 
problem persists in life all 
around, but what is to be done 
about it? 

This 
societal 
issue 
is 

hard to correct because it is 
subconsciously 
ingrained. 

One cannot fix the behavior 
before they are aware of 
the 
behavior, 
and 
thus 

unintentional 
behavior 

will require an intentional 
correction. 
Personal 
space, 

as is denoted in the name, is 
individual to each person, 
making it subjective and often 
subconscious. It is natural and 
acceptable to have different 
levels of comfort regarding 
personal 
space. 
However, 

we need to prioritize spatial 
awareness. We must make 
a conscious effort to notice 
and respect the space of those 
around 
us. 
This 
includes 

monitoring our own behavior, 
as well as that of others. 

Dr. Joanne Motiño Bailey, 

lecturer in the Women and 
Gender Studies Department 
at the University of Michigan, 
and 
Dr. 
Lisa 
Kane 
Low, 

professor within the School 
of Nursing at the University, 
present 
seven 
feminist 

strategies 
in 
“Gynecologic 

Health Care” that have been 
researched and found to enact 
the type of difficult social 
change that this situation calls 
for. One of these strategies is 
to analyze one’s own role or 
relationship to the issue. This 
can be done by anyone, of any 
gender, to support women. Ask 
yourself, what connection do 
you have to the issue, and how 
do you act because of that? 
Men may take up more space 
than warranted in this context 
compared to women, perhaps 
unintentionally. 

To implement this feminist 

strategy as a man, one might 
recognize his role in this 
issue, and then consciously 
decide to make space for 
others. For a woman, applying 
this strategy could be to 
recognize her position in this 
dynamic, and then to speak up 
about it. It is also important to 
advocate for others who may 
have a harder time asking for 
space. Speaking out does not 
need to be confrontational or 
unkind, and demanding space 
is not rude. Addressing the 
issue comes before resolving 
it. With intention and respect 
for all in mind, we can create 
an environment that is more 
comfortable 
for 
everyone 

around. 

To the women reading this, 

my message to you is that it 
is okay to take up space. You 
don’t have to be short or thin 
or tiny. Be strong, be capable. 
You don’t have to move; you 
are entitled to that bus seat 
just like any other student. 
You don’t have to yield; you 
were walking there first. You 
don’t have to shrink; that’s 
your personal space. You don’t 
have to make yourself smaller 
because others want you to be. 
It’s okay to take up space.

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
14 — Wednesday, February 16, 2022 

It’s okay to take up space

AMY EDMUNDS
Opinion Columnist

DEVON HESANO
Opinion Columnist

Trump and the RNC say the quiet parts out loud

Design by Maddy Leja, Opinion Cartoonist
The North Campus dinner experience

J

ustice 
Stephen 
Breyer’s 

recent decision to retire was 
one of the few expected 

political developments in an era 
of tremendous uncertainty. After 
a long career of compromise 
that earned him the respect of 
both parties, Breyer’s retirement 
presents President Biden with a 
chance to re-center his struggling 
administration and make a lasting 
impact on the political climate of the 
nation. 

Judging by the strife that has 

accompanied 
recent 
nominees, 

Biden must approach his choice 
of a replacement with extreme 
caution. He must be careful to 
make a reasonable decision that 
doesn’t lead his presidency further 
astray. In order to accomplish this, 
Biden should look to nominate a 
nontraditional candidate who can 
voice a wider set of opinions than 
current justices: a centrist’s opinion. 

During the 2020 Democratic 

primaries, 
Biden 
promised 
to 

nominate a Black woman to the 
Supreme Court, a promise that 
revived his stagnant campaign. 
While his choice for the high court 
will be a history-making pick 
because of their demographic, 
if Biden is truly committed to 

diversifying the bench, he should 
also look for diversity elsewhere. 

The court is currently woefully 

homogeneous, with almost all of 
the justices coming from urban 
backgrounds, and all justices, beside 
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, having 
attended Harvard or Yale. While it’s 
important to have highly qualified 
individuals on the bench, it’s also 
paramount to have voices that 
represent the breadth of American 
experiences. 

Though 
the 
multitude 
of 

traditional achievements amongst 
recent justices is evident, the 
similarity of their backgrounds 
is clear in both the cases they 
add to the court’s docket, which 
overwhelmingly 
originate 
from 

urban areas, and the rulings they 
ultimately make. In order to widen 
the breadth of experience in the 
highest court in the land and push 
back against the status quo, Biden 
should stray from convention and 
look for a judge from a nontraditional 
background.

In addition to selecting a nominee 

who represents a broader set of 
Americans, it’s important that 
Biden chooses a judge that mirrors 
the ideologically centrist views of 
the average citizen. While Biden 
himself is a moderate, his governing 
style over the first year of his 
administration has reflected the 
influence of left-wing activists in his 

party, whom Biden often struggles 
to push back against. 

With only three left leaning 

justices on the bench, the country 
needs another justice capable of 
compromising with the more right 
leaning wing of the court, in the 
mold of Justice Elena Kagan or 
Justice Breyer himself. If, however, 
Biden selects an activist Judge in 
the vein of Justice Sonya Sotomayor, 
who often goes out of her way to 
comment on national politics, he 
risks sabotaging any chance of 
compromise and ceding the court’s 
rulings to its right wing.

Justice Breyer made his mark on 

the court as a moderate always open 
to working with anyone on rulings. 
Of the three current left leaning 
justices, he has cast the lowest 
percentage of votes aligning with 
the left wing of his party, deviating 
on issues he believed would stoke 
ideological divides. In particular, 
he voted against the law to uphold 
the full Medicaid expansion, in 
the process negotiating with Chief 
Justice John Roberts to maintain 
the individual mandate, a ruling 
that 
ultimately 
kept 
millions 

of 
citizens 
with 
pre-existing 

conditions covered by the law. He 
also sided with conservative justices 
on issues of religious freedom, 
allowing the public display of 
the Ten Commandments in two 
distinct cases in an effort to avoid 

“religiously 
based 
divisiveness.” 

More recently, he has publicly 
opposed court-packing and has even 
gone so far as to pen multiple books 
defending the Supreme Court as a 
neutral institution. 

His willingness to compromise 

lent credence to the rulings that 
he ultimately decided to take 
strong stands on, allowing him to 
be the voice of reason in decisions 
protecting the right to abortion 
and to respectfully dissent to the 
expansion of the death penalty. 
Finding a new justice who follows 
this style is critical to maintaining 
a sense of balance on a court where 
the right wing outnumbers the left 
two to one.

Ultimately, 
Biden’s 
nominee 

for the Supreme Court will have 
profound implications on the law 
for decades to come, as well as 
immediate impacts on national 
unity. In a time when Americans face 
economic threats from the tailwinds 
of COVID-19 and international 
threats from China and Russia, the 
country certainly does not need 
the outer partisan battling that has 
accompanied recent nominations. 
By choosing a judge with a 
background that matches a broader 
set of American experiences, Biden 
has a rare opportunity to hit the 
reset button and finally deliver the 
unity he promised. Let’s hope he 
makes the right decision.

President Biden, it’s time for a diverse and 

centrist judiciary

NIKHIL SHARMA

Opinion Columnist