Candidates spar over Supreme Court, economy, ISIS

Last Wednesday’s presidential debate, moderated by Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates and hosted at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In this election’s third and final debate, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump squared off on a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues.

The debate consisted of six segments, roughly fifteen minutes each, covering the Constitution and the Supreme Court, immigration, the U.S. economy, fitness to be president, ISIS, and the national debt. In each segment, each candidate was allowed a two-minute opening statement, followed by moderated discussion between the candidates. While the debate was less raucous than the previous debates, viewers still watched both candidates launch vicious personal attacks and attempt to talk over the other candidate.

In the first segment, the candidates discussed their views on the Constitution and plans for the Supreme Court. As the next president will have the opportunity to appoint between one and three justices, the Supreme Court has played a critical role in each candidate’s campaign. The discussion especially focused on the issue of abortion. Clinton reaffirmed her pro-choice position and promised to defend Roe v. Wade and “women’s rights to make their own healthcare decisions.” Trump reiterated his pro-life stance and claimed that under his administration, Roe would be automatically overturned “because [he is] putting pro-life justices on the court.”

Prompted by Wallace, the two clashed over partial-birth abortion. Trump attacked Clinton for her position, stating that allowing a doctor to “take [a] baby and rip the baby out of the womb, in the ninth month, on the final day” is “not acceptable.” Clinton defended her support for partial birth abortion, claiming “that is not what happens in these cases.” She said that “the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice,” decisions that include partial-birth abortion.

Concerning immigration, both candidates reiterated their previously stated positions: Trump spoke of his proposed wall on the Mexican border, and Clinton described her plan to offer “comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.” However, Clinton quickly pivoted the discussion away from immigration and the border to the issue of Russian involvement in the election. Clinton railed against suspected Russian involvement in the recent cyberattacks against her campaign and other attempts by Russia to influence the election. The candidates traded barbs about who was more closely aligned with Russia, each claiming that the other would be a “puppet” of the Russians.

Concerning the economy, Clinton detailed her plan to invest in the middle class, championing efforts such as raising the national minimum wage, ensuring equal pay for equal work, debt-free college, infrastructure development, and clean energy. She insisted that under her presidency, “wealthy [will] pay their fair share [and] we’re going to have corporations make a contribution greater than they are now to our country.” Trump argued that Clinton’s plan is a “disaster” and would “double your taxes.” He promised to “cut taxes massively … [and] cut business taxes massively” and increase annual growth to four percent over the next ten years.

The segment concerning presidential fitness largely consisted of ad hominem attacks, and the candidates repeatedly interrupted each other. Among other things, Trump criticized Clinton on ISIS, the Clinton Foundation, and her email scandal. Clinton attacked Trump for assaulting women, shipping jobs overseas, and taking advantage of massive tax breaks.

In the next segment, Trump and Clinton vastly differed over their handling of ISIS. Trump largely focused on blaming President Obama and Secretary Clinton for creating the problem, insisting that if they “did nothing, we would be in much better shape.” Clinton argued that enforcing a no-fly zone to provide safe zones is critical, though she acknowledged that enacting one would require difficult negotiations with Russia and Syria.

In the final segment of the debate concerning national debt, Wallace confronted both candidates with bipartisan analysis of their tax plans that showed that under Clinton’s plan, the debt would grow to 86% of GDP, and under Trump’s plan, 105% of GDP. Both candidates denied that their plans would add any to the national debt and condemned the other’s plan as disastrous.

While in many people’s views neither candidate had a dominant performance, some students considered this debate to be an overall improvement over previous debates. Freshman Kyle Tomshack told the Rover, “For the first time, at the beginning of the debate, there were real issues discussed,” but that as the debate continued, “Clinton was able to push the right buttons to get a reaction out of Trump.”