Arizona Gets Sued

The new Arizona immigration law is surrounded by a lot of controversy and has recieved a lot of backlash. Police Officer Martin H. Escobar has asked to be exempt from enforcing the law and has stated that there is no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States". Escobar has sued the state of Arizona in a federal court.

Governor Jan Brewer signed the law on April 23, and the law allows police officers to ask anyone for proof of legal United States residency. According to Brewer the law does not support racial profiling, however according to Escobar, the law is aimed at Hispanics, and places Hispanics in the state of Arizona, in the risk of losing their constitutional rights. With the increasing rate of illegal immigrants and hate crimes aimed at Hispanics, many that oppose the law believe that the law will build a wall between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and will increase prejudice against Hispanics who already are portrayed negatively in Arizona. The case as of now is only in a federal court, however some believe that it might make its way up to the Supreme Court.

Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty

On Tuesday, April 20th, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law in a first amendment ruling that made it a crime to "create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty." In the 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., stated that the law had established "a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth" and that "the government's aggressive defense of the law was 'startling and dangerous." Roberts argued that the existing law covered an abundance of speech protected by the First Amendment. This, among other recent court decisions, suggests that the Roberts Court is in the process of adopting a highly libertarian view of the constitutional protection of free speech. This significant decision arose from the prosecution of Robert J. Stevens, the author and film producer who declared himself an authority on pit bulls. Although he did not participate in the dogfights, he was responsible for compiling and selling videotapes that presented these fights, violating a 1999 federal law that banned trafficking in "depictions of animal cruelty." As a result, he was faced with a 37-month sentence. The 1999 law prevents recordings of animal cruelty from being presented, specifically of "conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed." Even if the dogfighting in the video is conducted in a location where dogfighting is legal, it cannot be sold where it is illegal. Regarding this issue, Chief Justice Roberts rejected the assertion that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection altogether. In Tuesday's decision, titled United States v. Stevens, Roberts said that the 1999 law was written too broadly. It contains an exception for materials with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value," however, they were not sufficient enough to save the statute. Overall, the case has been unique, considering the fact that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito disagreed, which is rare for these two. In the end, Roberts suggested that a more focused law "limited to crush videos and other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" may survive First Amendment scrutiny.
Altogether, this case has been, and will continue to be, highly controversial. Animal cruelty is a debatable subject, considering its significance is interpreted very differently by many. Personally, I agree with the principle that animal cruelty can be filmed where it is legal, but not displayed where it is illegal. It is nearly impossible to prevent people from filming what they desire. However, it is much easier to control what types of film are displayed and where. Therefore, in this case, I do not completely agree that the original laws should be altered, although I understand Roberts's intentions.

With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama will soon be nominating a second supreme court justice. Obama has been reported as saying that he will nominate a justice that supports women's rights. This does not necessarily mean that the justice will be pro-choice and a supporter of abortion rights for women.
What Obama has said is that the new supreme court justice will not be appointed to even out the gender or ethnicity overall, but rather men and women alike of any race are eligible for the nomination. In a very interesting choice, President Obama has also decided that whoever is to be nominated will not undergo a litmus test to force out an opinion on the very controversial Roe v Wade court case of 1973. Instead Obama has said that the justice who he will nominate will have to be a strong supporter of women's rights and in favor of allowing women to make difficult decisions about their own health including reproductive health.
Although the first steps have been taking to appointing a justice and many candidates are under review, President Obama is still some time from making a decision. A decison that along with his last appointment will surely color the supreme court decisions for many years to come.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100421/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeobamapolitics

Verdict on Long Island

Two years ago Jeffrey Conroy of Patchogue was convicted of a hate crime. Conroy stabbed immigrant Marcelo Lucero. For two years the Suffolk County law enforcement could not come up with a decision in the case. The case has posed a large problem because Lucero was an immigrant. Under the 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are granted civil rights. Under the equal protection clause, "no state shall... dent to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Here on Long Island there are many immigrants that are certainly not treated equally. Lucero was stabbed by a Caucasian man as a hate crime, but since Lucero was an immigrant the 14th amendment could possibly pose misconceptions, in that he might not be granted those civil rights.

Due to the high level of of immigrants in Suffolk County and the discrimination against them, the Suffolk County police force has not done anything about it. Instead the county has been trying to crack down on illegal immigrants by, "cracking down on day-hiring and rental housing." Sadly, these hate crimes have been going on for a while. It was not until Marcelo Lucero's life was taken that the Suffolk County law enforcement enacted on the issue. Conroy was guilty of manslaughter as a hate crime.

After this case communities are now going to put more emphasis on providing equal protection for the people of the community rather than focusing on anti-immigration. Immigrants are not going to be afraid to speak out anymore about these hate crimes. They now know the law will protect them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/opinion/20tue4.html?scp=1&sq=long%20island%20verdict&st=cse

To trust or not to trust, that is never the question

In recent years ditrust of the government has been on the rise for many reasons. The government has not been solving the countries problems, nor have they been honest about their mistakes. They've either been to much about the government, or too much about the individual, neither has presented a middle road solution, Democrates or Republicans. This is another part of the problem, too much bipartisin arguments, both sides are to busy arguing with each other to get anything down, as well as with the Democratic party, sadly enough now, is fighting with in its self causing even more lag in passing legislation. However some feel that american distrust in their government has always been there. If you look at our nations history its understandable and quite frankly easy to see. Also how our government is set up, how everyone must agree, or everyone must be a part of the final desicion, conflicting beliefs will always stall the workings of government. However this distrust must take ease at some point before it gets out of hand, before less and less people actually participate in there government. Lastly the distrust comes from, atleast in recent years, the past presidency of Bush Jr. and now the newly instated legislation of the Obama administration.

Honestly if its come to this, personally i believe we need a strong third party, the democrates and republicans have been around for a long time, we may need some newer blood, not just new people in these parties. However as much the government screws up, really they are all still human, there is a sense of problematics when thinking of people governing the people. However just as well, there truely always will be distrust in our government no matter what it does. There will always be problems and disputes, for its been said "If men were angels government wouldn't be needed"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_ot/us_government_distrust;_ylt=AofuzqbKQse3CNWliT6kQzBv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTNicG1hbzF2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDE5L3VzX2dvdmVybm1lbnRfZGlzdHJ1c3QEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDcG9sbG1ham9yaXR5

A Mighty Pale Tea

I recently read an opinion piece by a high school student who spoke of upcoming freshman who are put onto a waiting list by their first choice colleges because they did not fall into the quotas they were trying to fill. Reading an opinion piece by Charles Blow, I now realize that no matter where you go, Americans are trying to fill a quota and not seem racist.

The Tea Party recently had minorities speak at a rally , and Charles Blow had attended hearing that he may not have been the only black man in the audience. However, he ended up being just that. As he surveyed the people who surrounded him, he realized he had been engulfed in a sea of middle aged white male faces, and he was sticking out like a sore thumb.

Now I'm not claiming that all Tea Party-ers fall into this criteria, but so many of them do. They are wealthy Americans who sit comfortably in their homes and criticize government take over, the healthcare overhaul, and our racist president. The only thing I can say is I think that these people might need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves what exactly it is that they are preaching. Factionalized America, welcome to even more factionalized America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/opinion/17blow.html?scp=1&sq=tea%20party%20op%20ed&st=cse

Steele Tells G.O.P.: ‘I’ve Made Mistakes’

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee acknowledged in front of party activists on Saturday that he had made mistakes and created distractions during a critical mid-term year. He spoke and stated that he learned from his missteps and warned that Democrats would try to divide the party. He added, " the one mistake we can't make this November is to lose."
I believe that this action and statement shows that there is still a great deal of party separation and that we are not closer to bi-partisanship.

Speedy Court Confirmation...for Mainstream Nominees Only.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted that a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens would be confirmed by the Senate before the court's fall term. However, Leahy's Republican counterpart, Jeff Sessions, said that a filibuster is a possibility if President Obama were to nominate someone outside "the mainstream." A few of those considered for the position include appellate judges Merrick B. Garland of Washington and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, the solicitor general Elena Kagan, and Governor Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed in August on a vote of 68 to 31. If President Obama hopes to have his nominee confirmed in as little time as possible, he must choose a more moderate liberal candidate. Senator Charles E. Schumer, also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, hopes that the new nominee will be able to sway Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has been the decisive swing vote on many cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/us/politics/12court.html?ref=todayspaper

Will a Democrat Be Able To Fill Obama's Senate Seat?

Alexi Giannoulias is the Illinois Democrat hoping to fill the Senate seat that President Obama once held. However, his republican opponent is giving him a run for his money, literally. His opponent, Mark Steven Kirk, has brought up the fact that the bank Mr. Giannoulias once worked at is under some serious pressure to raise millions in capital with a consent order from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. On top of the financial problems the bank is facing, according to stories in the Chicago Tribune Giannoulias made $20 million dollar loans to two felons while he still worked at the bank. Now, holding Mr. Giannoulias responsible for giving $20 million dollar loans to felons is one thing, but holding him responsible for a bank that he doesn't even work at anymore is another. However, Giannoulias is throwing mud around about Kirk as Kirk is about him. Giannoulias has called him the "“poster boy” for all that is wrong with Washington." Giannoulias has also said that Kirk isn't willing to talk about things that should be the front runner issues, such as unemployment, jobs and schools.
The democrats are desperately looking for a win in this state though. Not just because they need to hold on to as many Senate seats as possible, but because this was the president's former senate seat. What does it say if a democrat doesn't fill the position?
Giannoulias is hopeful that he'll be the winner in this years midterm election. He says that even if the bank fails he will not be dropping out of the senate race.

Source

"My dear Mr. President"

What do you think of when you hear the end of a supreme court justices career? What do you feel?

You should feel excited.(Or unhappy if you're a fan of the judge.) The supreme court has been an enormous part of our system. So much so that people have argued for, and against, their constitutionality. But to know the significance of the court, you must understand their history.

In 1789, the first official supreme court was established. The power was placed in, not 9 justices, but 5.(In 1792 they made it 6 justices.) The Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth were the first courts but are often overlooked for there lack of groundbreaking cases and relatively short lives.

Then, in 1801, John Marshall was made Chief Justice and the court that would forever change the very court itself was formed.

The Marshall Court impacted the system in two enormous ways: one with it's ruling in Marbury v. Madison(1803). When the court established Judicial Review it not only gave the court an enormous deal of power which would create controversy in the future, but it also created the fear of court stacking.

That was not the end of The Marshall Court's rulings though. Its other significant ruling is Baron v. Baltimore(1833). This ruling helped to establish what is known as selective incorporation and is the most important cases regarding the bill off rights to ever to ever be reviewed. Of course, Selective incorporation would be used in almost every case after the ruling of Baron v. Baltimore.

Now, You're probably wondering: "All these cases were decided by 6 justices, right? When did we get 9?" Well, that gets a little messy but, it all starts in the Taney court and ends in the Chase Court.

The Taney Court started as a 6 justice court like the few before it but in 1837, the court added a seventh justice. in 1838, an eighth. And finally, a ninth in 1863. But, this was not the end of the turmoil. After Lincoln's assassination and Johnson's takeover, The congress passed the Judiciary act of 1866, which decreased the justice amount to 7. It finally went back to it's current number in 1869.

The Industrial Era courts had significant rulings, too many to count, but, they are also held in obscurity because of the times. One of the more interesting Chief justices during the times was actually once the commander-in-chief: President Taft.

In 1937 Roosevelt tried to change the numbers of the court. He tried to change the numbers from 9 to 13. His "court packing plan", As it would later be known as, failed and it remained as a shadow lurking in his career.

The last 4 courts have familiar names: Warren, Burger, Rehnquist and, currently seated, Roberts. More recently, the trend of activism in the courts has appeared. An odd change from the days of strict constitutionalists courts.

So, what do you think of when you hear that John Paul Stevens is retiring at the end of this term? Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you should know it means a lot that one of these 9 great justices will soon be leaving their seat, for the last time.

Sources: http://www.oyez.org/courts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/politics/10stevens.html?scp=1&sq=stevens%20retiring&st=cse

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16188

Has Scandal Lost its Bite?

As New Yorkers, we all know about the Eliot Spitzer scandal; our governor was revealed to be tied to a prostitution ring. After being caught, Spitzer resigned from the governorship and was succeeded by David Patterson. But now, nearly two years later, Spitzer appears on multiple news programs, including CNN, Hardball, the Colbert Report, and Good Day New York, among others, speaking about the economy and his theories about recovery, and he has higher approval ratings than those of our current governor.
So, why the sudden change of heart? Does New York hate Paterson so much that it wants Spitzer back? Or, Are adultery and prostitution just not as shocking or condemnable as they once were? The actual reason for Spitzer's easy return to the bully pulpit via the television screen is unclear. But one thing is certain: his opinions are valued. Playing the outsider coming down hard on Wall Street in the wake of the economic downturn, professing the desire to make changes but no longer in a position to do so, makes Spitzer an intriguing and unique character in the political world.
While Spitzer denies that he is strategically setting up a political comeback, he is certainly doing a good job of it. Should he succeed, he will join the ranks of Nixon, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton who all have under their belts astonishing political comebacks.

Article: "Spitzer's Long Road to Redemption"
Source: New York Times
url: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/fashion/08Spitzer.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics

White House Presses Japan to Reopen Market to U.S. Beef

The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on Japan to reopen its market to American beef, in hopes of helping ranchers and meatpackers gain full access to what was once their most lucrative market.

Japan resumed American beef imports in 2006, but restricted them to meat cattle 20 months old or younger - a limit that American exporters say has no scientific basis. Japan says older animals are more prone to developing mad cow disease. Japan also bans certain body parts.

Japan, the world's largest net importer of food, abruptly banned shipments from American meat packers in 2003 after mad cow disease was discovered in one animal imported to the United States from Canada.

In 2003, Japan was the largest market for American beef, with exports of $1.4 billion; since then, American beef exports to Japan have averaged about $196 billion, or less than 15 percent of 2003 levels.

Americans note that in recent years, Japanese beef producers have found at least 36 cases of mad cow among their cattle herds while only three have been identified in the United States.

Although it may be a beneficial thing for the United States to reopen their beef trade with Japan, to not only boost our poor economy but to also help Japan's poor economy; it has many draw-backs. For example, since they have an unfortunate history of having mad cow disease amongst their cows, it would be a catastrophic event for Americans if the beef they consumed was tainted; and we can certainly not afford for that to occur. If Japan made regulations stricter, or if the United States created the reglulations for them to follow to meet our standards; it would then be a fantastic idea that would greatly benefit both the United States and Japan's economy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08beef.html?ref=politics

"We are beginning to turn the corner"

This past Friday Obama visited North Carolina and reported on the status of our economy. He states, "we are beginning to turn the corner". He spoke about how the businesses that the stimulus package allocated money to are progressing. These business are now opening jobs and helping with the unemployment rate decrease. Throughout his speech he cautions the public that "more difficult times are to approach," but keeps the public hopeful by saying the phrase "brighter days are still ahead." According to the Labor Department report 162,000 nonfarm jobs were added in March.
This number may sound promising however 48,000 of those jobs were hired for the 2010 census therefore 48,000 will lose their jobs in the coming months. Also, the unemployment rate continues to sore at 9.7%.
To emphasize and reiterate his point about the stimulus package resulting in positive feedback Obama visited Celgard a firm that produces lithium batteries that received funds from the stimulus plant. That firm in now opening another factory in Concord and creating over 300 jobs and another 1,000 jobs for construction workers and contractors.
Overall the economy is slowly getting back on its feet. The government is solely highlighting the success stories of the stimulus plan, but im reality does that really help the hundred thousands that are unemployed?

Obama, for the First Time, Opens Offshore Drilling

In an interesting announcement, President Obama announced that he plans to open oil and natural gas drilling off the coasts of the United States. Politicians have been debating this topic for years now. President Obama's plan, which would not take effect for several years, opens drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and northern Alaska. The Pacific coastline, areas on the Atlantic coastline above New Jersey, and the sensitive Bristol Bay in Alaska would all be closed to drilling.

President Obama cited America's dependence on foreign oil and gasoline as the main reason for why he was now allowing offshore drilling. Although, even with this oil available to us, it would not make a significant impact on America's gas prices, for there is simply not enough oil and natural gas off America's coasts to fulfill our oil and natural gas demands.

This is a very strange decision that Obama has made. The reasons behind this decision may be more than trying to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Those on the right have been calling for the government to open offshore drilling for years. Major corporations have also been calling for this for many years. It is strange to see Obama listen to the words of Sarah Palin saying "drill, baby, drill." It is also strange to see Obama support the corporations. By opening offshore drilling, he has made many Republicans happy. President Obama is always striving for bipartisanship and this may be another attempt to reach across the aisle. Although, considering the partisanship in government these days, this attempt may be futile. While he makes many Republicans happy with this decision, he also make many Democrats angry. Many feel that offshore drilling will hurt the environment, a cause which many Democrats are very passionate about. Even Obama is an advocate of green energy. For this reason it is particularly strange that Obama made this decision. No matter Obama's motives, only time will tell whether or not this was a good move by the President.

Source:

The New York Times

The New York Times