The Supreme Court

First of all, sorry I've been away for so long! School has started and I have been so incredibly busy! But I've gotten some pressure lately from people to start writing again, so here we go. I want to shift directions, though, and make a fresh start. Now that I am enrolled in Political Science courses here at OCU, I am very interested in the way our government works. While current issues are still very important to me, and I have still have opinions on them, I would like to use this space to discuss, for lack of a better term, political science topics. I still want feedback, now more than ever. Your input is crucial. A discussion of our government's structure and the way things happen in it is crucial, especially at this point in time, with some many exciting things happening in Washington D.C. I hope everyone is mildly interested in this new direction, and you all are willing to discuss with me.

I really want to talk about the Supreme Court right now. Now, my motive is that tonight in my Politics of Law class, our entire conversation centered on the nomination process of the Supreme Court, and what those who have a hand in the selection of justices should look for in candidates. We also looked at who or what exactly a Supreme Court justice represents. In the American government, everything originates at the Constitution. However, at times, the Constitution is intentionally vague in its wording. The Founding Fathers purposely wrote it this way so that it would be a living document that pertained to all ages, not just the one in which they lived. Because of this, a body is needed to interpret the way the Constitution is written and apply is to society. This body is the Supreme Court. The way this is done is through judicial review. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules on them based on their interpretation of the Constitution. The law that the case concerns in either upheld by the Court or declared unconstitutional. If no particular law is concerned, then a precedent is set for future matters concerning the issue. The Supreme Court has no official way to enforce its rulings, but it understood that you go along with them out of respect for the Constitution. If you disagree, you can attempt to bring another case that concerns the law in question, and attempt to get it heard. Now, this summer, the big controversy was over judicial activism. This is where the court is not just interpreting law, but instead making policy. My opinion is that this is splitting hairs. I guess technically the act of making precedent could be interpreted as policy making. However, the precedent can be overturned if an official law is passed. Until then though, the duty of the Court is to establish a precedent that is as good as policy, in effect. Also, I suppose the act of declaring something unconstitutional could be considered policy making, in a way. Do you see the point I'm getting at here? The outrage over the idea of the court making policy is absurd. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on these laws and ideas. If it overturns a law, in effect, it creates a "policy". The Court has no way of writing a law into effect; that power is granted solely within the Congress.

The other big controversy surrounding the Sotomayor confirmations was the idea of personal bias and a candidate's background. It is impossible to peel away one's personality from one's self. It is who you are. Of course, anytime a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling, that person is going to draw upon their own experiences to help them understand the impact their ruling will have on people. This is why we have nine justices, and not just one. The variety of opinions and experiences will allow the body as a whole to make the correct decision. This idea is one explored prominently in philosophy. You cannot take off the "rose-colored glasses" through which you see life. Your personality, which is shaped by your life experience and background, has a hand in everything you do. This is what creates opinions and individuals. A variety of opinions and ideas on the Supreme Court is a good thing! We want the Constitution interpreted in a way that doesn't cater to one group or another. If you have nine people who are the same gender, same race, same religion, same age, same background, then the way they interpret is obviously gonna lean in a certain direction. But if you have nine different people, and those people bring their ideas and experience and customs to the conversation, then the debate over laws will be more nuanced and far-reaching, and the correct ruling will be made, because all opinions have been heard and all viewpoints have been consulted. Remember, the Constitution is a living document. It is not static; it does change. It changes because we as a people change, and the way we look at this great document changes. Thus, we interpret it differently than America in 1878 did, differently than America in 2145 will. American society and the Constitution must adapt to each other; it is not a one way street. It one or the other does not adapt, then no progress can ever be made. If we still thought the way our Founders did, then slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be allowed to vote or hold office. It is absolutely crucial to our survival as a nation. And it is what makes America such a great country: while others are mired in Medieval ways of life, we are constantly flowing forward and allowing ourselves to become a better people.

I just want to address one more issue. The biggest part of our conversation in class tonight centered on who does the Supreme Court represent? I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court represents nobody. They are not voted in. They don't favor one group over another. The argument was made that perhaps they represent the people. However, if this was the case, then they would never rule in favor of the government in a matter. It is absolutely crucial that they do not have a particular constituency. Their job is to interpret law not based in what the general populace is, but what is right by the Constitution and for our country as a whole.

Please, let me know what you think. What is the job of our Supreme Court? Are they fulfilling that job? Do they represent someone or something in particular? Remember, free and open discussion of our opinions and ideas is what sets our republic apart from other forms of society.

Sotomayor

Hey everyone. I've got a couple things to talk about just real quick. I'm having computer problems today and I have almost no patience so this will probably be short and sweet.
The main thing I wanna talk about is the Sotomayor hearings that have been going on this week. I think everyone is in agreement that she is going to get confirmed, so any fight the Republicans have is on political basis, rather than a substantive one. They aren't doing a very good job though. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can't seem to move past the "wise Latina" comment and consequently have come off this week as underprepared and uninformed. This is a judge who has been on the bench for 17 years and has seen thousands of cases, some of which have gone on the be heard by the Supreme Court. Instead of possibly questioning her on many of these, Republicans want to cast her as a racist and bigot. This is glaringly hypocritical coming from proven racists such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (Alabama.) Lest we forget, Sessions himself got rejected by a Republican-majority Committee in 1986 as a nominee for a federal judgeship. The basis for his rejection was his indefensible racial comments, including saying that he thought the Ku Klux Klan wasn't so bad except for their support of marijuana. He also called the NAACP and ACLU "un-American" and "communist." In light of this, I don't think Mr. Sessions has much ground to stand on when it comes to racism. Then there is Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. When he was able to break away from "wise Latina" talk, he went into deep conversation with Mrs. Sotomayor over gun rights. One thing that caught my ear was when he asked the nominee what her personal belief was when it came to gun rights. What does it really matter? According to critics, Mrs. Sotomayor should never allow he personal beliefs to come into her judgments. So what difference does it really make what her thoughts on gun rights are? Her job will be to uphold existing laws. As for those who say she legislates from the bench, take a look at her record. Across the board, she has been fairly moderate, and has often made of point of avoiding legislating. Read her opinions. It's all there. All in all, the hearings have been rather useless and almost comical at times. She is gonna be nominated, but Republicans don't want to be fingered in future elections as someone who voted for Sotomayor. As Richard Wolffe (who I have immense respect for; one of the best commentators out there) said, this isn't about Sotomayor, this is about not siding with the president on anything. The Party of No strikes again.

Quick note on Sarah Palin. So she said she wants to spend her time concentrating on meaningful ways to help Alaska. Does that include writing Op Ed pieces for the Washington Post supporting big oil? Because that's what she did this weekend. And on top of that, the piece contradicted her past views on this subject! I can't even think about this anymore, the utter hypocrisy makes my head hurt.

One last comical note. Newt Gingrich did an interview with Al Jazeera this weekend. In it, he said he wants a one man sabotage mission to go in and take out Iran's "only" gas refinery. The man doing the interview, Avi Lewis, laughed out loud at this comment. First, I think Mr. Gingrich has been watching too many Bond movies. Does he really think one man can go in and take down a whole refinery by himself? HA! Good joke. And second, as the reporter told him, Iran doesn't have just one refinery. They have eight. Iran is a modern, industrialized country. Nice try, Newt.

That's all for now. Whenever I write again (maybe tomorrow), I have an absolutely ridiculous Obama birther story (as if that whole concept isn't ridiculous enough). Until then, best wishes.

Palin: A Comedy of Errors

Time for part 2 of my extra long weekend post. Just a couple subjects on tap here.

PALIN

For a little comic relief, I give you Sarah Palin and everyone around her! I know, that's an old and unfunny joke at this point, but that is what this situation feels like anymore. Lets look at how this comedy of errors is playing out: First, underqualified, semi-intelligent, fanatical woman is somehow elected governor of Alaska. Next, aforementioned governor proceeds to bend ethics and laws to her liking, while somehow convincing everyone she is fighting corruption. Then, fading presidential nominee pins her as running mate to (successfully) inject life into failing campaign. Governor-turned-VP nominee proceeds to bolster conservative base while alienating moderates, including the people running the campaign. Her lack of curiosity, low work ethic, and non-understanding of issues makes her the butt of jokes across the country. After the election, instead of laying low and buffing up on issues in anticipation of a potential 2012 presidential bid, she makes the rounds of the speaking circuit and develops a public feud with a late-night comedian, while alienating her few remaining political allies. Then, in a move that leaves everyone and their dog shaking their head, she resigns from the governorship with a rambling, semi-intelligible news conference with honking geese as her backing vocals. She spends the next week defending herself with the tired talking point, "I'm not a quitter, I'm a fighter," despite the fact she just quit her job that she was elected to. If it were a play, it might be funny. But this is an actual person we are talking about. It's almost sad at this point. And now she's in a spat with the father of her teenage daughter's baby, who she tried to force into marriage. Once again, I can only shake my head. The silver lining here? At least she's not running a state anymore.
By the way, if you haven't read the Vanity Fair article about Palin, you really need to. You can find it at the Vanity Fair website, titled "It Came From Wasilla."

CIA, CONGRESS, AND WIRETAPPING

Lots of developments coming from this front. The CIA and certain members of Congress are at odds over a public letter from six House Democrats addressed to CIA Director Leon Panetta. According to the Dems, Panetta admitted in a hearing that the CIA had misled Congress in the past. The CIA is obligated, under the National Security Act of 1947, to inform Congress of everything it does. Now it is being reported that the issue being discussed here is a secret counterterrorism operation that answered only to former VP Dick Cheney. Apparently, even Panetta didn't know about this operation until recently, and immediately ordered it's termination upon finding out about it. He also immediately informed Congress of the operation's existence. Also, a CIA report was unclassified that tells that President Bush personally authorized warrantless wiretapping. Not only this, but to get approval, he skipped getting Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off, because Ashcroft was in the hospital recovering from surgery. OK, lets check these out one-by-one. First, what ever happened to the balance of powers and Congressional oversight in the CIA? Did the Bush administration decide it would follow the rules only when it felt like it? When the CIA decides it is gonna do what it wants, without telling anyone, and the White House is OK with that, who is to stop them from doing something illegal? This also vindicates House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who received criticism from the right for claiming that CIA misled her. Sounds like she was telling the truth. And Panetta didn't really deny the allegations. He simply issued a statement stating that "it's not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress" Not exactly a scathing denial. We know it's not the CIA's policy, but policy and reality seem to have differed considerably over the last eight years. As for the connections to Bush-Cheney, this only confirms what many have suspected about the Bush Administration (and VP Cheney in particular) for a long time. It's really scary that even the CIA director didn't know about it. This ties in with the CIA failing to inform Congress of their acts. Apparently nobody knows what is going on in Langley. Except Dick Cheney. (Now that's a scary thought!) Finally, the fact that Bush was personally involved with the wiretapping is not a big shocker, at least to this observer. This is also very deja vu-like, considering the new Nixon Tapes, in which Nixon also personally authorizes wiretapping. Good example to follow. This could be a big blow to the former administration if a federal prosecutor decides to pursue charges. Regardless, many conservatives will argue that the the former president had every right to do things like this, considering the war on terror. No, you are wrong. The president never has the right to do these things. This undermines our laws and the Constitution. If Republicans love the Constitution as much as they say, they will stop trying to rip it to shreds over anything that concerns national security. Follow the laws. That is what they are there for.

Well, time to wrap this up. As a parting note, two quick, ridiculous stories. Governor Rick Perry of Texas (he of secessionist fame) has nominated as his new secretary of education someone who in the past said that public education was unconstitutional and communistic. Good job, Gov. Perry, you are making everyone proud. In your new nation that you want to form, will all education be outlawed? Can we just give this guy a patch of land somewhere far away to call his own, so we can get him out of our hair? Also, goodbye to Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois. The embattled senator, appointed by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich, has announced he will not pursue re-election. Thank God.

Coming Monday, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am looking forward to it, and personally, I have no doubt she will be confirmed easily, making Monday a mere formality. More on this subject sometime in the next few days. Also, I may delve into the Republican sex scandals and the mysterious religious tying Ensign and Sanford together. If I can figure it out. Very shady, very interesting.

Thank you for sticking with me through this long-winded post; I promise they won't all be this long, this weekend was just one of those times. I'll be back within the next few days!