Goodbye, Justice Stevens

Undoubtedly, one of the most talked about topics in the world of politics at this point in time is the retirement of Justice Stevens.

Often times, the general public has very little knowledge concerning the Supreme Court, and thus do not know who is exactly making these judgements that effect our nation. Justice Stevens is one of the longest serving supreme court justice’s in history, having served since 1975, when President Ford placed him on the bench. Since that time, Justice Stevens has made many landmark decisions, often writing opinions for these cases. Some of the important ones decided during his time on the bench:

Hamdan v. Rumsfield: In this decision, Justice Stevens wrote the decision which struck down the military commissions that were set up by the Bush Administration to try the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, as they violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions

Atkins v. Virginia: Justice Stevens wrote the the landmark decision which stated that it is unconstitutional the put mentally retarded criminals to death, due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the Eighth Amendment

Bush v. Gore: In this case, Justice Stevens did not write an opinion, but rather a very strong dissent. In his dissent, he chastised the majority of the Court for undermining the state judges’ abilities to make impartial decisions about the recount in Florida.

Most recently, Justice Stevens read his 90-page dissent in Citizens United v. FEC just this year, showing his strong disapproval for the opinion reached by the majority.

All in all, Justice Stevens has had a remarkable period on the bench, and it will be incredibly sad to see him leave the bench.

I Was In Indy At The Wrong Time.

This is going to be a rather unconventional post, so I apologize first.

This past weekend, I spent 3 days in Indianapolis for the Midwest Model European Conference. It is exactly how it sounds – it is a model EU. Our schools were divided into delegations – the countries we would represent. Ball State had two delegations: The Netherlands and Sweden. Within the delegation, I was playing Jan Balkenende – the Prime Minister from the Netherlands. This was an interesting role for me to play, because to be frank: I had no idea what I was doing there.

The heads of state from each delegation meet as the European Council. This is the body that proposes legislation, but does not make it. Instead, there are discussion topics that all members [attempt] to reach consensus on. I can honestly say after sitting in no fewer than 8 hours of these sessions that people have no clue what they are talking about. They’re supposed to be representing the views of the countries they are representing: they are not supposed to put their on views into it at all.

This became highly apparent when a directive from the Commission came through while we were have a plenary session with our Foreign Ministers. This directive called for ALL [without exception] European member states to take in prisoners from Guantanamo Bay once it was closed. This directive also had numerous points to go along with it, stating that once the member state took in the prisoner, the nation was to try and charge them with crimes. However, in this directive, it even stated that the United States had not been able to find any evidence to try them. So… why would another European state do this? It’s beating a dead horse.

That was what I had to deal with in the conference.

A lot of time is spent socializing with your delegates outside the conference, so often we would walk to downtown Indianapolis to catch dinner or go to the bar. In order for us to go downtown, we had to walk by the state Capitol building. At first, we noticed there were a lot of people walking back from the direction of the Capitol. After further investigation, we found they were members of the Tea Party and they had been picketing all afternoon. They held up signs that said “Palin ’12,” the ubiquitous “Don’t Tread On Me,” and my favorite “FREDOM LOST IS FOREVER LOST” (yes, that is how they spelled freedom). Being such a strong liberal, I must say I was rather uncomfortable. I wanted nothing more than to stop and question them to find where they are getting the information they spew, but I refrained. I wouldn’t want to cause a scene.

The next day was my favorite though: they were back, but this time with rifles strapped to their backs. I’m sorry, I appreciate the fact you have freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but is strapping a rifle to your back while at a protest in downtown Indianpolis at the State Capitol necessary? If that protest became hostile, I would not want to be downtown at that point for fear of being shot – and I know I would since I have an Obama pin on my bag I was carrying.

I guess the point of this blog was to show what I had to deal with this weekend: stupidity. Stupidity in politics. I know it’s rather unconventional, but I will post another one in relation to a news article later this afternoon.

The Forgotten Branch Of The Government

In the media, we often hear about the Executive and Legislative branches – especially since we have Obama in office and Health Care reform passed.

So it’s not often at all that we hear about the Judicial branch. There haven’t been any remarkably controversial or huge supreme court cases on the docket, so the news around them have been rather slow. Honestly, the last time there was any significant coverage on the Supreme Court was when Sotomayor was appointed to the bench.

While there isn’t any significant news going on right now, a story caught my attention on the Huffington Post.

Justice Stevens is currently 90 years old and plans on retiring during Obama’s term so he may appoint another liberal. I honestly had not thought about that initially, but it makes sense. Most hard-hitting cases that set a very strong course of precedence are normally split 5-4. As it stands, there are currently 4 liberals sitting on the Supreme Court – with Justice Kennedy deciding the vote (being a moderate).

I’m sure that when Justice Stevens retires, there will be much criticism from those (Republicans – I’m assuming) who feel that this is not correct protocol. Anything that happens in this administration is criticized, despite the fact that the same thing has happened in every administration prior to this.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with it – I think it is the only way to do it. If you want to have things put through and set into law, there needs to be justices that will support your decisions. It would make no sense if you were a Liberal president who appoints a Republican – that is completely defeating the purpose.

We’ll see though when Justice Stevens retires and who will be picked. The Huffington Post article goes through a few possibles, with Elena Kegan (Solicitor General of the US) being the frontrunner. Only time will tell, but I suspect it will be rather soon.

In my POLS 444 class (Constitutional Liberties), we have been studying cases pertaining to the rights of criminals. Just this past week, we have covered the Exclusionary Rule and the rights we are guaranteed to protect us against self-incrimination.

In the process of all this, one of my classmates told us about the video ‘Don’t Talk To Cops.’

In it, James Duane, an instructor at Regent Law School, goes over 10 reasons why you should never, ever talk to cops. And he admits to everyone that he is proud of the 5th amendment, and he will never talk to cops.

Here is the video:

This video is seriously worth watching.

Deep in the heart of Texas…

Textbooks used in high schools and middle schools are of no concern to us any longer. We’re used to buying our own, which are dictated from our professors and are specific – covering mostly one topic. I know that I sometimes forget that textbooks in secondary schools are universal across the board – they cover multiple topics and are used in multiple schools.

 I read a recent article in the Huffington Post highlighting textbooks from the state of Texas and the new additions and subtractions that recently passed.

But an important piece of information first: the state of Texas is one of the largest markets for textbooks, so their regulations are used for all textbooks across the nation. So whatever Texas deems important enough to learn or disspell, the rest of the schools have to, as those are the textbooks that are offered.

Because of this fact, I find the recent curriculum change passed by the Texas Board of Education a bit …terrifying? And could possibly put up a good fight in the Supreme Court if anyone decides to challenge it… In my opinion, I think it has a bit too much of religious undertones…

Everyone knows that Texas is a rather Conservative state where Christian values run deep. But I don’t think that it should be taught universally. I guess I’m just a firm believer in the separation of Church and State.

I do understand that our Supreme Court and ultimately our law has an accomidationist view – there is no strict iron curtain between church and state, but rather they work together. I also know that in the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, new precedents were put forth to decide whether the act or law were in violation of the First Amendment (“…Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”). This precedent, known as the Lemon test, has three prongs to decide whether it is in violation:
1. Does it have secular purpose?
2. It must not have the primary effect to either advance of inhibit religion and
3. It must not have “excessive government entanglement”

So I’m not quite sure where to sit about this new Texas curriculum. Some highlights are fine, whereas others are pushing it just a bit far. Here are some of the new additions and subtractions:
-Thomas Jefferson has been removed from the curriculum and replaced by John Calvin (religious right icon)
-The Board (which passed this new curriculum) refused to require students to learn that the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another
-The government will be regarded as a “Constitutional Republic” rather than a democracy
-Students will be required to study the decline of the US Dollar

I’m just not sure where to stand on this issue. It’ll be interesting to see if this passes and whether or not it will be  any time soon.

Lady Gaga will save Haiti!

Lately, it seems that all has been covered on the media spectrum has been coverage of natural disasters.  With weeks of news about Haiti, there was never a moment in which we didn’t hear about it from either the internet, television, newspapers, or even radio. Thousands of pictures flooded in of the disaster, stories about agencies going to help those who have been effected by it, millions of dollars sent in by American civilians, and even governmental money for aid.

Just this past week, a massive earthquake struck in Chile, leaving hundreds (that are known) dead and millions without homes. Already, there has been a call out for aid. And who better than to help out than celebrities.

I was catching up on my Daily Beast, when I came across this article. I think celebrities helping out is magnificent – it’s a high-traffic name that brings in revenue. People listen to celebrities.

However, I have some mixed feelings. Auctions are a great way to bring in money – but why aren’t the celebrities really giving anything? We hear about them auctioning off their clothes, pianos, shoes, autographs, etc. But we don’t see big articles saying “_______________ donates $500,000 to Haiti Relief.” Instead, they donate a piano so people can buy it and then they give a portion to charity.

I just think it’s a tad bit selfish and even confusing. But I’m sure we’ll see an influx of auctions and celebrity debacles for both Haiti and Chile coming soon. Let’s see what we can buy this time.

Let the sun shine in.

I swear this has some political undertones in a minute, but please bear with me for just a little bit.

I am a theatre nerd. The majority of my iTunes is show tunes – this I confess. I have seen more shows than I can count, I have BEEN in more shows than I can count I follow Broadway news religiously, I can break into any random song for a multitude from shows (even if I haven’t seen them), and I can argue with you if you decide to fight with me.

The latter situation recently happened. While discussing Hair the Musical, I was told that “it’s not relevant to today’s society – so it shouldn’t be on Broadway today.” I was completely taken aback by this.  Hair is not relevant to today’s society? What are these people thinking? I know that a lot of people don’t give two thoughts to Broadway shows, so here is a brief synopsis of Hair:

It takes place in Greenwich Village – 1968. It focuses around Claude Bukowski – a young boy from Oklahoma who comes to NYC to live with a tribe of Hippies (run by Berger). Berger falls in love with Sheila, a political activist from NYU. Claude is all happy go lucky for 70% of the musical until he is drafted to go to Vietnam.

I’m not going to go much further into that, but that’s the general story line. It may not seem like it is relevant to today’s society from that little plot summary – but if you dive into the show, it is so much more than that.

The entire time, these young people are protesting and displaying their political activism – that’s what the entire show is based around. Burning your draft card, picketing the induction center for the Army, trying to convince Claude to not go to Vietnam, telling others about the horrors of Vietnam.

How is this not relevant to today’s society, when we’re currently occupying a nation that wasn’t even the original target? Didn’t W. say that we were going to Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden in response to September 11th? And then he turned around and said “btw guys… Iraq has WMD!” So we go look for them and – GASP! – there weren’t any to even begin with! Now we’re in the middle east, trying to push Democracy onto a country that doesn’t even really want it, while our soldiers are being hurt (and killed) for this pointless war? /end soapbox

Going back to my original point- Hair is incredibly relevant to today’s society. That’s why they brought it back onto Broadway for a revival – they need to show it to a new generation. Look at any of the songs from the show… the message is incredibly clear – the lyrics just scream opposition and political activism.

The song Three-Five-Zero-Zero shows the horror of war, Don’t Put It Down shows how some people are literally fanatical and crazy about the American flag, Hare Krishna is an homage to the peace movement and protesting, and Let The Sun Shine In is a call to make the world a better place.

If that’s not relevant to today, I don’t know what is.

Really, Sarah Palin?

So, I religiously read the Huffington Post, when I stumbled upon quite an interesting article…

Lately, there has been a lot of hype about the world ending in 2012. I’m one of those people that shoot down the accusations – we are not going to have an apocalypse in 2012. The Mayans had to die at some point – they couldn’t continue writing a calendar to go on forever.

But… I may be a bit more hesitant to shoot those theories down now that Sarah Palin is considering running for the presidency in 2012. The world may very well end if she follows through. I’d actually rather burn up from a large meteor than see her as President. But I digress…

We know that Sarah Palin says some things that are questionable. There is no dispute over this from both sides. The woman has a brain – she knows what is right and wrong. But I think she may have lost it…

If you’re going to be upset with someone using the ‘r’ word, then you should be angry with everyone using it. You can’t make an exception just for Rush Limbaugh. Also, I think the reasoning that he “was using it for satire” is completely asinine. There is no difference between how Rush Limbaugh used that word and Rahm Emanuel – they’re both referring to the exact same thing.

I think this may be an all time low for her. Just sayin’.

You betcha!

Sieg What?

I understand that people are going to disapprove of any political leader that comes forth in our country. I really do understand this. It’s natural and totally fine – I honestly would be really scared if 100% of the American population agreed with President Obama. Plus, what fun is that? You wouldn’t have anyone to argue with…

But I am sick of everyone comparing people to Hitler. Honestly – the Hitler Complex needs to stop. No matter how much people attempt it, Obama does not equal Hitler. Gordon Brown does not equal Hitler. Even Sarah Palin does not equal Hitler. The only person who you could compare to Hitler was Hitler.

So why do we, and by ‘we’ I mean citizens of the United States, find it pertinent to compare someone we dislike to Hitler in order to prove a strong point? I know that we’ve all heard it – it’s everywhere. If we don’t agree with anyone, we find ourselves saying “S0-and-so is Hitler!” or I know I’ve heard my favorite “America is turning into Nazi Germany. We’re already run by Hitler!”

Really? Is that necessary?

What message is that showing everyone about us? It’s definitely not a good one, that’s for sure.

For example, check out this video:

Now, we all know there has been heated health care debates going on since Obama was inaugurated into office. However, how is it a legitimate argument to state that the proposed health care policies are even somewhat tied to Nazi policies? There is no comparison by any standards.

Honestly, what these messages are sending out are that people are simply uneducated. With all do respect, I don’t mean for that to come across as being offensive – but it really is uneducated statements. Read about the policies of Nazi Germany. Read what Adolf Hitler stood for – it’s all laid out in his manifesto.

Basically – I just wish people would read before making some comments. If you have read and can legitimately back up your beliefs with facts and reasoning – that’s completely fine. I applaud you and will not stop you from having your opinion. But seriously – all I can say is just read.

Proposition H8?

There is no doubt that the Proposition 8 trial that is forthcoming is going to be one of the largest fights our generation will witness.

We’re the generation that has watched States allow gay couples to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Then, not too long after, we watched Proposition 8 pass in California, which took away the rights of the same-sex couples that were just recently given rights. Now, we’re about to watch a massive fight take place in the Federal court system, hoping to overturn Proposition 8 for the fact that it is unconstitutional.

This fight that is about to take place is all over the media. Turn on any news channel or flip open any magazine and I’m sure that you will find one thing mentioning this upcoming trial. Some of the coverage has just been completely ridiculous. So much so, I find myself completely ignoring these articles or news stories, just because what is being said is so off the wall.

My friend recently told me about an article she read in Newsweek, written by Ted Olson (an incredibly prominent and active Conservative who has formerly worked for both the Reagan and Bush II administrations), who highlights why he believes same-sex marriage is an American value.

To put it simply: this article is AWESOME. He leaves absolutely nothing behind and lays everything out there right on the page.

One of my favorite points that he mentions (and that I have argued with my incredibly Conservative family about for months) is how can the Conservatives of America have such adverse feelings to same-sex marriage within the United States? It upholds all the values that Conservatives cherish.

Today’s society is not one of marriage. Yes, people still get married, but not as frequently as they once did. And if they happen to make it all the way to the altar, chances are they will end up in divorce. It’s a sad statistic, but true. But think about it – how many same-sex marriages will end up like this?

Since same-sex marriages haven’t been legal long enough, there are not statistics just yet that prove any definitive point. So I’m basing this solely off of my opinion and my own observations. But – these same-sex couples that are wishing to get married have most likely been together for quite a long time. Most likely, they have been together longer than most couples that are wishing to get married. Why? Because they are not given the right to do so legally. Therefore, they have to endure more so the bonds between them are stronger than most other relationships. So, if given the right to marriage, it’s not like they’re going to divorce within 2 months like many others. It just doesn’t make sense with some of the arguments against this, but that also goes back to my previous post.

How could we deny this?

I could go on endlessly about what else he covers in this article, but that would just be reciting everything else that is said.

What is everyone else’s thoughts on the article?