7th Hour Symposium
For those of you who were absent or didn't get the opportunity to have your voice heard, feel free to post your thoughts. I am going to allow you to ask a question or two but then I would also like you to respond to other people's questions as well. I will accept comments through 3:03 PM on January 4th.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 10:26 AM
28 comments
28 Comments:
Do you think that two different clauses (the establishment clause- that says congress shall make no law respecting religion, and the free exercise clause- that prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion) should both exist because they can often contradict eachother? Why do you think they should or shouldn't exist together?
Do you believe that the media should be able to do extensive coverage of celebrities during their trials even though the media can have the ability sway the jurors opinions?
Question 1:
The internment camps during the WWII era were upheld in federal court as being constitutional. Asians are now the fastest growing minority group in the U.S., but has the nation ever expressed an apology or actively shown forgiveness to those who were encamped as well as there descendants? Should the Supreme Court be responsible for enacting more affirmative action?
Question 2:
Why is there still no amendment or addition to the Constitution regarding our nationally given right to privacy? Is being implied in the Bill of Rights enough to have it remain secure in the future. Should it not be expressly incorporated into the living document? Why or why not?
Answer to Ashley's first post:
The two clauses should exist as they are already because the instances where they contradict each other are seldom, and both a needed for different situations. Sometimes they are both needed in a situation and if one does not exist than what is to stop the government from becoming religiously oppressive and/or public facilities mandating prayer or religious practice. These clauses have shown successful in bettering the nation in the past (i.e. Lemon vs. Kurtzman and Engel vs. Vitale) therefore they should remain as they are in case future incidences arise that can only be put down under these clauses.
Answer to Ashley's second post:
Media involvement should not be able to cover as much of celebrity trials as they do now. Even non-celebrity trials should be kept in complete privacy from the country as the jurors can be swayed, the judges can be swayed, and the country can receive incorrect information about the trials. The media should only be responsible for informing the country that the trial is happening, what the basis is of the trial, and then stay out of it until the final verdict is reached. Everyone involved in televised trials is at risk for threats from throughout the country and the safety of jurors and judges is at risk when the media is showing things out of context. Supreme court cases are never extensively covered by media and therefore neither should lower federal court cases be as attached to the television/newspaper media as they are already.
In response to Gunner's first question, in 1968, nearly two dozen years after the camps were closed, the government began reparations to Japanese Americans for property they had lost.Then in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees—60,000 in all. This does not mean that the individuals that were interned have been repayed, but this is evidence that the U.S. government tried to show remorse. Affirmative action is a tricky situation since some critics may argue that showing the practice is showing favortism to a particular over other groups and giving the rest a disadvantage. The practice seems kind of like reverse discrimination. Using race as a deciding factor in such areas as college admissions was touched on in the Supremem Court case of Retents of the University of California vs. Bakke. They ruled that it was unconstitutional to intentionally discriminate against the races that had been the biased ones before. If this ruling is followed, then the Supreme Court shouldn't enact affirmative action. Although the ruling in Grutter vs. Bolinger in 2003 seems to contradict this, affirmative action, in my opinion, doesn't solve the problem of past aggressions. It merely makes groups feel entitled when all citizens should feel like they are on the same level rather than feeling like they are owed something.
In response to Gunner's second question, the right to privacy isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. It is implicitly declared in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments though. For example, the Ninth Amendment states, " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." While not explicitly said, I believe that these amendments are enough to secure our right to privacy without a need to add another amendment.
My first question is about the Supreme Court case of Grutter vs. Bolinger. Writing for the Court, Sandra Day O’Connor found that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest to promote class diversity that justified a series of racial preferences. While not expressly overturning the Court’s rejection of racial quotas in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Grutter did give affirmative action supporters a pretty clear road map to evade Bakke and continue to discriminate among prospective students based on the color of their skin. What do you think of this ruling? Is it fair?
My other question is about the Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London. This case saw the Court extend the government ability to seize private property under eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. City of New London argued that by condemning a number of privately held lots and transferring them to the New London Development Corporation, the city would be better off an be able to collect much more in property taxes. The public saw the Court’s decision in favor of New London as upholding the government’s right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it. This also seems like a questionable decision. What do you think?
~Sarah Leichty
Carol Hickman:
Question 1: In the event that a supreme court justice would do something to warrant their removal from the court, what process would they have to go through to be removed?
Answer to Ashley's second post:
I don't think the media should be allowed to extensively cover celebrities trials because of the threat of swaying the jurors opinions. If the media really does have the power to influence people's beliefs, which it seems to considering how much trends are influenced by the media, they they should not be allowed to influence court cases so much. I also think that having so much media coverage would cause a lot more stress for those involved in court cases.
That brings up another question: I know the first amendment pretty much allows for free speech on any topic assuming that it doesn't cause physical harm to others and it is not obscene. Should free speech be allowed if it is offensive to a large group of people? What benefits are there to allowing any group to say whatever they want even if it is offensive another group?
In response to Sarah's question about eminent domain: I think that the government should not have such an easy time taking private property under eminent domain. It makes sense for the government to take land that has seen better days and turn it into something useful. Yet it doesn't seem right that the government can just take private land from one owner and switch it over to another private owner. In the case of Kelo vs. New London (as far as I understand) the land was turned over to a private developer that was supposed to turn the land into an area to be used by the public (I also understand that this developer ended up not going through with his plan and the land was a dump for a time) in which case, this decision seemed like the right one. If the land truly is going from not being beneficial, to benefiting a community, then this decision should stand. However, Sandra Day O'Connor argued an interesting point that if the decision from Kelo v. New London stands, it might support future cases where the government takes land that in turn is not used to benefit a large group of people. She worried that this might open the door to rich corporations taking land from the poor to use in ways that would not benefit the initial owners of the land. So in that sense, it is definitely controversial. I read that many states have set up laws in response to this decision to prevent state governments from taking private land so easily.
~Carol Hickman
In response to Sarah's second question, this was indeed a very questionable decision. With the Court's interpretation of "public use", it opens the door to the government taking what it wants to solely increase revenue. As stated by Justice Clarence Thomas, "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not". If the Court believes that "public use" in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause can be used to collect property taxes, that contradicts the original intent of eminent domain; to protect the property of the individuals from the power-hungry government, which happened here in Kelo vs. New London.
My first question is in regards to the decision made in Bush vs. Gore. In this case, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was very tight. W. Bush had 246 electoral votes, Gore had 255. Whoever won Florida would win the presidency, as you need 270 electoral votes to be president. After the first count, Bush lead Gore by 1,784 votes, which prompted an automatic recount. After the recount, Bush lead Gore by only 327 votes, which, Gore demanded a second recount, laid out under Florida law. After this Bush's lead dwindled to 154 votes, as was diminishing by the day. Now due to federal law, in order to congressionally challenge the representatives appointed to Florida's electoral college, the states votes had to be in before December 12th. However, many states had missed this deadline before, with no consequences whatsoever. In the Supreme Court case Bush vs. Gore, the Court decided 5-4 that the December 12th deadline was final, even though the recount would drag on for much longer than that, which might have turned Florida from Bush to Gore. The public cried foul for many reasons, including the December 9th Supreme Court injunction on the recount, as well as the two of the Justices ties to Bush: Antonin Scalia, who had two of his sons working at the firm representing Bush and Sandra Day O'Connor, who was close to retiring and didn't want a Democratic Justice taking her place. By the Supreme Courts ruling, the recount wasn't finished and Bush held on to his narrow 154 popular vote lead over Gore in Florida, and became president. Was this hasty 2 day decision fair? What do you think?
Unlike other branches of the government, the judicial branch enjoys the benefit of a tenure "for life". In this case (as we all know) they don't have to worry about being re-elected after a few years. What reasons did the framers have for establishing this in Article III of the constitution?
~Carol Hickman
In response to Carol's second question about free speech, I would say that the quality of the speech should be what is taken into consideration not the quantity it affects. She asked if free speech should be allowed if it is offensive to a large group of people and I would say yes because the first amendment does not say anything about how many people can be affected by the speech some consider distasteful before action needs to be taken against it. I believe it is their right to say wha they want even the a group may disagree with it as long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others and it is not obscene. The benefit to having a group say whatever they want even if it is offensive another group is that they want to get their point across and so does the other group. If no group was bold and said what they believe despite it being unpopular with others there would be minimal opinions that people could have. I believe as long as it is not violent or totally obscene a group should be able to declare whatever they believe.
In response to Carol's third question about the tenure of the Judicial branch I believe that the framers established the tenure in Article III of the constitution for a few reasons. I believe that the judicial leaders were guarenteed their spots "for life" because they wanted presidents' who had served and had personally picked members to serve on the judicial branch to carry on with the president's legacy. The presidents' go to the state senators of their party and ask them for trustworthy and hard working candidates for the position of a supreme court judge and that shows that the president puts in time and effort selecting people for the judiciary branch and I believe the framers wanted the president's time and effort to live on even after he had moved on from the white house. Another reason I believe that the judicial branch is given tenure "for life" is so judges in the supreme court are more aquainted with the system as they spend more time there and it is then easier for them to know the history of past cases to help them with the current and future ones. The judges then also know over time more readily, where they stand on particular issues and how to interperate the different circumstances. I believe the framers thought ahead to what the benefits could be of having a judiciary leader have a tenure "for life".
In response to Carol's question over the tenure in federal judiciary, I believe that the framers were well minded in saying "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...." However, I don't think they quite envisioned a world where medical technology can keep a person alive long past their prime. Not to say that the justices in the courts aren't competent, but there are hundreds of studies that show declines in mental and physical performance with advancing age.
~Bryce Fenlon
Question 1:
In 2000, George Bush and Al Gore ran against one other for Presidency. As well know, the winner of the two was decided by whom ever won the state of Florida. With this said, according to the polls Bush had won by 537 popular votes in Florida. However the closeness of the race merited a re-count according to Florida law. But the U.S. Supreme Court immediately ordered these recounts halted the following day, declaring that counting certain ballots by different methods than others violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. But this year there were some computers that crashed during the elections, forcing some polling stations to count ballots by hand. Should the Supreme Court be allowed to decide the method in which you count votes? If so, shouldn't they remain consistent?
-Ahmed Ahmed
Question 2:
On January 21, 2010, the infamous Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was decided. The Supreme Court upheld the right of Corporations to fund political campaigns because they argued that the 1st Amendment protects that right. However, these corporations truly influence our candidates in a major way because if they don't do as the corporations ask then they won't get the donation. This in turn is putting the corporations interests and opinions over ours. Should the Supreme Court have ruled different? Should there at least be a limit placed on how much you can donate to a candidate to keep it fair?
-Ahmed Ahmed
Response to Ashley's 2nd question:
I feel the media should be able to do extensive coverage on celebrity trials because it is their right. I am not an advocate of limiting what people can do and I don't think the Supreme Court is either because the Constitution for the most part does not allow that. We work hard to keep our jurors honest and not influenced by the public. So I believe media should be able to continue as they please. They have that right.
-Ahmed Ahmed
Response to Carol's 3rd question:
Federal Judges are appointed for life to insulate them from popular opinion. They are never up for "re-election" and therefore do not have to concern themselves with serving the majority. This is one of the ways that the Constitution protects the rights of minorities. If supreme court justices had term limits, it might bias their rulings based on reelection. With a lifetime appointment, they can vote their conscience without fear of re-election. It also keeps the composition of the court fairly stable, so that a string of Democratic presidents wouldn't necessarily mean a completely liberal court, or a string of Republican presidents wouldn't necessarily mean a completely conservative court.
-Ahmed Ahmed
In response to Carol:
Federalist Paper No. 78 talks about the Judicial Branch and it's power compared to the others. It calls it the weakest of the bunch because officials strictly upheld the word of the Constitution; therefore, individual ideologies did not come into effect. Fed 78 also wanted the Judicial Branch to be independent of the others. Their life sentences are there so they can do their business with no threat of losing their jobs. If they had limits they could be easily thrown out of government, and the thought of that would influence their decisions and they would no longer be impartial and independent. The judicial branch doesn't have to worry about reflecting public opinion.
Can you think of any situation in which granting the states sole power to interpret federal laws would have been disastrous? What if Southern states had been free to interpret for themselves the terms of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Why did the framers of the Articles of Confederation not create a federal judiciary?
In reference to Carol's comment-doesn't Congress need a 2/3 vote to remove a judge?
Also, some judges have urged for unanimous votes (Earl Warren- Brown vs. Board of Education) but as of late, more votes have been split 5-4. Despite the fact that judges are supposed to be unbiased toward rulings, how do you think politics influences today's Supreme Court? If it does, at all.
Answer to Brandon's question:
That is difficult to call, however I think I side with the Supreme Court, simply because they have to stick to the deadlines previously set (particularly around election time)or else in future elections it could be seen as an excuse for multiple recounts. It may not have been fair, but it's understandable why the Supreme Court ruled they way they did.
Response to Ahmed's 2nd Q: This goes back to what we discussed in class-does a corporation speak for the whole of their business, or just for the higher-ups? Because then technically, they represent a group of people, who are granted that right by the 1st Amendment. I do believe there should be a limit to how much they can donate, but how would that be determined?
In response to Ashley's very first question about the duel existence of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I believe that both need to be in existence for all "bases" to be covered when it comes to protecting religion. The free exercise clause helps protect the actual practice of a religion, while the establishment clause force the government shall make no law respecting religion. The establishment clause makes no attempt at the actual practice of a certain religion.
Nate Johnson
In response to Ashley's question on whether or not the media should be able to do extensive coverage on celebrities during trials, I think that media should not be allowed to do any kind of reporting during trials because the information reported is usually inaccurate or completely false. This is bad because then the way everyone in the country understands the case is altered.
What do you guys think about the Supreme Court's ability to overturn and refine past rulings, to make it applicable to today's world and the cases they deal with?
Should the Supreme Court be televised?
When is it right for justices to use judicial activism?
Regarding Wesley's question about judicial activism: judicial activism is more influenced by public opinion, so whenever there is an issue that is being fiercely debated by the public the Supreme Court can see it as their own mandate to make a decision. For example, in 1954 the Court made their ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. In the years leading up to this case, racial segregation was a controversial topic, and one that divided the public. In their ruling, they created an opportunity for change and equality and served the public more fairly.
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas was recently sent to the Supreme Court regarding affirmative action. Fisher's side argues that race should not be a factor in admissions because it denies her equal protection under the 14th amendment. The U of T however, cites the SC case Grutter v. Bollinger which says race can be accounted for in the admissions process. There are three rulings that could result from this case:
1) Fisher has no grounds to sue
2) Affirmative action can be upheld
3) Institutions can't admit based on race if they already have a diverse student body
4) Grutter v. Bollinger is overruled
--Based on the Constitution, how would you rule?
In response to Wesley's question about televising the Supreme Court,
It would be interesting for the public, but that might be all televising the Court would have to offer: entertainment. People may find security in knowing how their justice system works, but there are reasons it should not be televised. Because there are often controversial topics presented to the Court, the public could get (too) emotionally involved and the security of judges could be threatened.
In response to Ahmed's question about Citizens United v. FEC:
there should be a limit placed on how much corporations can donate. The influence of unlimited donations reminds me of the iron triangle. The interest groups/voters contributions are rivaled by the contributions of the corporations. As a result, the new party in power (whether it's in Congress or as president) has to represent their constituents. The new president will be worried about keeping his strongest constituents - the corporations - happy, and the voters will be pushed aside. Letting corporations throw all the money they want at campaigns upsets the balance of a system similar to the iron triangle.
Regarding the Supreme Court's decision making, do you think there is a good balance between being influenced by public opinion and being insulated from public opinion?
Post a Comment
<< Home