Elena Kagan was officially confirmed as the 4th woman in history to the United States Supreme Court. In a 63-37 vote, the Senate confirmed Kagan as the 112th Justice to the highest court in the nation. President Obama was quoted saying, the vote was “an affirmation of her character and her temperament; her open-mindedness and evenhandedness; her determination to hear all sides of every story and consider all possible arguments.”
These descriptions of Elena Kagan may be true, however, I am completely baffled at how a person who has no experience as a judge is appointed to the highest court in the nation. How are we to know how she will decide cases? Even Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass) stated his reason for opposing Kagan's confirmation was a lack of judicial experience.
If you consider the most recent appointments to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor served as a judge to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York for 6 years and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 9 years. Justice Samuel Alito served as a Circuit Judge to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1990-2006. Chief Justice John Roberts served as a Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for 2 years. Justice Stephen Breyer served as Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1990-1994 and a Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1980 to 1990. Each of the justices currently serving on the Supreme Court has had a record of rulings. A record that we as a individuals can look at and say to our representatives, “this is the best candidate, please vote for this person” or “no way is this the best person for the job, please do not vote yes for this person.”
Elena Kagan's biography does not include any time served as a judge for any court. Her biography is as follows: Solicitor General of the United States (2009-2010), Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), Professor, Harvard Law School (2001-2003), Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (1999-2001), Associate White House Counsel (1995-1999), Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1995-1999), Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1995), Associate Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-1995). It seems to me she has spent too much time in the classroom and not enough time in the real world. It is one thing to know and understand the law, but it is another to have to interpret the law as it applies to new cases everyday and make judicial decisions based on the day to day litigation that takes place. I will be very interested to see what happens with this confirmation. Will Kagan keep to her liberal views or will she decide cases with a very open and unbiased mind? Your guess is as good as mine, since she has no record of past rulings.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Blog Stage 6 assignment
I agree with you completely on this subject. I had not realized that the Republicans nor the Democrats have proposed any legislation on the issue. I am not surprised that Obama has not come through on a campaign promise. Aside from his socialist health care reform, he's not come through on anything thus far in his presidency.
You are completely spot on... If the greater part of the immigration issue was coming from the Canadian border we would not be having this conversation. I think this is a very racially motivated issue.
I think Arizona has taken things into their own hands for the very reasons you have laid out. It is unfortunate, however, that the Arizona law will probably be shot down by the Supreme Court.
You have a very well written article with points drawn on both sides of the issue. Thanks for sharing.
You are completely spot on... If the greater part of the immigration issue was coming from the Canadian border we would not be having this conversation. I think this is a very racially motivated issue.
I think Arizona has taken things into their own hands for the very reasons you have laid out. It is unfortunate, however, that the Arizona law will probably be shot down by the Supreme Court.
You have a very well written article with points drawn on both sides of the issue. Thanks for sharing.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Immigration is the issue of the day
I think the big news in our world today is the immigration issue this great nation has. I've heard both sides of it, “send them back” or “let them stay”. Most of the time these arguments between the two sides are heated, confrontational and rarely is any valid point heard. So lets try to listen to the facts of the issue.
Is it the federal government's job to keep the borders secure. If Canada decided one day to send it's army over the border and attack our nation, whose job is it to stop the invading army? The United States military would stop the invasion. The state, county and city governments would stand proudly along side and fight. The American spirit would not allow failure. I understand immigrants are not an organized invading army. I understand there are those who wish to pursue a better life, and I applaud them for it. I believe those who really want to achieve the “American Dream” will. I believe those that come to this country through the proper channels should be afforded every opportunity to gain citizenship, but that is not reality. The reality is, there are millions of undocumented immigrants who are in this country and many more trying to get into this country everyday. It is considered a crime, a federal felony, to enter this country illegally. It is our federal government's responsibility to follow through with the laws we have created. Just like many of the original immigrants from Europe stood in long lines to enter this country through proper means, so should the immigrants of today.
Today so many immigrants, the majority of which come from Mexico, are being afforded free health care at the expense of the American tax payers. I, for one, have no problem affording this luxury to immigrants who come into this country legally. When our country is already in debt, mostly due to the war in the middle east, why should we elevate the debt even more with the strain of health care for individuals who are not even citizens of this great United States.
Is it the federal government's job to keep the borders secure. If Canada decided one day to send it's army over the border and attack our nation, whose job is it to stop the invading army? The United States military would stop the invasion. The state, county and city governments would stand proudly along side and fight. The American spirit would not allow failure. I understand immigrants are not an organized invading army. I understand there are those who wish to pursue a better life, and I applaud them for it. I believe those who really want to achieve the “American Dream” will. I believe those that come to this country through the proper channels should be afforded every opportunity to gain citizenship, but that is not reality. The reality is, there are millions of undocumented immigrants who are in this country and many more trying to get into this country everyday. It is considered a crime, a federal felony, to enter this country illegally. It is our federal government's responsibility to follow through with the laws we have created. Just like many of the original immigrants from Europe stood in long lines to enter this country through proper means, so should the immigrants of today.
Today so many immigrants, the majority of which come from Mexico, are being afforded free health care at the expense of the American tax payers. I, for one, have no problem affording this luxury to immigrants who come into this country legally. When our country is already in debt, mostly due to the war in the middle east, why should we elevate the debt even more with the strain of health care for individuals who are not even citizens of this great United States.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tax Cuts Set to Expire
A blog posted on July 25, 2010 titled Coming Soon: The Biggest Tax Increase Ever is an eye opening post. The article covers the upcoming Tax Increase due to the Bush administration's tax cuts that are getting ready to expire soon. I for one had no idea that tax cuts put into place could have an expiration date. To sum it up, the Democrats are choosing to hide from this issue and are wanting to table the issue until after the November elections. Apparently that may be too little too late, since the tax cuts are due to expire January 1st, 2011. What the article fails to point out is some of the specifics of the tax increase.
The author, only known as John, makes his argument that the Democrats are expecting voters to be ignorant on the issue. However, the author does cite the Rasmussen poll that shows public interest is on the rise where taxes are concerned. The author goes on to quote the New York Times, who point out that this issue on tax increases could play a huge role in the November elections.
I'm glad that this blog, intended for the general American public, has brought to light the issue of the impending tax increase. However, I think this author has made only a subtle attempt at taking a definite position on the issue. I can only assume that he, like any other American, doesn't agree with any tax increase no matter how big or small. I agree with the author in that I would oppose a tax increase of any kind.
After reading this blog, I'm not quite sure if the author is making an argument against a tax increase or if he's trying to bring to light the democrats trying to avoid the issue. Check it out for yourself and decide...
The author, only known as John, makes his argument that the Democrats are expecting voters to be ignorant on the issue. However, the author does cite the Rasmussen poll that shows public interest is on the rise where taxes are concerned. The author goes on to quote the New York Times, who point out that this issue on tax increases could play a huge role in the November elections.
I'm glad that this blog, intended for the general American public, has brought to light the issue of the impending tax increase. However, I think this author has made only a subtle attempt at taking a definite position on the issue. I can only assume that he, like any other American, doesn't agree with any tax increase no matter how big or small. I agree with the author in that I would oppose a tax increase of any kind.
After reading this blog, I'm not quite sure if the author is making an argument against a tax increase or if he's trying to bring to light the democrats trying to avoid the issue. Check it out for yourself and decide...
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Immigration Article missed the mark
The editorial written on the Austin American Statesman website titled “We should make a federal case over immigration” puts forth a valid argument regarding American's position on the Obama administration's decision to sue the State of Arizona over their controversial immigration law. The author of this editorial piece is only known as the editorial board, but they have taken a stance in favor of the Obama administration and against American opposition of the suit.
While I agree with the author's stance on the issue, the editorial presents only a weak case on the issue. The article is clearly trying to sway the general public who may be on the other side of the fence with this issue, but only quotes President Obama a few times throughout the article and the results of a Gallup poll. The title of the article suggests the discussion of the federal suit against the State of Arizona regarding their controversial immigration law, however, the article only discusses the other states' interest in a similar law and suggests the necessity of immigration reform. The author does not provide enough details regarding the Arizona law, the implications or possible outcomes of the impending lawsuit. The conclusion of this article seems to be far from the original argument. At first read, the article seems to flow well, however, when trying to put forth the argument of American's position on the federal suit against the State of Arizona, the author did not provide enough evidence to make their case.
Sources:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/we-should-make-a-federal-case-over-immigration-805549.html
http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2010/07/21/opinion/letters/letter1.txt
While I agree with the author's stance on the issue, the editorial presents only a weak case on the issue. The article is clearly trying to sway the general public who may be on the other side of the fence with this issue, but only quotes President Obama a few times throughout the article and the results of a Gallup poll. The title of the article suggests the discussion of the federal suit against the State of Arizona regarding their controversial immigration law, however, the article only discusses the other states' interest in a similar law and suggests the necessity of immigration reform. The author does not provide enough details regarding the Arizona law, the implications or possible outcomes of the impending lawsuit. The conclusion of this article seems to be far from the original argument. At first read, the article seems to flow well, however, when trying to put forth the argument of American's position on the federal suit against the State of Arizona, the author did not provide enough evidence to make their case.
Sources:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/we-should-make-a-federal-case-over-immigration-805549.html
http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2010/07/21/opinion/letters/letter1.txt
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Austin American Statesman posted an article today regarding Vice-President Joe Biden's campaign finances during his run for the Presidency in 2008. During a recent audit, The Federal Election Commission fined the Vice-President over $200,000 for what they call "sloppy bookkeeping" and "excessive contributions". According to this recent audit the Vice-President received over $100,00 in donations, which exceed the limits. Also, the Federal Election Commission ordered that Biden pay $85,000 to the US Treasury for stale-dated checks. In addition, the Vice-President failed to disclose certain figures regarding payments and debts which were over $3 million in payments and over $800,000 in debts. Also, Biden accepted a deeply discounted rate for a round trip flight on a private jet. According to a spokeswoman for the Biden camp, the fines are normal after such an audit and that the amount is relatively small. She also said that the fines will be paid.
This is definitely a must read for all, because it brings to light the illegal and sly campaign financing of a very high elected official. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions as well. Like, how well did he and President Obama take care of their campaign finances as running mates? The Federal Election Commission has a very daunting task of keeping elected officials on the straight and narrow, however, how many of these elected officials are audited on a regular basis? It makes one wonder how many elected officials are receiving illegal contributions and getting away with it?
This is definitely a must read for all, because it brings to light the illegal and sly campaign financing of a very high elected official. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions as well. Like, how well did he and President Obama take care of their campaign finances as running mates? The Federal Election Commission has a very daunting task of keeping elected officials on the straight and narrow, however, how many of these elected officials are audited on a regular basis? It makes one wonder how many elected officials are receiving illegal contributions and getting away with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)