West Wing: The Supremes

Facts:

1. The president appoints judges to the supreme court.
2. There is a committee to help pass the judges.
3. Opposing parties are usually a roadblock in selecting new judges.
4. One example of an enumerated power is marriage.
5. Judges that are appointed are usually similar to the judges that are replacing.
6. A moderate judge is usually picked for the supreme court.
7. The right to choose to have an abortion was legalized in Roe vs. Wade.
8. Judges can be asked to retire so their seat can be filled with someone else.

Questions:

1. How long does the president usually spend searching for a new justice?
2. Do most justices serve for life, or decide to retire?
3. Would a president actually ever pick a judge from the opposite party?
4. Would it be a good thing if more liberals were introduced into the supreme court?
5. Can a judge be removed from the court?  

Federalist #78

Quotes

1. "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judge magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government." This is saying a reason why judges should serve for life, they know what goes on in the courtroom and are able to stay orderly and composed. If judges were up for election the rotation would cause disorganization in the courtroom constantly.
2. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather then by the ones which are not fundamental." This is telling you how much the judges resort to the Constitution for laws. It's the basis of everything and it is a key tool  that the judicial branch has as a power.
3. "And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." I like this because it says that alone the judiciary branch has no power to violate any citizens liberties, but in  combination with another branch everything could potentially be compromised, the judiciary power has more power then it appears to have.
4. "There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." This is saying that without a separate unbiased, branch of government protecting our liberties they would be compromised.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead if JUDGEMENT, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." This states that if the judges just began to do their own thing and not resort to the constitution which is the basis of the whole government then everything would fall apart. Judges need to put aside their personal feelings and decide what is or is not just based on the constitution. 

Questions

1. Before judicial review how was the judicial branch incorporated with checks and balances?
2. Theoretically, if congress approved a law that WAS constitutional, but the court disagreed with it because of possible negative consequences is there anything the court can do to stop the bill?
3. Do you think that the job of protecting civil rights falls solely under the judicial branch's responsibility? 
4. If Madison were alive today do you think he would change any aspects of the judiciary branch?
5. What does Madison believe to be the strongest branch in government?

Update on Congressman Pat Meehan

Recently Congressman Meehan has introduced a bill to amend the International Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowed as a deduction for start up expenditures. Also a bill for WMD intelligenceand Information Sharing Act of 2011

The Common Good

     Personally i believe that the goal of common good will never be achieved. Due to type of country we are in values change everyday, more and more people begin to speak up about what they value and the huge gap between those in poverty and those who are wealthy beyond belief will be a huge road block to achieving the common good. In order for it to happen Nations around the world would together have to prioritize what they think are the most important things whether it be education, health, or the environment is anyone's guess.
      Values between everyone are different. What people prioritize are completely different based on the culture they are accustomed. Every person is different there are so many cultures throughout the world, and even if a common good was decided on within the United States, i still do not think it could be accomplished. People are not willing to put aside their differences and try to work together for a common good. People don't want to go out of their way and do anything difficult, they are focused on themselves. I believe the common good is an idea that everyone tries to work for, but it will never happen, it's simply a goal  that throughout time will always try to, but never will, be accomplished.

Recount

Questions

1. Butterfly ballots were confusing, why aren't ballots regulated by the state or national government?
2. Why would a candidate concede?
3. Is it ever possible for someone to revote under certain circumstances?
4. Has electronic voting become more popular/
5. Do you believe that the supreme court acted correctly?
6. Do you think the deadline should have been extended in the first place?
7. Do you think that it is right that Gore should have been able to take back his conceedment even after calling Bush?
8. Do you think it would have turned out differently if the recount was finished?
9. Were the names on the felons ever fixed so that the correct people could vote? 

Comments

1. A difference of 0.5% or less triggers an automatic recount.
2. Palm Beach's ballots were confusing.
3. 20,000 people were turned away from voting in 2000 because they had names similar to felons.
4. After 12/12 Florida legislators can award the 25 electoral votes to either party.
5. There was a 5-4 supreme court ruling to stop the recount.
6. Some counties in Florida counted dimpled chads while others did not.
7. Angry protesters swarmed buildings where recounts were taking place.
8. Florida has 25 electoral votes. 

Response to 2000 election article

5 Pre Reading questions:
1. How dangerous were the riots actually versus how dangerous they were televised to be where the ballots were being counted?
2. How many total different types of ballots were in the state of Florida?
3. At what exact moment did the supreme court decide to step in.
4. What is the approximate total number of votes that were discounted?
5. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?

5 Facts/Details
1. There have been at least 3 other elections where the winning candidate received less popular votes.
2.  The US supreme court used Article III section 1, clause 2 of the constitution and Section 5 of Title 3 of the United States code to prove that the Florida supreme court violated the requirements by changing the final date for certification and the responsibilities of various state agencies.
3. Florida used several types of ballots including butterfly ballots that were very confusing to voters.
4. In the case of Romer Vs. Evans special voting rights were created for homosexuals.
5.20,000 voters were legally disqualified

5 Post Reading Questions
1. Do you believe the democratic party should have dropped out sooner to avoid chaos.
2. Did Al Gore run or plan to run for president again?
3. How does a flexible deadline work?
4.Did anyone expect an election could really get that close?
5. Do you believe the courts should have handled this differently?

Update on Senator Ryan

Recently Senator Ryan has voted yes to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, generated by the combustion of coals and fossil fuels. He also said nay to providing additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection agency to issue achievable to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, heaters, ect.  He voted nay to the United States, and Korea trade agreement. He also sponsored a bill stating to suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until such a time as Brazil amends it laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of Brazil to other countries,  which was referred to the sub committee on Immigration policy and Enforcement.