Court Cases

1. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (March 25, 1998-June 26, 1998) This case stood out to me because is dealt with the issue of gender equality and the harassment of women. Sometimes, I think this is an issue that is overlooked and it is good to see that such a common issue was able to make it to the Supreme Court. 
2. Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomle City v. Earls (March 19, 2002-June 27, 2002) I think this case is interesting because, as students, we can relate to feeling as though we sometimes sacrifice our rights a little bit when we enter school. I think it is good to test students for drug abuse if there is reasonable suspicion or evidence suggesting they might be using, but I do think this school district was wrong to randomly test innocent students. It violates one's right to privacy. 
3. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (October 13, 1987-January 13, 1988) This case caught my attention because it dealt with something I was actually wondering about with our own newspaper: censorship. I was curious as to whether there were limits on the things we could publish in our school paper, which is exactly what these students had a problem with. Certain things that they attempted to publish in their paper were taken out by the school district, which students argued violated their right to free speech. Do we give up these rights when in school?

Roe vs. Wade

Details of the case:

1. Modern abortion techniques have significantly reduced the likelihood of a woman's death during the procedure. This eliminates the claim that abortion is primarily a health issue. Now, it is more of a moral concern.
2. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any rights to privacy. 
3. The court mentioned that bringing an "unwanted" child into a family could cause harm, both physically and mentally.
4. the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to get an abortion.
5. Many people believe that life begins at conception, while others believe life begins after birth. To some people, abortion is similar to murder. 
6. The state has the ability to regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester.
7. Saving the mother's life is a legal justification for having an abortion. 
8. Viability of a fetus is usually around 7 months. 
9. The case disallowed many federal and state restrictions on abortions.
10. 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. 

Questions:

1. What would a biologist have to say about this issue? When would they say life begins?
2. Do states ever have to ability to prohibit an abortion? 
3. If abortions were deemed illegal, do you think many people would simple turn to back alley abortions?  
4. How has this decision impacted society?
5. Could it be argued that abortion is not really a government issue, but rather a moral or religious issue?

West Wing Episode

The Supremes

1. The open bench position will usually be filled with someone similar to the old justice. 
2. The executive branch will no select super-controversial candidates.
3. We have a government based compromises. In the episode, the bench will filled with a conservative and a liberal to please both sides.
4. The judiciary council reviews new justices. 
5. The court performs best when balanced with different types of people. 
6. The president works with many people when he makes decisions. He has a team of administrators and staff. 
7. Justice's political views often shift as they serve on the court. Sometimes, strict left or right wing justices become more centrist.
8. The government sometimes shapes what they do around how they think the public will react, i.e. not choosing just a strict liberal or a strict conservative. 

1. Is there a deadline for selecting a new justice?
2. Who interviews prospect justices?
3. Can the president actually ask a justice to resign?
4. Does a president's nominee ever get rejected b the judiciary council?
5. Are there any sort of qualifications for being a justice? 
6. What positions do most justices hold before appointment to the Supreme Court?

Federalist #78

Important Quotes

1.  "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."- This is important because it emphasizes the common view that the Judicial branch is the most passive, neutral branch. It does not really have power to make changes until given to opportunity to address them in a court case. 
2. "...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." - This quote reinforces the idea that the Supreme Court will probably never gain too much power because its sole purpose is to interpret the already-made laws of the Constitution. 
3. "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." - This quote reflects the idea of the checks and balance system because it says that whatever the Legislative branch says does not always go; the other two branches have the ability to overturn their laws.
4. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental." - Judicial rulings are based solely on the Constitutional principles. 
5. "And that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."- What does this mean? Is he saying he supports an unlimited term for justices?

Questions for Hamilton:

1. Would you say that you and Madison tend to share similar beliefs? You seem to be saying that a Bill of Rights is not needed, while Madison is a huge supporter of such a bill.
2. Do you support the life-long appointment of Supreme Court justices? Why or why not?
3. What do you mean when you refer to the "independent spirit of the judges?"
4. What would you say is the main purpose of the federal court?
5. Should a judge ever apply his or her opinion to the ruling of a case?

Representative Update: Bob Casey

BOB CASEY

Senator Bob Casey is a member of many different committees, including the Joint Economic Committee, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Committee on Foreign Relations. Since 2007, he has sponsored 174 bills, but only 4 of them have made it out of the committee. Most recently, he has sponsored the Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act, the Computer Science Education Act, and the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. This year he has introduced a number of bills, the majority of which seem to be for the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The past few weeks, Casey has been busy promoting the Education for Tomorrow's Jobs Act. 

2000 Election: Supreme Court Decision

Facts/Details:

1. The majority of the Supreme Court votes in favor of stopping the recount were from the most conservative justices.
2. The equal protection ruling had no basis in precedent or history. 
3. Bush v. Gore was actually the fourth intervention by the US Supreme Court in the outcome of the presidential election. 
4. There were a few different types of machine recounts. Some checked the arithmetic while others checked ballots.
5. Thirty states fail to specify concrete standards for manual recounts. 
6. Poor counties have older machines that count about 97% of the votes, while newer counties have machines that count about 99%.
7. Bush thought the Florida Supreme Court has broke the law, while Gore believed it was merely an interpretation. 
8. Six justices were unwilling  to accept Bush's major submission. 

Post Reading Questions:

1. What is a "minimalist ruling?"
2. What irreparable harm did the manual recount cause?
3. Has this ruling created a new precedent that has affected other elections?
4. Was the recount stopped due to lacking uniformity in recounting methods? Or were there other reasons?
5. Was it ever a consideration to simply continue using clear counting standards?

The Common Good

After reading the essay, I decided that I do believe that a common good exists, or at least has the potential to exist. There are certain things in society that benefit everyone: an improved education system, good healthcare, and good public safety, for example. These things add to a community and help improve the quality of life. 


Still, I am not totally sure what exactly a "common good" is. To me, it seems to be something that benefits all people involved, but this is sort of abstract. I am not quite sure if it is possible to benefit all people because each person has a different idea of what "good" is. It could mean the more selfless point of view, thinking of everything as "ours" rather than "mine." 


One thing from the essay that especially stood out to me was the part that suggested the common good hinders one's right to individualism.  I don't agree with this idea; in fact, I think that the common good promotes individual rights because it helps all people live a better lifestyle where they have access to do the things they want. For example, working towards a cleaner environment advances everyone's healthy lifestyle, enabling them to be able to move forward with the things they want to do in life.