Here is the AFA's reason for wanting the Book of Danial canceled. (Thank you Virgina, for pointing that out!) Text has been taken directly from their e-mail efforts:
"NBC is promoting the network's mid-season replacement series "The Book of Daniel" with language that implies it is a serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith. The main character is Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her mid-day martinis. Webster regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus. The Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. At the office, his lesbian secretary is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Network hype – and the mainstream media – call it "edgy," "challenging" and "courageous." The hour-long limited drama series will debut January 6 with back-to-back episodes and will air on Friday nights. The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual. The homosexual son will be network prime-time's only regular male homosexual character in a drama series. Please use the link below to send a letter to NBC Chairman Bob Wright. Next, please forward this to your family and friends today! Those at NBC responsible for this program consider it a good, religiously oriented show typical of Christian families. "
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The AFA - The American Fascist Association?
NBC has decided to cancel its controversial new show, Book of Daniel after only a few short weeks on the air. The reason for the cancellation was due to low ratings; however, a conservative Christian group, The AFA, didn't want anybody to see even a single episode, and they were in fact successful in arm-twisting several affiliates of NBC to never air the show at all. Moreover, you don't ever have to see the program to be offended by it; the AFA will send you a handy e-mail to let you know what you should be offended by. So what say you dear reader? Is this an example of democracy at work? Should a rouge group that strictly adheres to a single ideology make dictatorship-like decisions for the "good" of the nation?
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
The AFA, and its affiliate organizations: One Million Dads / One Million Moms are organizations that lobby's its members to take action against inappropriate television programming, write their congressmen concerning issues they feel are important to them, and otherwise take action in their own community to make it a more "Christen" safe zone. I don't think everything AFA and friends do is wrong nor do I have anything against their Christian roots. In fact, The AFA is, in many respects, just a bigger version of what I hope to achieve someday. So what’s the problem then?
Writing Congress is an honorable act. Encouraging friends and family, and others whom share in your ideologies to not watch a television program because you think they may find it offensive is serving your community. But trying to eliminate things you find offensive so that NO ONE can see them is a fascist move. I do no use the word "fascist" to be facetious, I mean it literally. If someone is offended by a television program, than tune out; and if enough people are offended by the material, then the program will not last.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!
One major concern amongst conservative groups is the accessibility of the material to young viewers. Parents say that it is impossible to monitor their children’s television watching habits all of the time. Well, I am afraid that I have some news for you all, THE TELEVISION IS NOT A PARRENT! And neither should you depend on this death-box to do any parenting for you. You, mom and dad (or dad and dad/mom and mom, or any other combo.) are the most influential people in your children’s first twelve years of life. An article in the January 16th, 2006 addition of Time magazine suggests that no children under two should be exposed to ANY television. As for television watching habits of children older than two, hear are some suggestions:
1. No T.V. in the bedroom. This applies to adults as well. Reserve the bedroom for sleeping, reading, homework, making children ;-), but pleas - no television.
2. Block-out the bad programming. Most televisions now have the ability to block out programs with a certain rating, and even whole channels. If you have small children, might I suggest blocking MTV, VH1, BET and TBN.
3. After-school activities. It is not uncommon for both parents to have to work; after school activities is a wonderful way for your children/teens to get involved and keep their heads out of the television. If no activities are provided by your school, check your local YMCA. And if you feel really ambitious, talk with other parents in your neighborhood about a community activity.
4. If your children happens to see offencive material; like say, at a friends house, simply sit them down and explain to them that what they saw was not real, and if applicable, that it was inappropriate behavior. Your children will have a much more firm grasp on reality if you do so.
If you find yourself too busy to spend any time rearing your child, then don't have them. Again, I am absolutely serious about this. If you must depend on the television to do ALL of the parenting then you are not at a place in your life where you should have children. I sympathize with the fact that parents must both work to support their family, and I understand that it is doubly difficult for single parents. But don't be ashamed to ask for help from your family and friends. Your children are worth it.
The AFA also presents itself as an organization representing a Christen society that is under the same danger the Christians of Rome were in under Emperor Nero. They support the Blue Finger Campaign, a (in my opinion) sick comparison of Christians in the U.S. to Iraqi’s voting in Iraq.
The AFA is not the only organization of its kind. And there are organizations on the left, such as the ACLU, fighting to extend our liberties rather than restrict them. It is also true that they may not represent a majority opinion; however, at least for the time being, though they are not the only voice, they are the loudest.
Cody Hobbs
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Judge Dread?
The Judicial branch of the government is probably the least, and most misunderstood branch of the government, and with good cause. There’s not a whole lot said about the Judicial branch in the Constitution. (Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary branch has the shortest explanation.) The Judiciary branch is also one of the most controversial, possibly having an unbalanced amount of power. No ruling of the court has ever been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. So, in short, The Supreme Court has historically always had the last word.*
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
So what is the function of the courts? Is it to enforce law? Is it to craft it? Or is it something different. Article Three of the United States Constitution only gives a vague outline of what the purpose of the third branch of government is. (I won’t paste the entire Third Article here; pleas follow the link. )
Okay. What does that mean?
Judicial powers have been defined as: “[T]he guardians of the Constitution… Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.” (click here for source) So then it is the courts job to interpret how laws, and the Constitution applies to real world situations.
So what's the big deal?
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has never been successfully challenged by any other branch of government. Our governmental system was designed on a system of checks and balances. No branch of government was meant to have more power than the other, but how can this be if the high-court has never been challenged? The Supreme Court is also the only branch of government that is not designed to bend to the will of the people; they serve already existing law. Moreover, Supreme Court Justices sit on the court for life. The only way for this to be changed would be via a Constitutional Amendment. But, should it be changed? Has the high court been dysfunctional? I will leave it up to you to decide that. Until we meet again, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
*The Supreme Court has overturned prior rulings, but only when challenged by a sitting Justis, not by any other branch of government.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Roe v. Wade
There has been much discussion about Roe v. Wade, abortion, and weather or not it is "fact" that life begins at conception. (Or if there is such thing as "scientific fact" at all.) Also, questions have been raised about the Constitutionality of Roe. Unfortunately, their are no definitive answers to these questions.
Mommy, where do babies come from?
Determining when life begins has been a long debated question. And weather you want to believe life begins at conception, or if it is just a fetus until x trimester, there is a certified M.D. who agrees with you. And lots of them, on both sides. As for determining scientific "fact", I will refer you to the words of Stephen J. Gould PhD.: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess... [F]acts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty... Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
It is a fact that this blog exists. It is a fact that that thing growing inside of a woman is a living thing. However, what is trying to be decided by the debate isn't weather it is a living thing, the sperm inside of me is a living thing, what must be decided is if it is a separate individual, or when it becomes a separate individual. I am fully able to support myself. I do not require to be "plugged into" someone else for survival. If, however, a fetus is removed from a mothers womb, then it has no chance at maturing into a full grown human without some other host. If I am in a car accident, and require a respirator to live, my next of ken, or spouse, can have me removed from life support. However, if I have a guest in my home, and the only way to get him out is to push him out a ten story window, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
In the decision of Roe v. Wade, the majority of the Justices found that Roe had power of attorney over the fetus inside of her, and to deny her the right to terminate that life would violate her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. You may be inclined to say that, in that case, their is no possible way Roe could, or should be over turned. Isn't it just like the car accident scenario? Their is one crucial difference. If I express a desire to be resuscitated at all costs, as say in a living will, then that is the final word. Where Roe could be defeated is on the issue of consent. The fetus inside of the woman cannot express consent. Therefor, the only voice it has to speak for it is the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. As for there being no specific mentioning of abortion in the Constitution, it was intended to be that way. The Constitution was written as a lay-man's document, without any technical language or anything too specific. If you read a standard law, like say one passed by the Senate, (the Patriot act is a good example) it is very specific, and often difficult to understand. The Constitution, however, was meant to be understood by all Americans. As for how to interpret the vague language, that is what the Judicial branch of the government was intended to do.
Roe is far from a clear-cut issue. Most people do hold strong opinions one way or the other on the issue, and I certainly encourage that. But, thinking that their is only one way to look at the issue is absurdly incorrect. As I have said before, the debate is far from over. And in the end, it will be the Supreme Court Justices who have the last word. Until next time, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Mommy, where do babies come from?
Determining when life begins has been a long debated question. And weather you want to believe life begins at conception, or if it is just a fetus until x trimester, there is a certified M.D. who agrees with you. And lots of them, on both sides. As for determining scientific "fact", I will refer you to the words of Stephen J. Gould PhD.: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess... [F]acts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty... Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
It is a fact that this blog exists. It is a fact that that thing growing inside of a woman is a living thing. However, what is trying to be decided by the debate isn't weather it is a living thing, the sperm inside of me is a living thing, what must be decided is if it is a separate individual, or when it becomes a separate individual. I am fully able to support myself. I do not require to be "plugged into" someone else for survival. If, however, a fetus is removed from a mothers womb, then it has no chance at maturing into a full grown human without some other host. If I am in a car accident, and require a respirator to live, my next of ken, or spouse, can have me removed from life support. However, if I have a guest in my home, and the only way to get him out is to push him out a ten story window, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
In the decision of Roe v. Wade, the majority of the Justices found that Roe had power of attorney over the fetus inside of her, and to deny her the right to terminate that life would violate her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. You may be inclined to say that, in that case, their is no possible way Roe could, or should be over turned. Isn't it just like the car accident scenario? Their is one crucial difference. If I express a desire to be resuscitated at all costs, as say in a living will, then that is the final word. Where Roe could be defeated is on the issue of consent. The fetus inside of the woman cannot express consent. Therefor, the only voice it has to speak for it is the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. As for there being no specific mentioning of abortion in the Constitution, it was intended to be that way. The Constitution was written as a lay-man's document, without any technical language or anything too specific. If you read a standard law, like say one passed by the Senate, (the Patriot act is a good example) it is very specific, and often difficult to understand. The Constitution, however, was meant to be understood by all Americans. As for how to interpret the vague language, that is what the Judicial branch of the government was intended to do.
Roe is far from a clear-cut issue. Most people do hold strong opinions one way or the other on the issue, and I certainly encourage that. But, thinking that their is only one way to look at the issue is absurdly incorrect. As I have said before, the debate is far from over. And in the end, it will be the Supreme Court Justices who have the last word. Until next time, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Oh, Teddy boy
I won't give you a play-by-play rundown of the second-to-last day of hearings, but I will give some of the highlights of the hearings thus far.
The hearings piqued today when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Massachusetts) demanded that records concerning Alito's involvement in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton be subpoenaed. In an issue of the organizations publications, it was opined that Princeton has gone downhill since admitting more African-Americans. When questioned, Alito simply responds that "I don't remember" what his involvement was. And, at the end of the day, without said documents, his involvement is inconclusive.
Alito has been criticized for not directly answering questions on his opinion on Roe v. Wade. The closest he came was when he was asked if he would keep an open mind in deciding future cases, in spite of his 1985 memo, he answered that he would. Since future cases concerning abortion are expected to be brought to the Supreme Court, if he does provide a definitive answer in these hearings, he could be forced to recuse himself from the hearings. He has also said that he believes in Stare Decisis (a legal philosophy that president decisions are to be followed by the court).
As for questions pertaining to executive power, he said that "No man [including the President] is above the law, and no man is below the law."
Alito does have some rulings that should be put under scrutiny by the committee. And that is their job, par the Constitution. And I shall reiterate, just because something is said, doesn't make it so. However, no one can predict how Alito will vote. So far he has answered the questions as openly as he could. I do have my personal concerns about the Alito nomination. However, I will not trump-up the facts for, or against Alito. They are what they are. I have read, and listened to so many political commentators in the last two days, both left and right, exaggerate, nit-pick, and just flat out lie about the proceedings, and Alito's past, that it makes me want to vomit. I do think that the records Kennedy requested are crucial to this nomination. We have one more day before it is decided if he will be passed to the full vote of the Senate. Until then, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
The hearings piqued today when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Massachusetts) demanded that records concerning Alito's involvement in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton be subpoenaed. In an issue of the organizations publications, it was opined that Princeton has gone downhill since admitting more African-Americans. When questioned, Alito simply responds that "I don't remember" what his involvement was. And, at the end of the day, without said documents, his involvement is inconclusive.
Alito has been criticized for not directly answering questions on his opinion on Roe v. Wade. The closest he came was when he was asked if he would keep an open mind in deciding future cases, in spite of his 1985 memo, he answered that he would. Since future cases concerning abortion are expected to be brought to the Supreme Court, if he does provide a definitive answer in these hearings, he could be forced to recuse himself from the hearings. He has also said that he believes in Stare Decisis (a legal philosophy that president decisions are to be followed by the court).
As for questions pertaining to executive power, he said that "No man [including the President] is above the law, and no man is below the law."
Alito does have some rulings that should be put under scrutiny by the committee. And that is their job, par the Constitution. And I shall reiterate, just because something is said, doesn't make it so. However, no one can predict how Alito will vote. So far he has answered the questions as openly as he could. I do have my personal concerns about the Alito nomination. However, I will not trump-up the facts for, or against Alito. They are what they are. I have read, and listened to so many political commentators in the last two days, both left and right, exaggerate, nit-pick, and just flat out lie about the proceedings, and Alito's past, that it makes me want to vomit. I do think that the records Kennedy requested are crucial to this nomination. We have one more day before it is decided if he will be passed to the full vote of the Senate. Until then, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Survivor - Judicial island
Today marked the first day of the Senate Judicial Committee hearings on judicial nominee Samuel Alito Jr. The committee opened by allowing each of the fifteen senators on the committee to give a ten minute opening statement directed to Alito. These opening statements were so action packed I was drowning in my morning cereal by minute five. However, this is not an issue to be taken lightly. If confirmed, Alito will sit on the highest court in the United States for life.
Isn't the Supreme Court just a bunch of old dudes wearing dresses?
Though the gowns they adorn my seem a bit odd, (styled after the Roman Toga) but their rulings have an impact on every citizen in the United States. And the seat Alito will be filling is perhaps more crucial than that of the Chief Justice, currently held by John Roberts. Alito has been nominated to fill the seat of Sandra Day OConner, who has agreed to sit on the court after her retirement until her replacement has been confirmed.
For nearly two decades, Sandra Day O’Conner has been the crucial swing vote in a divided court. She has cast over 140 tie-breaking votes since being sworn into the Supreme Court in 1981. O’Conner was also the first woman nominated to the court, and ruled consistently to advance woman’s rights, a person’s right to privacy and maintaining a fair separation of powers between the three branches of government. O’Conner has struck down both state and federal laws, sighting them to be unconstitutional. For this, she has been labeled by some conservatives as an "activist" Judge.
An "activist" Judge makes biased rulings based on personal beliefs, conviction or morals regardless of the law. Activist Judges are also accused of "Legislating" from the bench, creating laws instead of interpreting them. O’Conner, however, made decisions based on the highest doctrine of law in the United States, the Constitution. She has ruled time and again to ensure that none of our fundamental rights, as set forth by the Constitution, have been violated.
ZZZZZZZZZ...
OK, so enough with the history of O’Conner. What about Alito? Several of the Democrats on the committee cited examples of rulings where Alito had ruled, as a Federal Appellate Court judge, to restrict a persons right to privacy, and in one case his opinion stated that private citizens have no constitutional right to privacy. (What constitution did he study? The 4th Amendment) (For specific examples of Alito's track record against personal privacy, click here) Alito has also written negatively against the Warren Court, (named as such, because the presiding Chief Justice at the time was Earl Warren) One of the Warren Court's most infamous ruling was involving "reapportionment" (referred to as One man, one vote) requiring electoral districts to have equal populations and helped to ensure greater representation for minorities. Alito has also been accused of not supporting the Warren Courts dessision in Brown v. Board of Education, the land mark ruling ending segregation in public schools. You can read more about the legacy of the Warren Court by clicking here
Sunset for Roe V. Wade
Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court ruling in our history has been Roe V. Wade. With a conservative Judge rearing to take the place of O’Conner, Roe is perhaps, for the first time since the land mark ruling, in danger of being overturned. Pleas understand that I am not arguing the validity of Roe, nor am I soliciting support for the ruling. However, it is very possible that the Court could overturn Roe easier than you may think. When the ruling was first handed down, it contained a Sun Set Clause (means for reversal in a law, or ruling) that stated if there ever was evidence determining when life in a fetus begins, Roe would become void.
We are only in the first day of the hearings. The Democrats have cited several rulings handed down by Alito that do seem to paint him as not supporting privacy, against abortion, and supporting a weaker separation of powers. Citing a few cases, however, cannot sum Alito's entire history of over 300 rulings. Alito has since said that he does support aspects of the Warren Court, and believes in upholding precedence. We also know that mere lip service cannot provide an accurate forecast of how he will rule on the Supreme Court. And this is, after all, only the first stage in the confirmation process. He will be questioned thoroughly about his past decisions. Our only recourse is to turn away from the sunny shores of Laguna Beach for a while, and educate ourselves on this man who has been nominated to a lifetime position crafting the future of America. If we don't like what we see, then it is our responsibility to write our senators encouraging them to vote against Samuel Alito Jr. I can't force you to pay attention, but I hope I have helped you in understanding the weight this nomination holds. Until next time, fair well and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Isn't the Supreme Court just a bunch of old dudes wearing dresses?
Though the gowns they adorn my seem a bit odd, (styled after the Roman Toga) but their rulings have an impact on every citizen in the United States. And the seat Alito will be filling is perhaps more crucial than that of the Chief Justice, currently held by John Roberts. Alito has been nominated to fill the seat of Sandra Day OConner, who has agreed to sit on the court after her retirement until her replacement has been confirmed.
For nearly two decades, Sandra Day O’Conner has been the crucial swing vote in a divided court. She has cast over 140 tie-breaking votes since being sworn into the Supreme Court in 1981. O’Conner was also the first woman nominated to the court, and ruled consistently to advance woman’s rights, a person’s right to privacy and maintaining a fair separation of powers between the three branches of government. O’Conner has struck down both state and federal laws, sighting them to be unconstitutional. For this, she has been labeled by some conservatives as an "activist" Judge.
An "activist" Judge makes biased rulings based on personal beliefs, conviction or morals regardless of the law. Activist Judges are also accused of "Legislating" from the bench, creating laws instead of interpreting them. O’Conner, however, made decisions based on the highest doctrine of law in the United States, the Constitution. She has ruled time and again to ensure that none of our fundamental rights, as set forth by the Constitution, have been violated.
ZZZZZZZZZ...
OK, so enough with the history of O’Conner. What about Alito? Several of the Democrats on the committee cited examples of rulings where Alito had ruled, as a Federal Appellate Court judge, to restrict a persons right to privacy, and in one case his opinion stated that private citizens have no constitutional right to privacy. (What constitution did he study? The 4th Amendment) (For specific examples of Alito's track record against personal privacy, click here) Alito has also written negatively against the Warren Court, (named as such, because the presiding Chief Justice at the time was Earl Warren) One of the Warren Court's most infamous ruling was involving "reapportionment" (referred to as One man, one vote) requiring electoral districts to have equal populations and helped to ensure greater representation for minorities. Alito has also been accused of not supporting the Warren Courts dessision in Brown v. Board of Education, the land mark ruling ending segregation in public schools. You can read more about the legacy of the Warren Court by clicking here
Sunset for Roe V. Wade
Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court ruling in our history has been Roe V. Wade. With a conservative Judge rearing to take the place of O’Conner, Roe is perhaps, for the first time since the land mark ruling, in danger of being overturned. Pleas understand that I am not arguing the validity of Roe, nor am I soliciting support for the ruling. However, it is very possible that the Court could overturn Roe easier than you may think. When the ruling was first handed down, it contained a Sun Set Clause (means for reversal in a law, or ruling) that stated if there ever was evidence determining when life in a fetus begins, Roe would become void.
We are only in the first day of the hearings. The Democrats have cited several rulings handed down by Alito that do seem to paint him as not supporting privacy, against abortion, and supporting a weaker separation of powers. Citing a few cases, however, cannot sum Alito's entire history of over 300 rulings. Alito has since said that he does support aspects of the Warren Court, and believes in upholding precedence. We also know that mere lip service cannot provide an accurate forecast of how he will rule on the Supreme Court. And this is, after all, only the first stage in the confirmation process. He will be questioned thoroughly about his past decisions. Our only recourse is to turn away from the sunny shores of Laguna Beach for a while, and educate ourselves on this man who has been nominated to a lifetime position crafting the future of America. If we don't like what we see, then it is our responsibility to write our senators encouraging them to vote against Samuel Alito Jr. I can't force you to pay attention, but I hope I have helped you in understanding the weight this nomination holds. Until next time, fair well and amen.
Cody Hobbs
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Reader Response
Dear reader,
I know my absence has been long, but I will make a commitment to you that Stop Partisan will update at least weekly! I will also be making a few changes to this site, as to how, and what stories are talked about.
1. If their is a political story you would like to hear about, e-mail me at stop.partisan@gmail.com
2. I will also be accepting other peoples articles, and re-posting them in full (with their permission of course). Just e-mail me your article to the e-mail address above.
3. Have you gotten active in the political community? Have you participated in a political demonstration, written a senator, or are you even considering RUNNING FOR OFFICE? Just drop in a line and Stop Partisan will have a feature article each week about those of you who are getting involved with their political community.
A reader posts:
So you think that taxing something is bad, but yet we should take away buyers' option of owning an SUV because they drive up gas prices? So what do YOU think would fix the problem? Also, have you noticed gas prices going down for almost a month now?
Virginia Stephen
Dear reader,
I don't think that taxing something is bad. However, part of the reason our founding fathers penned the Declaration of independence was to end what we believed was unfair taxation (from the English), or "taxation without representation." Adding an additional tax on a new widget, especially one that people are still skeptical about can unintentionally/intentionally stop its progress dead in the water. Reagan understood this concept, and even I will give him credit for giving the tax breaks, and subsidies to leading technology companies that would have had stalled success without. What makes a hybrid vehicle attractive to the buyer, along with it being more environmentally friendly, is the potential to save money. Adding a tax that will take that incentive away makes it moot to buy a gas-conserving car.
As for falling gas prices, price ISN'T THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Simply lowering prices is like attacking the leaves and ignoring the trunk. What we are experiencing is a rise in consumption that will soon exceed the rate at which refined oil can be produced. With China expecting to double it's driving population (and believe me, it's no small number) within the next five years, if we don't start conserving our resources now, the U.S., as well as all other world oil markets will be in a real gas shortage. And if you think the difference between driving an SUV, and a more fuel efficient car (like say a Prius) makes little difference, just do the math. I would suspect that gas prices will jump back up again by this summer, and most likely will reach three dollars a gallon by the end of this year. And in-case you weren't paying attention, gas prices did not start to fall until a senate committee was charging U.S. fuel companies with price gouging. If I can find ONE element of Reaganomics that was functional, then certainly you can see that there was a definite correlation between falling prices, and a senate investigation. (Which has miraculously disappeared since gas prices have fallen.)
Finlay, I do not believe that a persons right to buy an SUV, or any vehicle for that matter, should be restricted. However, I do think that it is morally responsible to provide incentives to get people to conserve fuel. As for what I suggest should be done about this issue, just refer to my previous post, GAS CRISIS, and I lay out a detailed solution.
Cody Hobbs
I know my absence has been long, but I will make a commitment to you that Stop Partisan will update at least weekly! I will also be making a few changes to this site, as to how, and what stories are talked about.
1. If their is a political story you would like to hear about, e-mail me at stop.partisan@gmail.com
2. I will also be accepting other peoples articles, and re-posting them in full (with their permission of course). Just e-mail me your article to the e-mail address above.
3. Have you gotten active in the political community? Have you participated in a political demonstration, written a senator, or are you even considering RUNNING FOR OFFICE? Just drop in a line and Stop Partisan will have a feature article each week about those of you who are getting involved with their political community.
A reader posts:
So you think that taxing something is bad, but yet we should take away buyers' option of owning an SUV because they drive up gas prices? So what do YOU think would fix the problem? Also, have you noticed gas prices going down for almost a month now?
Virginia Stephen
Dear reader,
I don't think that taxing something is bad. However, part of the reason our founding fathers penned the Declaration of independence was to end what we believed was unfair taxation (from the English), or "taxation without representation." Adding an additional tax on a new widget, especially one that people are still skeptical about can unintentionally/intentionally stop its progress dead in the water. Reagan understood this concept, and even I will give him credit for giving the tax breaks, and subsidies to leading technology companies that would have had stalled success without. What makes a hybrid vehicle attractive to the buyer, along with it being more environmentally friendly, is the potential to save money. Adding a tax that will take that incentive away makes it moot to buy a gas-conserving car.
As for falling gas prices, price ISN'T THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Simply lowering prices is like attacking the leaves and ignoring the trunk. What we are experiencing is a rise in consumption that will soon exceed the rate at which refined oil can be produced. With China expecting to double it's driving population (and believe me, it's no small number) within the next five years, if we don't start conserving our resources now, the U.S., as well as all other world oil markets will be in a real gas shortage. And if you think the difference between driving an SUV, and a more fuel efficient car (like say a Prius) makes little difference, just do the math. I would suspect that gas prices will jump back up again by this summer, and most likely will reach three dollars a gallon by the end of this year. And in-case you weren't paying attention, gas prices did not start to fall until a senate committee was charging U.S. fuel companies with price gouging. If I can find ONE element of Reaganomics that was functional, then certainly you can see that there was a definite correlation between falling prices, and a senate investigation. (Which has miraculously disappeared since gas prices have fallen.)
Finlay, I do not believe that a persons right to buy an SUV, or any vehicle for that matter, should be restricted. However, I do think that it is morally responsible to provide incentives to get people to conserve fuel. As for what I suggest should be done about this issue, just refer to my previous post, GAS CRISIS, and I lay out a detailed solution.
Cody Hobbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)