Trump's Justice Nominations

Supreme Court Agenda in the Trump Era? A Justice Seems to Supply One

After trumps recent win in the presidential election, he has released a list of potential supreme court nominees. Despite the assumed negativity of the presidency, many were satisfied with Trump's choices at Scalia's memorial meeting. Supreme court justices discussed ambitious plans now that the supreme court will once again likely be dominated by republicans. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy still, however, has held the decisive vote. If Trump however decides to replace some of the older democratic justices the court will be dominated by the conservative Legal movement. This has caused what seems to be somewhat of an agenda coming from the republican side of the court. This became apparent when conservative justices shared their plans. one justice, Clarence Thomas, made it clear that he wanted to focus on the first two amendments. He suggested that the only conservatives could protect these rights. Similarly to trump, Justice Alito expressed is disdain for perceived political correctness. he spoke about the diminishing value of free speech American citizens have. He also addressed the discontent he shared with trump in terms of being overly politically correct and the effect that it has on people. He alluded to students on campus "On college campuses, both public and private, a new orthodoxy rules," brought up that a conservatives students opinion would not go over well with the rest of the campus. He also expressed his fears of proposed amendments to the first amendment as they would give more rights to the press as oppose to the people. At the conclusion of the meeting the audience applauded him for his analysis on the constitutional fault line.


1) What effect will a republican majority have on the house?

2) Will a republican majority throughout our government help or limit our countries progression?

3)Which justices do you think Trump will most likely nominate and why?

Jill Stein Pushes for Recount

Hillary Clinton's Team to Join Wisconsin Recount Pushed by Jill Stein

After the narrow margins of victory in crucial swing states, third party candidate Jill Stein advocates to raise and allocate funds for a recount in Wisconsin, followed by Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Although Clinton conceded the race on Nov. 9th, the Clinton campaign is potentially participating in order to rule out and reassure supporters that hacking by Russia and other factors did not play a role in influencing the election. On the other hand, president-elect Trump defends his victory by saying that the outcome of the election should be respected, and views the recount as "ridiculous," and "a scam by the Green Party." Regardless, since the day after the election, analysts, lawyers, and data scientists are already in the process of extensively examining the results.

Connection: The recount involves the debate regarding the efficacy of the Electoral College and the popular vote system.

Questions:
   
1. Do you believe that the recount will merit any change in the circumstances?
2. Have the results of a presidential election been challenged in the past?
3. Do you believe that Jill Stein and Clinton are rightfully responding to the results?

Future of Roe v Wade

What Might Happen to Abortion Rights if Roe v Wade is Overturned

As President-elect Donald Trump assumes office, the Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade, faces a questionable future. Trump has stated in previous interviews that he intends on appointing a "pro-life" justice, and with the approval of Senate, it's possible that Roe v Wade could be weakened or reversed. Although, a complete reversal of Roe v Wade is quite improbable, it is probable that the decision could be "chipped away" at making it difficult for women to obtain the proper medical attention needed for an abortion based on what state they live in. While these implications may not effect higher income women who can afford to travel to different states to receive an abortion, it would directly impact lower income women and possibly prevent them from reaching a proper abortion clinic.

Questions:
- Do you feel it's possible that Roe v Wade be overturned completely?
- How could this effect the progression of Women's Rights?
- What other Supreme Court decisions could be reviewed or overturned?

Steve Bannon: Potential White Nationalist and Future Chief Strategist

Steve Bannon Speaks Out on White Nationalism, Donald Trump Agenda

This week, Donald Trump announced his appointment of Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Bannon was the head of Breitbart News, which is associated with the alt-right, until he joined Trump's campaign earlier this year. Bannon and his news outlet have been accused of white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia, among other things, and he has admitted to the alt-right political movement being connected to these ideas. Now, Bannon calls himself an economic nationalist and claims that everything in Trump's presidency will be related to jobs. He appears to be preparing for some kind of revolution, and plans to use darkness against his political enemies.

Questions:
- How will the labels associated with Bannon affect public support of him and the Trump presidency in general?
- Is Bannon likely to be able to follow through with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan"?
- What are your thoughts on Bannon's statement that "darkness is good," and the examples he uses?

Meet Trump's Attorney General: Jeff Sessions

"Trump chooses Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Rep. Mike Pompeo for CIA director"

As the dust has begun to clear from this recent election, it has started to become more clear who will be the leaders of the country for the next four years. It was announced today that President-Elect Donald Trump plans to choose Alabama senator Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General. Sessions is a hard-line conservative known for his controversial stance on immigration, which includes support of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the US. Sessions is already on Trump’s transition team, and was one of his close advisors during the election process, so it comes as no surprise Trump is a fan of him.

Connection: We recently studied the executive branch, which the Justice Department, headed by the Attorney General, is a part of.

Questions:

-What do you think of this appointment?

-Do you think this Session’s conservative stances be reflected across the rest of Trump’s cabinet?

-How far to the right do you think Trump will be able to take his policy before being pulled back by the Republican establishment?

Prop 66: California Differs on the Death Penalty

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-death-penalty-prop-62-prop-66-20161109-htmlstory.html

The death penalty has been a constant issue in states across the country. They have constantly gone back and forth on whether to keep the penalty or get rid of it. Also if the state elects to keep the penalty, they must decide on how to reform it. Last Tuesday, Californians narrowly voted to keep the death penalty and to expedite the system as a whole due to the state's large death row population. However, many people have begun to voice their opinions on the various side of Proposition 66. In this article, Jazmine Ulloa describes not only the various sides yet the complications that will come with the new prop. The abolitionists against the punishment have states the prop will impair the constitutional and inherent powers of the courts. Others have states the prop only passed due to the "Trump Effect" where people passed this only out of fear. On the other side of the aisle, the supporters claim the prop will only save taxpayers money and strip away a layer of bureaucracy . Now that proposition has passed, the question becomes how to implement such an aggressive proposition. This prop states that individual trial judges will now have the power to decide whether or not the penalty should be used. This strategy will lead to different statewide uses of the penalty creating havoc. Also all the inmates on death row trying to challenge their conviction will have their cases sent to lower courts instead of the overloaded California Supreme Court. This will speed up the challenge process yet it will create varied responses court to court in California.

Connection: Recently we have discussed the power and strength of bureaucracy and the benefits and cons that come along with it. This new prop weakens the power of the bureaucracy and gives it back to the people to control. 

Questions:
1. If you were the lawmaker how would you address the challenges caused by this new proposition?
2. Should the federal government play a more important role in the death penalty? Explain why or why not.
3. Do you feel that the "Trump Effect" has led to the desire to keep such capital punishment around? Why?

Prop 64: How Legal is the Use of Cannabis?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-proposition-64-marijuana-legalization-explained-20161107-story.html

 With the recent passing of Prop 64, it is now legal for any adult 21 and over to sell, purchase and transport 28.5 grams of marijuana. Yet, at the same time, there are still several laws and regulations that come with all three of these categories. In this article, Patrick McGreevy clearly explains that when it comes to selling cannabis in California, you will need a license to sell it, must implement the 15% excise tax on the marijuana being sold and are required to notify the state and get a background check to open a store. The failure to abide by any of these laws could result in a $500 fine, penalties or jail time. Similarly, Prop 64 makes it evident that when it comes to purchasing any type of marijuana, medicinal or recreational, no kids will be able to purchase it or even walk into a store. The containers and bags that the cannabis would come in will also be child proof and cannot be confused with commercially sold candy. Additionally, men and women above the age of 21 can't smoke marijuana in public places unless it is allowed by a local ordinance. McGreevy adds on that there is a $100 fine for doing so in a public area and a $250 fine for smoking in an area where tobacco is prohibited and anywhere near a school. The main regulation to keep in mind, however, is the fact that any use of marijuana remains illegal on a federal level even if the state has passed a law saying that it is acceptable.

Connection: The prop passed on November 8th, 2016, Prop 64, accentuates the separation between the state and federal government. The states have the power to pass a law like the legalization of marijuana, however, it is evident that it is much more difficult to pass something like this on national level because that would require the support of interest groups as well as congress.

Questions:
1. Do you think that legalizing marijuana on a federal level is a realistic possibility in the near future and do you believe that it would make an impact in states where it is already legal?
2. In your opinion, is the approval of Prop 64 beneficial or merely bothersome?
3. The approval of Prop 64 not only allows California state residents to access marijuana legally, but it also will give prisoners convicted with marijuana charges the opportunity to have their jail time shortened or abolished altogether. Do you feel that these convicts should be presented with a chance like this or should their conviction remain the same?

The NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are prepared to fight Prop 63

Gun Supporters Ready to Fight against the passing of Prop 63 in California

Gun control has been a controversial topic these past few years as many citizens are pushing for more gun control laws while gun supporting groups such as the NRA present a strong opposition. In this article, author Bryan Schatz describes how Proposition 63 passed after 63 percent of California citizens voted for its enactment. However, interests groups such as the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are prepared to fight against the increase in gun control laws. Despite the increase in gun control measures, the California Rifle & Pistol Association were not particularly surprised at the enactment of Prop 63, given that the measure is similar to legislation passed earlier on in the year. In July, Governor Jerry Brown passed legislation that banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, made the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles illegal, and requires background checks when purchasing ammunition. Prop 63 outlined many of the same things and added a requirement that gun owners reported lost or stolen guns. It also made gun thefts a felony and created a system to take away guns from felons. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, explained that many gun supporters did not fight earnestly against prop 63 because they wanted to concentrate their efforts on electing Donald Trump who would appoint court justices on the Supreme Court that are gun-friendly. Furthermore, the NRA and the association plan on taking legal action against Prop 63 and trying each of its individual laws in court.

Connection: The opposition the California Rifle & Pistol Association are planning demonstrates the power of large interest groups and how it can influence public policy. It also demonstrates how if a group is dissatisfied with a particular legislative outcome, they can still have their voice heard through other methods such as in courts or (as the NRA is doing) supporting politicians that share their same view point.

Questions:
1. In what ways is the NRA opposition an example of pluralism or hyperpluralism?
2. At the end of the article, Schatz describes the conflict between Democrats Newsom and De Leons. What does their conflict say about the effects of pork barrelling and credit claiming during a political election? Is the desire for credit leading to more conflict and potential corruption?
3. In the overall scope of gun violence and gun control laws, is Prop 63 too strict? Should it have been even stricter? In your opinion, is the NRA valid in opposing the proposition?

Democrats Retaking The Senate: Can This Election Mean Multiple Democratic Victories?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/down-ballot-democrats-fight-to-retake-senate-and-rebalance-supreme-court.html

Within all the drama of the presidential election many citizens have forgotten that this is more than just Hillary vs. Trump: It's control for- yes, the presidency- but also for the Senate. According to 270towin.com, "There are 34 seats up in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control [of the Senate]". Since it is unlikely that the Democrats will retake the House until around 2022, retaking the Senate is a great victory for the Democratic party, but not necessarily for productivity and approval ratings of Congress. This is mainly due to opposing factions holding separate halves of Congress, which will continue to result in policy gridlock for the time being. According to the article, if the Republican Party loses the Senate (and it most likely will), much of the blame will fall on Trump, as Congress has up until this point "Struggled to find a relationship with a candidate mired in personal scandals and controversies of his own making". Democratic control of the Senate may also push forward the Supreme Court justice nomination of Merrick Garland, and therefore radically reshape the structure and format of the Supreme Court. Naturally, the potential for all this to come into effect has Republicans on edge, especially those whose seats may soon be taken. This has prompted many Republicans to challenge "Hillary Clinton's legitimacy, even before she's won the contest. They are talking about levying impeachment charges against her... and blocking any and all supreme court nominees she might offer". This election has a lot at stake, more than just who sits as the face of this country, but the policy and progress that we can make as a country. 


Questions to consider:

1. Do you think that Democrats retaking the Senate would help in any way to ease gridlock? Explain.
2. Do you believe that Democrats will be able to retake the 5-7 needed seats to regain control of the Senate?
3. Is Trump responsible for the high likelihood of the Republican party losing their political control over the Senate? 

Clinton or Trump Will Be Next President Whether You Like It or Not

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-congressional-races-poll-20161104-story.html

     In this article the author, Phil Willon, highlights how reluctant the two political parties are to work with one another once the election is over. A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll collected data about California voter's opinions on the two candidates and what they believe should be done if their preferred candidate were to lose. Whether Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump wins, supporters of the losing candidate favor to have their member of Congress to "act as a check and balance" of the newly elected president, rather than working together with the victor's party. Along with opposing the cooperation between the parties, it was also shown that California's voters had unfavorable impressions of both candidates, "69% of California's voters had an unfavorable impression of Trump. For Clinton, 42% of voters had an unfavorable impression of the former secretary of State" making the next president to have the highest unfavorability ratings in recent history. The polarization has become so extreme that although both sides believe compromise is important, neither want to be the first to do so. Senate candidate Kamala Harris mentions that despite the political parties differences, the two need to come together and put the country first in order to get things done. 

Questions to consider:

1. How much of politics should be about checks and balances as opposed to compromise and working together?

2. Do you think Washington's gridlock problem can be fixed, if so what are the steps that need to be taken in order to do so?

3. What are the pros and cons of having a two-party system? 

California's proposition battle over capital punishment

Californians sharply divided on death penalty (Proposition 62 & 66)

This Tuesday, Californians will vote on an overwhelming 17 state ballot measures. Among them are Proposition 62 and 66, two rival ballots that, if passed, would bring "historic changes to California’s fractured death penalty," according to Sacramento Bee writer Alexei Koseff in her article "Californians sharply divided on death penalty ahead of historic vote." Surveys show Proposition 62, which would repeal capital punishment in California, passing by a slim margin. Proposition 66, however, aims to do the opposite: resume executions after more than ten years and speed up the appeals process for death sentences. This proposition has experienced a rapid rise in polling numbers within the last week with now 48% of voters for the prop and 42% opposed (the rest undecided). With both propositions appearing likely to pass, as they are opposing propositions the one with the higher number of votes would become law. While it seems odd that both could pass (as this scenario means that a significant number of voters are voting 'yes' on both), supporters of both propositions have the same criticism of the current capital punishment system in California: it's broken. Many voters are driven by pragmatic views of the death penalty rather than moral or religious ones. Both propositions would reform (or abolish) a costly and ineffective system, which some believe to be the real issue at hand rather than the idea of capital punishment itself.

Questions to consider

1. Where do you stand on each proposition and why?

2. How does your political identity, race, religion, or ethnicity influence your position on the death penalty? And if it doesn't influence your position on the death penalty, why not?

3. These ballot measures are two of 17 that Californians have to vote for this Tuesday. Is 17 too many propositions? Why or why not? 

4. What are the benefits and downsides of having such a large number of propositions to vote on?