Today, I read an article from the New York Times that dealt with the strategy and decision-making that went into the process of selecting Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the Supreme Court. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html?_r=1&ref=politics). With much of the recent news focusing on President Obama's judicial nomination, the public is being exposed to a wide assortment of information that tends to say very different things. This particular article focuses mostly on the preparation that went into the president's decision, from soon after he was elected up until recent events. Only a few weeks after being elected, President Obama began developing an idea about who he would nominate if a position would become available. Throughout the entire process, Obama often felt drawn to Sotomayor. Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, essentially said that she was always the favorite, and the only way that she would not have earned the nomination was if she were somehow knocked "off the pedestal." The administration also asked that "activists not ... lobby for their favorites in the news media or talk down candidates they opposed." Nonetheless, Obama called every member of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Grassley (R - Iowa) mentioned that this was the first time in 29 years that a president had contacted him about a nomination. Obama also called around in order to double-check her reputation among others. Unlike the drama that occurred during the episode of The West Wing, the Obama administration was prepared well in advance, even before Justice Souter announced his retirement. Everything about this decision seems to be very strategic and well-thought-out. The journalists, Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney, seem to have a positive tone about this fact because they thoroughly reported on the intricate details that the administration focused on throughout the nomination process. They appear to be in support of the president and his decision, for they covered the topic adequately while not mentioning any of the negative reactions that people are having in the media these days. Many people are concerned about her potentially racist remarks (among other things), yet this article did not touch on this issue at all. Surely, the administration new about her background and her various works, but this piece does not state whether the president thought this was a major concern or not. Instead, the article deals more about the behind-the-scenes work and the thorough job that Obama and his team did.
Between this article and the video from Politico, Sotomayor's experience seems to stack up to many of the other qualified possibilities. President Obama said that she not only had a "brilliant" legal career, but she also acquired wisdom from "an inspiring life journey." Her career spans three decades and includes time with "almost every level of our judicial system." In the Times' article, a Harvard law professor said that Obama considered five main points: age, experience, independence, confidence, and diversity. At the age of 54, she appears to exemplify these qualities. She would certainly have an impact of the court for many years to come. As we discussed in class, she tends to be a moderate, which usually creates less controversy. Unfortunately for Sotomayor and many Democrats, her confirmation is already being contested in the media before the Senate has even had a chance to meet with her. In the Politico clip, President Obama said that a judge ought to recognize the limits of the judicial role and understand that a judge should only interpret, and not make, laws. However, a video found within the Times' article shows Sotomayor making a comment about the court of appeals being a place where policy is made. Others feel that she should not rely so much on empathy when she makes decisions. On top of that, some individuals (including Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and former representative Tom Tancredo) have found one of her previous statements to be rather racist in nature. In talking about how her past life experiences help her make wise, informed decisions, she brought race into the picture. One caller to CNN posed the question of whether or not Obama would have nominated Sotomayor if she had said that her background made her more qualified than a black man. I find it very interesting that race continues to be such a prominent issue in our culture. The commonsense solution is to simply have people stop considering race, but people refuse to accept that as a viable option. Instead, people believe that the way to overcome racism is to continue to consider race until conditions are equal. One guest on CNN went further with regards to Sotomayor by saying that a group she is affiliated with goes as far as to promote Hispanic rights over other rights. These are just some of the important issues that will be talked about until the Senate makes a decision regarding this nomination. While the New York Times' article overlooks some of these criticisms, it does point out the long road that has led up to this point before we approach the even more difficult path ahead.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
A Day In Congress
Response to "Today in Congress" by David Waldman (May 20th, 2009)
When I first browsed the Congress Matters' article, a few items stood out to me. Initially, I was surprised to find that I was scrolling for some time before I reached the end of the page. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that the site contains a detailed description of the various plans for the committees and subcommittees. In reality, the House had two votes to conduct, one for HR 2352 and one for a Senate amendment to HR 627. Then, I also noticed many of the topics we discussed in class today. For instance, the Senate had to file any amendments to HR 2346 by 1 pm because of Rule 22 that applies to votes when cloture occurs. This fact implies that a member (or members) of Congress tried to filibuster the bill. Clearly, this is an appropriate example of how the information we acquire during class applies to life situations.
One practice that struck me as odd during class was depicted in a recent action by the Senate. The House was voting on an amendment that the Senate added to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009; amazingly, the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with credit cards at all. The amendment actually had to deal with the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ability to carry guns in national parks. This is a clear-cut example of how people in Congress spend time dealing with "politics" rather than helping the country. Some of the Senators simply voted in favor of this proposal because they wanted to be perceived as pro-gun while they believed that the House would ultimately defeat the new amendment. This is similar to both the reading and the presentation in class; sometimes, unrelated items get attached to bills so that those measures will have a greater chance of being passed because people (particularly, the president) do not want to oppose the entire bill simply because of one detail. Personally, I have a problem with this practice because truly necessary legislation will likely be passed through Congress and the president on its own. What ever happened to discussion and persuasion? If someone can develop a well-reasoned, rational argument for a particular action, then people should be more open to pursuing that course of action. To me, the current procedure seems to be another example of how representatives look out for themselves and their constituents at the expense of the whole nation (sometimes). I feel that we need to figure out a way to take the "politics" out of politics. We need to put aside all of the twisted practices of politicians and recognize what is best for the nation. Perhaps, this is why the Founding Fathers tried to limit Congress to certain powers because they understood that most things would be better left up to the states.
With that being said, we unfortunately have to live with the fact that Congress has abused some of the clauses in the Constitution to deal with many different issues. Between the Constitutional powers and the interpretted powers, Congress has become a complex organization of a range of committees and subcommittees. The House Appropriations Committee considered 7 different topics from 10 am until after 2 pm. Although I do not know the exact members of each committee, I would imagine that representatives often have multiple meetings scheduled at the same time. This is more obvious with the Senate schedule because it was organized according to time. At two points during the day, four committees were meeting at one time. Even though Congress members do not spend a great deal of time role call voting each day, they remain extraordinarily busy with all of their responsibilities. I am not surprised that people are dissatisfied with Congress because our representatives are constantly occupied with various activities that slow down the legislative process (especially since every representative tries to benefit his/her constituents). Looking at this schedule has provided me with more reasons to believe that changes need to be made with regards to the operations of Congress.
When I first browsed the Congress Matters' article, a few items stood out to me. Initially, I was surprised to find that I was scrolling for some time before I reached the end of the page. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that the site contains a detailed description of the various plans for the committees and subcommittees. In reality, the House had two votes to conduct, one for HR 2352 and one for a Senate amendment to HR 627. Then, I also noticed many of the topics we discussed in class today. For instance, the Senate had to file any amendments to HR 2346 by 1 pm because of Rule 22 that applies to votes when cloture occurs. This fact implies that a member (or members) of Congress tried to filibuster the bill. Clearly, this is an appropriate example of how the information we acquire during class applies to life situations.
One practice that struck me as odd during class was depicted in a recent action by the Senate. The House was voting on an amendment that the Senate added to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009; amazingly, the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with credit cards at all. The amendment actually had to deal with the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ability to carry guns in national parks. This is a clear-cut example of how people in Congress spend time dealing with "politics" rather than helping the country. Some of the Senators simply voted in favor of this proposal because they wanted to be perceived as pro-gun while they believed that the House would ultimately defeat the new amendment. This is similar to both the reading and the presentation in class; sometimes, unrelated items get attached to bills so that those measures will have a greater chance of being passed because people (particularly, the president) do not want to oppose the entire bill simply because of one detail. Personally, I have a problem with this practice because truly necessary legislation will likely be passed through Congress and the president on its own. What ever happened to discussion and persuasion? If someone can develop a well-reasoned, rational argument for a particular action, then people should be more open to pursuing that course of action. To me, the current procedure seems to be another example of how representatives look out for themselves and their constituents at the expense of the whole nation (sometimes). I feel that we need to figure out a way to take the "politics" out of politics. We need to put aside all of the twisted practices of politicians and recognize what is best for the nation. Perhaps, this is why the Founding Fathers tried to limit Congress to certain powers because they understood that most things would be better left up to the states.
With that being said, we unfortunately have to live with the fact that Congress has abused some of the clauses in the Constitution to deal with many different issues. Between the Constitutional powers and the interpretted powers, Congress has become a complex organization of a range of committees and subcommittees. The House Appropriations Committee considered 7 different topics from 10 am until after 2 pm. Although I do not know the exact members of each committee, I would imagine that representatives often have multiple meetings scheduled at the same time. This is more obvious with the Senate schedule because it was organized according to time. At two points during the day, four committees were meeting at one time. Even though Congress members do not spend a great deal of time role call voting each day, they remain extraordinarily busy with all of their responsibilities. I am not surprised that people are dissatisfied with Congress because our representatives are constantly occupied with various activities that slow down the legislative process (especially since every representative tries to benefit his/her constituents). Looking at this schedule has provided me with more reasons to believe that changes need to be made with regards to the operations of Congress.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
McLean County
Determining my home county is certainly not a challenge for me, for my family has lived in McLean County since we moved to Illinois in 1999. Unfortunately, that fact means that I should know more about the county than people from other areas, but I would not consider myself to have a great deal of knowledge about McLean County. Depending on what a person is searching for, I can likely direct him/her to the right place, yet I have little idea about much of the history of the area. In fact, I did not even know what country district my permanent address falls into. According to McLeanCountyIL.gov, my home falls into the 10th district. Thus, the board members representing my district are Bob Nuckolls and Benjamin Owens. Although many of the names seemed unfamiliar to me, I did recognize some individuals and concluded that others were likely related to people I knew. Surprisingly, two of the twenty members were/are my teachers/professors, Erik Rankin and John McIntyre. Actually, "Coach Mac" spoke at Normal Community's baccalaureate when I was a senior. Additionally, while browsing ErikRankin.com, I discovered that the county grows by approximately 2% each year, yet the FY 09 budget has decreased by 2.2%. From 2000 to 2006, crime has risen 7%, and according to the county's website, 2008 saw 117 batteries, 108 burglaries, and 12 sex offenses among a population of around 165,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau). Overall, McLean County is a relatively safe and secure community that continues to grow and improve.
Even before this post was assigned, I had looked into the Board of Elections website because I recently applied for a scholarship through the General Assembly. Therefore, I already knew that our state senator is Bill Brady, and our state representative is Dan Brady. I do not know a great deal about them, but I remember growing up and seeing lawn signs and other campaign support for both men. Considering McLean County is predominantly Republican and incumbent individuals are generally reelected, they have been around for some time now. From 1993 until 2001, Bill Brady served in the Illinois House of Representatives, and has been a state senator ever since. Dan Brady was elected coroner in 1992 and again in 1996, before becoming the 88th District's representative in 2001. Both men were born in Bloomington and have continued to contribute to the local community. Bill Brady has been generous to me personally because he and his office decided to award me with a General Assembly Scholarship for the 2009-2010 academic year, so he is more than alright in my book. Recently, he "added to Senate Bill 2186, [which] will bar a municipality from enacting ordinances or zoning decisions to prohibit or restrict a retailer from locating within the municipality if the retailer otherwise meets all necessary requirements for construction and development" (http://brady.senategop.net/news/104-capitol-commentary-may-15-2009). Furthermore, Bill and Dan Brady both have concerns about the idea of passing a bill in support of medical marijuana and believe that the passage of the bill would cause troubles for law enforcement agencies (http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2009/05/05/health/doc49fc80257103b116912930.txt). I am interested in learning more about the individuals representing McLean County, especially after having Dan Rutherford speak to my CJS 200 class and hearing Stephen Brokaw speak highly of his work with Dan Brady.
I hope that I will continue to maintain a strong desire to become more involved with the political process, both locally and nationally.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Automobiles and the Environment
Today, I found an article from the New York Times, entitled "Obama Sets New Auto Emissions and Mileage Rules." You can read the piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics. As the title states, President Obama has helped to "set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States of America." California already has certain standards, but this plan aims to expand those ideas to the rest of America. The benefits of this change vary widely from saving money on buying gas to saving the environment by reducing the impact of pollution from automobiles. In the past, these effects were outweighed by economic concerns of both industry officials and the Bush administration. However, the new Congress and executive branch are working together to make progress in this area.
Clearly, this article relates to much of the material we have been discussing in class. We have talked about how government is cyclical and wavers back and forth from leaning one way to the other. These environmental improvements reflect a distinct change from the previous years. Nonetheless, the article does mention that a law was passed in 2007, which states that gas mileage must increase 40% by 2020. At the time, however, no regulations were in place that would enforce the law. Quite evidently, the sort of power established by this law was illegitimate because no one had any incentive to follow such a law. Just like students who do not follow the signals when crossing the streets, automakers could choose whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. Fortunately, President Obama "will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations." With auto manufacturers already struggling to survive, they will essentially have no other option except to comply. Whether we look at this decision from a personal or community-centered perspective, we will likely see numerous advantages. This policy should help the economy, the environment, and the vast majority of citizens in the United States.
Furthermore, this article demonstrates many of the ideas associated with federalism and the conflicting views about how much power the federal government should have. Originally, this issue was left up to the states. California took the lead by imposing strict limitations on the emissions and gas mileage of vehicles within the state's borders. Other states have not been as quick to catch onto this idea, so Obama is encouraging a more rapid change by utilizing the federal government. The president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, commented how a debate has gone on for seven years as to whether this should be a state or national issue. In this case, the federal government has stepped up and declared that it has the authority to determine these standards. Nevertheless, we discussed in class that states do not always follow national regulations, so I am interested in seeing how this will unfold. Many representatives for the auto industry as well as the governor of Michigan showed up to support Obama and this announcement, but initial support does not always last. Hopefully, they will understand the immense benefits to these standards and follow them, but they have long resisted such changes. Still, the federal government does have ways to control both states and businesses through funding and even criminal sanctions. At this point, I am optimistic in believing that these rules will be taken seriously and we will benefit greatly from this policy.
Unfortunately, some questions still remain in my mind as well as the minds of others. Personally, I have very little knowledge about some of the people mentioned in this article, so I do not know for certain how they will respond when things really start to get moving. For years, the auto industry (especially in the United States) has basically refused to move forward with less pollution and better gas mileage. People are often reactive rather than proactive towards situations. Back in the 70s, America faced an oil scare, in which people were afraid that they would not have enough gas for everyone. Then, when people's fears were relieved and gas prices dropped, people became less concerned with the issue. Certainly, gas mileage and emissions have improved since the 1970s, yet here we are, decades later, virtually repeating the same events. We still rely heavily on oil, and alternative energy sources are seriously underdeveloped. While some individuals have foreseen the pitfalls of continuing in such a fashion, the public (and by extension, the government) has long overlooked the potential consequences. Only when we face disastrous circumstances, do we generally decide to respond. My fear is that companies may comply with the new regulations to the point just above the minimum amount required by law. If we do not continually set additional goals, we may once again fall into complacency.
The people and the government need to think ahead and proactively implement innovative policies. Some may argue that we are already doing a fine job in terms of the environment because we are not in a dangerous position in terms of global warming / climate change. On the other hand, some may claim that we should have considered the environment much more seriously before now; they may also feel that we still need to make a great deal of improvements. Economically, we can more clearly acknowledge that we certainly fell behind and consequently, are in an unfavorable position. Now, the government has taken on the challenge of fixing both the economy and the environment. With the Democrats in control, the government is taking a larger role in matters, and the federal government is extending its authority, as we can witness through these new measures. Only time will tell how the government's actions will affect the world around us.
Clearly, this article relates to much of the material we have been discussing in class. We have talked about how government is cyclical and wavers back and forth from leaning one way to the other. These environmental improvements reflect a distinct change from the previous years. Nonetheless, the article does mention that a law was passed in 2007, which states that gas mileage must increase 40% by 2020. At the time, however, no regulations were in place that would enforce the law. Quite evidently, the sort of power established by this law was illegitimate because no one had any incentive to follow such a law. Just like students who do not follow the signals when crossing the streets, automakers could choose whether or not they wanted to abide by the law. Fortunately, President Obama "will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations." With auto manufacturers already struggling to survive, they will essentially have no other option except to comply. Whether we look at this decision from a personal or community-centered perspective, we will likely see numerous advantages. This policy should help the economy, the environment, and the vast majority of citizens in the United States.
Furthermore, this article demonstrates many of the ideas associated with federalism and the conflicting views about how much power the federal government should have. Originally, this issue was left up to the states. California took the lead by imposing strict limitations on the emissions and gas mileage of vehicles within the state's borders. Other states have not been as quick to catch onto this idea, so Obama is encouraging a more rapid change by utilizing the federal government. The president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, commented how a debate has gone on for seven years as to whether this should be a state or national issue. In this case, the federal government has stepped up and declared that it has the authority to determine these standards. Nevertheless, we discussed in class that states do not always follow national regulations, so I am interested in seeing how this will unfold. Many representatives for the auto industry as well as the governor of Michigan showed up to support Obama and this announcement, but initial support does not always last. Hopefully, they will understand the immense benefits to these standards and follow them, but they have long resisted such changes. Still, the federal government does have ways to control both states and businesses through funding and even criminal sanctions. At this point, I am optimistic in believing that these rules will be taken seriously and we will benefit greatly from this policy.
Unfortunately, some questions still remain in my mind as well as the minds of others. Personally, I have very little knowledge about some of the people mentioned in this article, so I do not know for certain how they will respond when things really start to get moving. For years, the auto industry (especially in the United States) has basically refused to move forward with less pollution and better gas mileage. People are often reactive rather than proactive towards situations. Back in the 70s, America faced an oil scare, in which people were afraid that they would not have enough gas for everyone. Then, when people's fears were relieved and gas prices dropped, people became less concerned with the issue. Certainly, gas mileage and emissions have improved since the 1970s, yet here we are, decades later, virtually repeating the same events. We still rely heavily on oil, and alternative energy sources are seriously underdeveloped. While some individuals have foreseen the pitfalls of continuing in such a fashion, the public (and by extension, the government) has long overlooked the potential consequences. Only when we face disastrous circumstances, do we generally decide to respond. My fear is that companies may comply with the new regulations to the point just above the minimum amount required by law. If we do not continually set additional goals, we may once again fall into complacency.
The people and the government need to think ahead and proactively implement innovative policies. Some may argue that we are already doing a fine job in terms of the environment because we are not in a dangerous position in terms of global warming / climate change. On the other hand, some may claim that we should have considered the environment much more seriously before now; they may also feel that we still need to make a great deal of improvements. Economically, we can more clearly acknowledge that we certainly fell behind and consequently, are in an unfavorable position. Now, the government has taken on the challenge of fixing both the economy and the environment. With the Democrats in control, the government is taking a larger role in matters, and the federal government is extending its authority, as we can witness through these new measures. Only time will tell how the government's actions will affect the world around us.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Introduction
My name is Tyler Wiggs, and I just completed my sophomore year here at ISU. I am a Criminal Justice major, and I recently decided to pursue two minors: Sociology and Political Science. After taking PHI 104 (Ideal of Democracy) and voting in my first election in the fall, I developed a stronger interest for politics. In the spring, I went to Boston with Alternative Spring Break, where I met some people who are looking to obtain their Master’s Degrees in Political Science while participating in the Peace Corps. I came to appreciate some of the many benefits associated with studying Political Science. I have always been interested in various aspects of the government, and I am hoping to understand more about the inner workings of institution of politics. Currently, I would consider myself to have limited experience with the government. My dad is the Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation for the Town of Normal, so I occasionally here stories from him and the various meetings he attends (i.e., town council meetings). However, I would definitely like to change the situation and become more educated about the government. I believe that this class will provide a fast-paced overview into United States politics. I expect us to look at current issues and address how we can apply what we learn to our lives immediately and long into the future. I am looking forward to learning a great deal in the upcoming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
