Democratic Party leaders, such as Bill Clinton, are attempting to coax some of their brethren out of their races for candidates who are more "party-favored". The other side of the aisle is attempting to do so as well. The common denominator here is that both parties are facing unforeseen, hardened push back from those they are pushing on. While Mr. Clinton tried to convince Democratic Senate contender Representative Kendrick B. Meek from Florida to drop out, Republican leaders pushed for State Senator Sue Lowden as their candidate in Nevada's Senate race. Both Clinton and Republican leaders failed. Meek is steadfastly remaining to fight a loosing battle in Florida while Lowden lost in the primary to Tea Party favored Sharon Angle.
What does this party disloyalty mean? Who does it affect?
What we are seeing is the implosion of two parties and the fallout will rain on us all. The Democrats are sinking from a shaky economy and their pre-election timidity. They are patching their sinking ship in the hope that USS Donkey will make it to shore before the next presidential election. They're done this cycle. They know, we know it. Yes, the Republicans are going to bruise the Democrats this election. But that bruising is coming with a price all its own. The Republicans polarizing brethren, the Tea Party, may do more harm to them than the Democrats could ever accomplish on a their own. We are a country of moderates, and any swing to far to the right again a la Bush and company will just bring the Dems back in.
With our two parties on shaky legs, with a shaky economy, who will the people look to to finally right us? With the coming election, President Obama will be hand tied. Republican Congress will not defeat veto. Regardless of executive and legislative frustrations, with no consensus within the parties, how can we expect any consensus between the parties?
After this election, the Democrats will be losers, the Republicans will be losers, and we, the people will be losers.
Oct 29, 2010
Oct 7, 2010
Painfully Protected
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their anti-homosexuality protesting at the funeral of a fallen soldier. The church believes that the soldier's death was God's punishment the United States' God "its tolerance of homosexuality". At question is whether or not free speech is protected during funerals.
In his editorial in today's New York Times , Alan Chen makes the case against that despite the onerousness of a message, that message should be protected as free speech. Mr. Chen states that the court should rule in favor of the church not to just protect their vile, hateful speech but also the "expression with which we vehemently disagree." He warns of the consequences that could take place if the court rules in favor the the soldier's family; such a stifling would "deter protestors of all political views".
Despite the heinousness of the Westboro Baptist Church's actions, their message, their choice of stage, I agree begrudgingly agree with Mr. Chen. Any type of speech has the potential of angering and upsetting someone. Political demonstrations, marches, pickets, all have the potential to create a charged emotional atmosphere. This right of speaking freely, about those things that you feel passionately about, is a protected pillar of our country. It is a quick slope into government repression of ideas if the Supreme Court rules against the church members. I think they are terrible, heartless, non-Christians and their message is only hateful and intolerant. Their protesting during one of the most solemn of occasions, during the funeral of someone who fought and died so that they might be able to do spew their vitriol is unforgivable yet their right to do so inalienable.
My resolution, protest their protest!
In his editorial in today's New York Times , Alan Chen makes the case against that despite the onerousness of a message, that message should be protected as free speech. Mr. Chen states that the court should rule in favor of the church not to just protect their vile, hateful speech but also the "expression with which we vehemently disagree." He warns of the consequences that could take place if the court rules in favor the the soldier's family; such a stifling would "deter protestors of all political views".
Despite the heinousness of the Westboro Baptist Church's actions, their message, their choice of stage, I agree begrudgingly agree with Mr. Chen. Any type of speech has the potential of angering and upsetting someone. Political demonstrations, marches, pickets, all have the potential to create a charged emotional atmosphere. This right of speaking freely, about those things that you feel passionately about, is a protected pillar of our country. It is a quick slope into government repression of ideas if the Supreme Court rules against the church members. I think they are terrible, heartless, non-Christians and their message is only hateful and intolerant. Their protesting during one of the most solemn of occasions, during the funeral of someone who fought and died so that they might be able to do spew their vitriol is unforgivable yet their right to do so inalienable.
My resolution, protest their protest!
Oct 5, 2010
The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Background Checks for Government Contractors
The New York Times today heard the beginning arguments on the stipulation of employment, as set up in 2005 by the Bush administration, requiring background checks on government contractors. At issue is if the background checks "as a condition of employment" violated the plaintiffs constitutional right to privacy.
In 1977, two similar cases where heard, but the results were ambiguous.
Acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal argued for the government in the case. Mr. Katyal stated that when the government is hiring, it should be able to "ask about potentially relevant matters just as private employers do" and "may not object to the mere collection of information where its public dissemination is tightly controlled."
In response to Mr. Katyal's points, Justice Scalia responded that it was not the Supreme Court whom should make this decision. That decision, for Justice Scalia, was best left for Congress.
Justice Ginsberg felt that the only at question in front of the court "concerned only inquiries about treatment for drug use in the past year and ones seeking adverse information from the employee’s landlords and other references." Such inquiries were blocked in 2008 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Dan Stormer, to have failed to provide a means "to distinguish permissible questions from others" for the court arguing instead that most had worked for the government 20-30 years and were "low- or no-risk employees".
Though I feel strongly in a right to privacy, in this case, the government should have the same right as private employers possess to ask question from applicants about their background. The answers to such questions are informative to the manner in which an applicant will perform while on the job. Also, if the government contract job is one of national importance, national security, the back ground check is an obvious necessity. The public good is at risk if the background of an applicant is left shrouded in mystery.
In 1977, two similar cases where heard, but the results were ambiguous.
Acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal argued for the government in the case. Mr. Katyal stated that when the government is hiring, it should be able to "ask about potentially relevant matters just as private employers do" and "may not object to the mere collection of information where its public dissemination is tightly controlled."
In response to Mr. Katyal's points, Justice Scalia responded that it was not the Supreme Court whom should make this decision. That decision, for Justice Scalia, was best left for Congress.
Justice Ginsberg felt that the only at question in front of the court "concerned only inquiries about treatment for drug use in the past year and ones seeking adverse information from the employee’s landlords and other references." Such inquiries were blocked in 2008 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Dan Stormer, to have failed to provide a means "to distinguish permissible questions from others" for the court arguing instead that most had worked for the government 20-30 years and were "low- or no-risk employees".
Though I feel strongly in a right to privacy, in this case, the government should have the same right as private employers possess to ask question from applicants about their background. The answers to such questions are informative to the manner in which an applicant will perform while on the job. Also, if the government contract job is one of national importance, national security, the back ground check is an obvious necessity. The public good is at risk if the background of an applicant is left shrouded in mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)