Previous Decision Allowing Purging of Voters in Ohio Now Overturned

Link to article

The state of Ohio previously acquired the right to purge voters who demonstrated political inactivity for over a six-year period. Although the state defended their actions by stating they only intended to keep voter lists “accurate and up to date,” many voter-rights groups expectedly challenged the controversial decision. These groups extended to demonstrate political activism by seeking an emergency motion; however, a federal judge overturned such grant in stating that the action of purging citizens who fail to vote in three federal elections or fail to take other similar voting-related actions does not demonstrate illegality. 

Upon further observing actions taken by the Ohio state government, the A. Philip Randolph Institute recently challenged the specific confirmation notices that were actually sent to voters regarding the issue. These notices, according to the Institute, demonstrated a severe lack of clarity and did not rightly inform voters of consequences at stake. Bringing this concern back to the court, it was ruled this Wednesday that the confirmation notices indeed “did not adequately advise registrants of the consequences of failure to respond, as the NVRA (National Voting Rights Act) requires.” The court therefor concluded that the state of Ohio may no longer, at the moment, purge voters due to a lack of political participation. Ohio continues to assert that their primary intention remained making it “easy to vote and hard to cheat.” In addition, other politically conservative states claim to follow suit in this action of purging inactive voters if Ohio manages to regain its previous victory.

Questions to consider:

1. Do you believe purging inactive voters is unconstitutional?
2. How might the action of purging inactive voters impact minority groups? In what ways might it silence their voice?
3. Generally characterized as a key swing state, how would purging previously inactive voters affect the commonly marginal results of Ohio’s elections?
4. As other conservative states begin considering following Ohio’s actions, how might the country’s overall voter turnout be affected? (Possibly consider whether it will prompt previously inactive voters to finally vote, or rather create an ineffective outcome)

Package Bomber Who Sent Bombs to at Least 12 People Has Been Taken into Custody

Broward County Sheriff's Office

Cesar Sayoc Jr. is the name of the 56 year old man who was arrested near Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as a suspect in the attempted bombing spree that struck the country just before mid term elections.He was caught after a quick investigation in which authorities said they were able to pull a fingerprint from one of the bomb packages and collect. Mr. Sayoc’s DNA from two others. Mr. Sayoc, an outspoken Trump supporter, sent 14 pipe bombs to at least 12 critics of Trump, The most prominent of which including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, a former CIA director and actor Robert De Niro. He was an avid poster on multiple right-winged Social media groups and published pictures of himself at a Trump rally wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. President Trump praised law enforcement official for their quick arrest, later stating that "These terrorizing acts are despicable and have no place in our country."  Cesar is a registered Republican whose arrest record in Florida goes back to 1991 which includes felony theft, drug and fraud charges, as well as allegations that he threatened to use a bomb,all of which can be seen in public records.

Discussion Questions

1.  Do you think this will have any effect on the outcome of the mid term elections, or just be past off as another case of a mentally ill extremest? Why?

2. Do you think there has been an increase of events similar to this in recent times? Why or why not?

3. Do you think the timing of this was too perfect? Why would someone who could plan all this out, carry it out right before an important election?

Trump Proposes Executive Order to Disband Birthright Citizenship

newsmax.com

The 14th amendment, passed in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” However, earlier on October 30, 2018, President Trump claimed that he is planning to give an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the United States.  This means that if a child is born in the US to illegal immigrant parents, the child will not be recognized as an American citizen. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence state some reasoning to be that people immigrate to the US and have children here as a way to take advantage of the benefits of this country- without having to go through immigration. While it is not in the presidential jurisdiction to override an amendment, Trump is arguing that he can enforce this executive order because of how he interprets the 14th amendment. To him and other supporters, the 14th amendment only applies if the person is born to parents who came to the country legally. I personally believe that this is a claim with the purpose of gaining attention and to pose as a threat to people who are immigrating illegally. I think that this stems from the immigrant caravan heading towards the US-Mexico border. Many officials have stated that it is not legally possible for Trump to change the 14th amendment, but because it is based on his interpretation (as illegal immigrants are not mentioned in the constitution), it is not necessarily impossible.

Questions

How does the timing of this decision (being so close to the midterm election)  impact the

validity of Trump’s statement? Do you think he is serious?

Do you think Trump’s reasoning for this executive order are valid concerns?

Should whether or not the parents are legal immigrants determine the citizenship of the child

even if they were born in the US?

Would this be a violation of the 14th Amendment or would it be legal given the parents are

illegal immigrants?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting

Article

AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar

On Saturday October 27th, at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a gunman killed 11 worshipers and injuring 6 others. The gunman was 46-year-old Robert Bowers. Bowers has had a large history of posting anti-Semitic content online. He was taken into custody Saturday and is now facing the death penalty. Bowers stormed the Synagogue on Saturday armed with an AR-15 and three handguns, after being taken into custody he was quoted saying to an officer, "They're committing genocide to my people. I just want to kill Jews." As of Monday, October 10th, President Trump plans to visit Pittsburgh and meet with the mourning families, although many of these families have stated that they do not wish to meet him, the mayor has also mentioned for him not to come. Many other political leaders have declined invitations to join Trump on his visit. Many are criticizing Trump's decision to visit Pittsburgh and his comments regarding the shooting, on Saturday Trump tweeted that "This evil Anti-Semitic attack is an assault on humanity. It will take all of us working together to extract the poison of Anti-Semitism from our world. We must unite to conquer hate." This tweet and his choice to travel to Pittsburgh has been seen as very hypocritical by many as some believe he has made many anti-semitic comments in the past.

Discussion Questions:
1. Do you feel that Trump's decision to travel to Pittsburgh is for moral reasons? or do you believe that he is doing so just for positive political attention?
2. Do you feel that the decision by other political leaders to not accept Trump's invitation is understandable?
3. Is the Death penalty a fitting punishment for this man?

GA Governor's election is close and involves race and access to voting

Article link

                                          Kevin Liles, NY Times

The Georgia Governor's election is a close contest involving Stacey Abrams against Brian Kemp. Abrams is the Democrat and she hopes to become the first black woman to be a Governor in the U.S. Brian Kemp is the Republican and has been Georgia Secretary of State for the past eight years. The theme of this race is voter registration as Abrams founded an organization that has registered thousands of new voters in the past five years meanwhile Kemp has overseen the cancellation of 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012. There are currently 53,000 new voter registrations that have been suspended and 70% of those are black people. Based on the 2010 census Georgia was approximately 60% white and 30% black. An average of five polls taken over the past four weeks gives Kemp a 1.6% lead, but all of the polls were within the margin of error, so voter turnout will play a huge role in the outcome of this election.

Discussion Questions

1. Should voters who are registered but don't present ID at a polling location be allowed to vote?

2. Is the evidence of voter suppression presented in this article compelling?

3. What campaigning strategies of either candidate do you like or dislike?

Ocean Cleaning Device is Almost Ready for Action

Link

Wilson, the cleaning pipe 

Wilson, a 2000 foot long pipe, is almost about to begin its journey to clean up the Great Pacific garbage patch, a massive floating pile of plastic garbage in the middle of the ocean. It is set to reach its starting point on Tuesday and begin cleaning shortly afterward. The device isn't supposed to clean every bit of plastic in the Pacific, but is projected to clean up to 90% of the 150 million tons of garbage in our oceans. This project is a huge step in fighting environmental degradation and hopefully many will see it as an inspiration to continue fighting for climate change reform, e.t.c. The Ocean is a huge supplier of food and resources, and it would be in our best interests to keep our food safe to consume. This relates to this idea of environment degradation and climate change. There is a huge argument whether we should preserve the environment or allow people to harvest its resources for profit. Personally, I think we should protect the environment at all costs. After all, this is our only planet. We should treat it with care and respect to ensure success for future generations.

1) Should the environment be protected? Or should people be allowed to use land/ocean for their own needs?

2) What kinds of regulation would be effective in stopping environmental degradation, on land and in the ocean?

3) Do you think Wilson will be effective in solving the ocean pollution problem? Why or why not?

Two shot and killed at Krogers in Kentucky

Two grocery shoppers were shot and killed at a Krogers grocery store in Jefferson, Kentucky on Wednesday. An unidentified suspect fatally shot a man inside the store, then proceeded to go outside and fatally shoot a women outside the store. An unnamed armed citizen shot at the suspect in the parking lot, but neither were struck. The suspect fled the scene then was soon apprehended by cops. Although it is very early in the Investigation, police suspect the shooting was random and the citizens shot weren't targets of the shooter. This story brings through two perspectives on the debate over guns in America. On one hand, you could argue that the lack of gun regulation and the simplicity of the process of purchasing a gun should be at blame for this shooting. On the other hand, one could reason that the situation could've been much worse if the armed citizen wasn't there to exchange fire with the suspect and force him to flee. I personally feel that although guns have the ability to be used in a heroic manner, if there weren't so many guns within our Country, situations like this could be avoided.

1)How do you feel about the current laws and regulations on purchasing a gun?
2)What are steps America could take to avoid situations like this in the future?
3)Should the shooter or the guns laws in America be blamed for tragic shootings like this? Why?


https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/us/kentucky-kroger-shooting/index.html

Explosive Devices Sent to Clinton, Obama, CNN, Former Head of Democratic National Committee

The suspicious package that was sent to CNN on Wednesday, prompting an evacuation of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan.

CNN

Link

Starting Monday of this week, packages containing explosive devices were sent to prominent Democratic politicians. Some of these individuals include, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and CNN. All these packages were intercepted before they could arrive to their residencies. Other packages had the names of former Attorney General Eric Holder, who served under President Obama and another package was found with the address of John Brennan, the director of the CIA under President Obama. Since then, the packages were sent to a FBI laboratory. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said, "this clearly is an act of terror attempting to undermine our free press and leaders of this free country through acts of violence." I believe this acts fall under the "political terrorism" category, for these terrorists probably have political motives but not necessarily to capture control of the state. Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. have been assassinated for their political beliefs, however in this case, it seems as if these terrorist are simply trying to take out the Democratic party. 

1. Who do you believe sent these packages? 

2. Why do you think Democrats are being targeted? 

3. What message do you think these terrorists are trying to send? 

Disappearance of Progressive Saudi Journalist

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/jamal-khashoggi-us-saudi/572722/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45789369

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/saudi-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-missing/index.html

Right: security footage of Khashoggi entering a building in Turkey on Oct 2. He was not seen leaving the building.

Jamal Khashoggi was a US-based Saudi journalist who went missing on October 2nd in Istanbul,
Turkey. He had been a progressive writer and regularly criticized the Saudi government.
After weeks of suspicion, the Saudi government admitted that he had been killed as part of a
“rogue operation” and that those responsible would be found and punished. However, it is still
widely believed that the Saudi government had direct involvement and that the occurrence is an
example of an assault on free speech. Since the reporter was a US resident and was utilizing an
important democratic idea (freedom of the press), many have looked to President Trump to level
some sort of punishment against the Saudi government. The US and Saudi Arabia have maintained
an at least decent relationship opposing communism, Iran, and having hosted mutually beneficial
trade for decades. Despite this, some occurrences such as US support for Israel and 9/11 have
shaken relations. Some are likening the murder of Khashoggi to the latter in terms of effect.

What action should the US government take against the Saudis, if any? Why?

President Trump has decided not to make any changes to arms trade with the
Saudi government due to ramifications on the US economy. Do you agree with this choice?
Why or why not?

If President Trump and his advisors do decide to accost the Saudi government, what effects
could this have on the US economy, as well as other areas of foreign relations?

Harvard on Trial: The Lawsuit on Affirmative Action

This past Monday, the trial against Harvard on the topic of affirmative action, a system that tries to promote underrepresented minorities, began. A group of Asian Americans that were rejected from Harvard argue that Harvard sets a restrictive quota for its Asian-American students and that the school holds Asian-American students to a higher level than other racial groups, like in manipulating parts of the application that are hard to quantify. With the plaintiffs wanting a more racial neutral process, this case could affect the future of affirmative action. Harvard denies discrimination and argues that without affirmative action there would be a decline in diversity which is important to students' education. The rest of the Ivy League schools have comes to Harvard's in defense of maintaining race as a factor in admissions.

Do you think affirmative action should be upheld?
Is diversity important?
What other solution could be considered?

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/harvard-affirmative-action-asian-americans.html

Kayne called "Token N***o" during CNN segment

article link 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/10/11/cnn-segment-calls-kanye-token-negro-attention-whore-and-what-happens-when-negroes-dont-read-n2527459 

 After a very long history of Kayne's erratic behavior, he quickly drew hate when one day he randomly posted a picture of him wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. What followed was a 3 month spree of tweets claiming his love for everyone, including the president, and in a "shocking" move, Kayne was invited to the White House. Kayne accepted and proceeded to talk about important topics such as Trump being "the Superman version of a president" and "the epitome of Dragon Energy" which I could not translate for the life of me. Clearly this was a move made by President Trump to get a rise from the Media, and he succeeded. During a late night segment on CNN, Don Lemon and his panelists were quick to criticize Kayne on his visit to the white house. Calling him a "token n***o" and "what happens with n***os don't read". This has caused controversy with double standards for democrats and has also further lowered CNN's ratings.

Do you think CNN went too far?

Do you think Trumps meeting was a publicity stunt? 

Do you support Kayne and his decision to "stray from the pack"?  

Marijuana Becomes Legal in Canada on Wednesday, But Barriers Remain for Consumers

Article Link

On Wednesday October 17, Canada will be the first major industrialized country to fully decriminalize the recreational use of marijuana. This means that all adults can legally possess, grow, and purchase marijuana. All of Canada's 13 provinces are adopting new regulations to deal with possible conflicts that can result with the new legislation. For instance, there are concerns with a shortage of legal marijuana since the demand for it will inevitably be higher. This can possibly lead to the increase black market sale of marijuana. Canada's federal government may be in charge of licensing commercial cannabis growers and authorizing their products, its provinces still have jurisdiction over regulating distribution and retail sales of marijuana. Controlling the marijuana market will be difficult especially with the different laws for each province. Additionally, it will possibly be more difficult for Canadians to cross the border to the US if they purchase or use marijuana since it is still illegal in the United States. Even though the Canadian provinces and federal government have decriminalized marijuana, they still face a very similar situation as the US since some states have contradicting laws with the US federal government. The differing laws in state and federal governments in the US have created much contention between the two, but maybe Canada will avoid these conflicts since it will decriminalize marijuana altogether. 

Discussion Questions: 

1) Did Canada make the right decision in decriminalizing the use, purchase, and possession of marijuana nationally? 

2) Should the provinces create universal marijuana regulations to avoid conflict in the future or should the provinces have the ability to have their own laws regarding marijuana? 

3) How will Canada's decision to decriminalize influence US laws?

Federal Judge Rules that Students Defrauded by For-Profit Colleges can Seek Loan Forgiveness

After the California Postsecondary School Association challenged the implementation of an Obama-era policy that had loose restrictions on student loan forgiveness from for-profit colleges, a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. found that the colleges would not suffer "irreparable harm" if the policies were to be implemented. This is a defeat for both Betsy DeVos, education secretary who is also opposed to these rules as well as the California Postsecondary School Association. The education board had delayed these Obama-era regulations since July, 2017 while they were working on their own new regulations that were far more strict and less forgiving. Student loan forgiveness allows individuals to pay pennies on the dollar for the amount of money that originally borrowed if they meet the requirements. Many Democrats and consumer advocates are supportive of these Obama era policies because for-profit colleges tend to overcharge for the education that they are providing and some tend to inflate graduate earnings, promise certain jobs, and overall make the college seem better than it actually is. The people who these schools are recruiting tend to be young, naive, and vulnerable to the appealing promises that these colleges make. Conservatives worry that forgiving too many of these loans could put stress on the federal student loan system, and that it will cost taxpayers far too much money. This is reasonable since the amount of forgiveness provided for cases like these has skyrocketed since 2015.

Questions:

Do you believe that more or less of these types of loans should be forgiven?

Should taxpayers have to pay for someone else's mistakes?

Should colleges be able to profit?

How do you suggest preventing students from becoming victims to fraudulent for-profit colleges and their advertising techniques in the future?

Sources:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/students-defrauded-by-for-profit-colleges-can-seek-loan-forgiveness-judge-rules-1539726303?mod=hp_listc_pos3

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-obama-for-profit-college-fraud-protection-20181016-story.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-denies-delay-obama-era-law-helping-students-defrauded-n920781

Nigeria's 100-year-old Death-row Inmate Seeking Pardon

Article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45727057



100-year-old death-row inmate Celestine Egbunuche was found guilty of hiring hitmen to murder a man due to land disputes and sentenced to death in 2014. 4 years later, he is still waiting in the horrible conditions of prison; due to his advanced age, he needs the help of his son and other inmates to bathe and use the restroom, and the prison officials need to give him drugs daily. This August, he turned 100, and many of the prisoners are asking for his release as he is barely able to speak and does not seem to comprehend anything prison officials say to him.
Nigeria's capital punishment system is notoriously slow and unorganized; in fact, it is not uncommon for an inmate to spend 30 years on death row. This connects to the U.S. because the death penalty is still a very polarizing debate. The supporters and advocates against Egbunuche argue over the same morals of justice versus morality just like the supporters and advocates against the death penalty do in the United States. 

Questions:
Some believe that Egbunuche is a criminal and he must be penalized for his actions whereas others say that the wait is cruel and torture. Should he be pardoned?
Should the death penalty be abolished or upheld?
Is it just to keep inmates on death row for an indefinite period of time? Should inmates who have waited a certain period of time on death-row be pardoned automatically?

A Woman Boarded a Plane with a Squirrel

Tuesday night, an old woman brought a squirrel as an emotional support on board Frontier flight to Cleveland from Orlando International Airport. When she would not leave her seat, the flight attendants had to escort the plane and call Orlando Police. According to the airline, she did check that she had an emotional support animal coming with her, but was not specific what the animal was. Frontier announced a policy for emotional support animal support animals, if they were cat or dogs beginning of the month. Washington Post states American With Disabilities Act only covers service dogs or miniature horses, but the airlines are bounded to the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. This act does allow free travel for "any animal" specialized and trained for a disabled or emotional support person however, a passenger must have a written statement from their physician or mental health counselor.

Questions:

If a person believes a certain animal is their pet or emotional support, should we change the law to accommodate their needs?

Should the government make a list of what type of animals can come on board planes?

Sources:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/10/10/orlando-florida-flight-delayed-after-woman-brings-squirrel-plane/1587164002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/10/10/woman-brought-her-emotional-support-squirrel-plane-frontier-wouldnt-let-it-fly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.acf164aba4f7

USMCA Is Not The Magnificent Trade Deal Trump Says It Is

Article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2018/10/08/usmca-is-not-the-magnificent-trade-deal-trump-says-it-is/#189a42764054

On October 1st, NAFTA had officially been replaced by a new trade deal. Named the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), this deal is the middle ground the three countries have reached. Other than the name change, there are some key new additions/modifications to this treaty. According to the new treaty, Canada has agreed to slowly open up their dairy market, setting higher import quotas for American dairy products. This was to try and compensate for trade losses to China and Mexico through tariffs. Also, the three countries are responsible for producing 75% (previously 62.5% under NAFTA) of the parts that they use to build and export cars in North America in order to qualify as duty free. This is a move pushed by the USA in order to retain blue collar jobs in America. There are other smaller provisions mentioned in the article, regarding labor, and trade with other continents. Although the US has made major gains through this trade deal, I personally think that it has done more harm than good to the United States. I agree with the author that through President Trump’s comments throughout the trade negotiations, the US has severely damaged the relationship between it and the other two members of USMCA.

Questions:

1. Do you think that USMCA has benefited the US or harmed it?

2. Will this new treaty help mitigate the negative economic impact of Chinese and Mexican tariffs?

3. Are there any specific provisions that you agree or disagree with?

Melania Trump: Out of Africa, Still in Costume

link

On Melania Trump's first solo trip abroad, she wore a white pith helmet on a safari in Kenya. With people claiming that this hat, a symbol of European exploitation of Africans and their land, is the epitome of Mrs. Trump's ignorance, it raises the question of whether what she chooses to wear is truly symbolic of her actions. In response to the controversy, Mrs. Trump said, “I wish people would focus on what I do, not what I wear.” However, I personally believe that Mrs. Trump should have been more careful in choosing her outfit, considering her role as the First Lady. Especially after her fashion controversy in June, when she wore a “I really don't care. Do U?” jacket to visit an immigrant children's shelter, I think she should have been more aware of the symbolism behind her outfits, and been proactive in avoiding to wear possibly controversial outfits. Although it was likely an unintentional mistake, simple research should (and could) have been done before deciding to wear that helmet.

Questions:

1. What do you think of Mrs. Trump's statement that people should focus on her actions, and not her outfits?

2. Are the criticisms of Mrs. Trump's wardrobe choice fair or is the media overreacting? Do you think the current polarization in American politics contributes to the public's apparent zealousness to analyze Mrs. Trump's choices? Or is this sharp criticism justified?

3. Do you believe that she meant to wear the white pith helmet as a political statement or do you think it was an innocent mistake?

Why The Tech Industry Wants Federal Control Over Data Privacy Laws

Article link:https://www.npr.org/2018/10/08/654893289/why-the-tech-industry-wants-federal-control-over-data-privacy-laws

Due to the recent enactment of laws in California and Europe, tech companies are required to protect the privacy of users and will receive huge fines if they choose not to do so.  In May, Europe enacted a law that forces companies to disclose data breaches within 72 hours of finding them. Last month, Facebook had to publicly announce that at least 50 million accounts were affected by a data breach. Due to California enacting a privacy law in June, users are permitted to  sue Facebook for the damages caused by the data breach. Tech companies are fearful that other states will follow California and enact strict privacy laws. They desire for a preemption clause to make sure that federal law trumps all state privacy laws and that the Federal Trade Commission would be the one in charge of enforcing privacy laws. This would allow companies to avoid a multitude of laws in various states. Critics, however, point out that the FTC lacks the authority to enforce new privacy rules. They say that the FTC can only track people for breaching statements they’ve made in their privacy policies.

Questions:

1. Should more states start enacting data privacy laws?
2. Should data privacy laws be enforced by the states or by the federal government?
3. What measures should tech companies take to prevent future data breaches from occurring?

Senate Moves Toward Friday Showdown Vote on Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

Senator Lindsey Graham left the room after viewing the single copy of the F.B.I. investigation into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Article Link

The Senate, after a highly disputed past three weeks, is set to vote Friday (October 5) morning to determine if Brett Kavanaugh will reach the Supreme Court. While most senators have already confirmed their adherence to their party’s stance, there are still a few who are undecided. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the only Democrat left who might vote for Kavanaugh. On the Republican side, though unofficial, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona have seemed to side with Kavanaugh after seeing the report from the FBI investigation on Kavanaugh’s past conduct, which they thought was sufficiently thorough. During this process, Democrats have criticized this investigation for being too short and therefore incomplete, while Republicans have accused Democrats of delaying a Supreme Court nomination.

While Kavanaugh certainly has the credentials and experience, even disregarding his past conduct, his emotional testimony in the most recent hearing (which involved attacks directed toward Democrats) raises questions about whether he has the impartiality and judicial temperament necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. I think this is something that needs to be considered, but definitely shouldn’t be an overriding factor. Another interesting point is that while Republicans’ accusation of the Democrats’ stalling contains validity, it has a bit of irony to it, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had delayed the nomination of Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, for almost a year.

Questions

1. Do you think Kavanaugh is qualified / deserves to be on the Supreme Court? Why or why not?
2. How would you assess both the Republican and Democratic senator’s handling of this issue as a whole?
3. Do you think a longer FBI investigation would have been necessary? Do you think it could have led to any findings that would actually be significant / relevant to the case?

1 Abortion Clinic Remains Open In Missouri, Following New State Requirements

Article Link

Currently, Missouri only has one abortion clinic in the state when it used to have five in 2008. With Missouri's new abortion restriction, abortion clinics must receive approval from a health clinic within a fifteen minute distance in order to accept patients for abortion. With this change, women may need to travel long distances to reach the clinic or search for out-of-state alternatives. In addition to Missouri, other states such as Wyoming and North Dakota only have one abortion clinic. Despite abortions becoming safer over time, some seek to restrict access because of fears of complications in the process. It is especially concerning since the decision of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade could be overturned should Kavanaugh be confirmed as a justice.

Questions:
1. What would happen if some states started banning abortion?
2. Why might someone support banning or restricting abortion?
3. What values are associated with an abortion?

Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

Article Link

Recently, Governor Brown approved a new law restoring net neutrality regulations that were in place before the unprecedentedly unpopular repealing of Obama-era reforms by the FCC. The law prohibits internet providers from slowing down internet traffic on competitor services and speeding it up on subsidiary services. Naturally, the Federal government is not pleased with California's direct contradiction of their repeal of net neutrality, and they have filed a lawsuit against the state. I am glad that California's lawmakers are taking bold steps in order to preserve our internet rights, but I am doubtful that their efforts be fruitful. It is simply unrealistic to believe that a state can maintain its own unique internet regulations, especially under the pressure of both the Federal government and telecommunications companies, which are also undoubtedly preparing lawsuits against California.

The issue at play here is of state's rights vs federal authority, a controversy which has dominated the American political arena since the foundation of our country. As we learned during our Federalism unit, the tricky part is to find the balance between the autonomy of states and the supremacy of the Government. In this scenario, it may be argued that California ought to institute internet regulation statutes as it pleases, and simultaneously, also that the government ought to use its power to ensure that Federal laws are heeded across the 50 states.

Questions

Should California be permitted to exercise its right to maintain its own internet regulations, even if they contradict Federal statutes?

How might different internet regulations in different states affect internet users? Internet companies? Internet providers?

Male, Female or ‘X’: The Push for a Third Choice on Official Forms

Nathan Levitt of Brooklyn will let his 20-month-old child, Zo, choose a gender when ready

Article Link

The debate on sexuality and gender has been a long and controversial debate. As younger generations are showing more signs of acceptance, it seems that there is a multitude of states that are starting to pass legislation that is validating those who don't identify with a gender. While this is a great start, there is a lack of organization in state governments that create confusion within the community. In some states, there can be an "X" on the driver's plate but not the birth certificate and in other states, it's vice versa. Some states still haven't adopted any legislation for the third ambiguous gender. For parents who are letting their children decide what gender they want to be, this is going to be a difficult and confusing process. It is very amiable that these states are trying to do something for these people, but the process needs to become more efficient and more consistent.

Questions:
How can states create this change effectively?
What are your takes on this third gender?
Why does generational ideology show such a difference in acceptance in both sexuality and gender?
How will the current administration affect laws such as this nationwide?

California Law Mandates Female Board Directors by 2019

Article Link

On September 30, a new California law was signed, requiring publicly listed companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019. The number of female directors will increase proportionate to the amount of directors in the company. For example, if a company had 5 directors, they would require two female directors. Those who do not comply can face a fine of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000. Major companies such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, who have their headquarters in California, will have to add one more woman to their board of directors to fulfill the requirements by 2021.

Ultimately, although it is good that there would be equal opportunity for women to get a position in public companies, it is also important to realize that such an implementation would not be easy. Forcing a company to have female board of directors could cause internal issues. Board of Directors are appointed and nominated by boards and must be approved by a majority of executive shareholders. Directors must be able to comply with the shareholders. In my opinion, it does not matter if the board of directors in a company has a majority of male or female, it is more important that companies designate their board of directors by regarding their skill level and experience in the field of work. With a single woman on the board of directors, they can be pawns of other board executives and become a free vote. Instead of having it instituted at such a high level, it should be tried in smaller companies to see the effects.

Discussion Questions

1. How can an implementation of woman in a board of directors harmful or beneficial to a corporate company?
2. Do you agree with Senator Jackson's claim that "gender diversity on corporate boards is associated with increased profitability, performance, governance, innovation, and opportunity?"
3. How could California law makers have implemented this law differently to reduce the effects of companies having to scramble to find suitable candidates?