Supreme Court - Blog Post 2

      The Supreme Court is equal to the Legislative and the Executive branches, and has checks and balances with them.  It was established to rule on the constitutionality of cases and to be non-partisan.  Despite this idea being good on paper, in reality it doesn't always live up to that.  Of course, justices are allowed and assumed to have their political leanings, but they aren't supposed to let those leanings interfere on their judicial decisions, but let strictly the Constitution influence them.

     Nowadays, the Supreme Court has unfortunately become political.  Justices appointed by Republican Presidents are hated by the left, and justices appointed by Democrats are hated on the right.  The President is supposed to appoint justices based on who is the most qualified for the position, but the temptation to appoint someone primarily because they agree with you is often too strong.

     I know I'm late on this post; I read the info, but I forgot to actually write the post.  But I am going to take the opportunity I have of writing this now to mention the news from over the weekend that has brought a huge amount of attention to the Supreme Court: the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Because her passing happened so close to an election (and a particularly intense election at that), the idea of whether or not Trump should be allowed to appoint a replacement before the election is being hotly debated.  However, I fear that this debate is less about the actual principle of the matter -- whether it is ethical for a President who is potentially almost out the door to push someone through before the time limit -- and more about the politics of the matter.  Because justices are often appointed by the President and/or rejected by the Senate based solely on their politics and not their qualifications, Democrats are expectedly against Trump appointing someone, while Republicans are expectedly for it.

     Personally, I think Trump has every right to appoint a new justice, even if he is at risk of losing the Presidency, because of two reasons.  For one, it's not like this is the first time in history this has happened.  Democrats have rammed a new justice through on their way out the door, just as Republicans have done it before.  And second, it's not like Trump isn't President anymore just because an election is going on.  We didn't elect him to a 95% term.  We elected him to a full 4-year term.  Constitutionally (which, again, is what the Supreme Court is supposed to be all about), he has every right to appoint a justice to replace Justice Ginsburg, even during an election season. 

Here is an article from The Daily Wire talking about Amy Coney Barrett's nomination and whether it's okay for her to be confirmed:

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-pushing-forward-relentlessly-confirming-judges

 

Anti-War News

     I could say that the reason we don't hear about these issues of foreign intervention in the mainstream media is because they are trying to push an agenda.  I could say that I think they want these wars to go on for whatever reason, but I'm not going to.  While I am not one to trust the mainstream media very much, I don't want to be conspiratorial and assume bad motive.  There might be some of that, but there might not be.  I think the main reasons behind us not hearing about foreign affairs such as wars and violence on the part of the US are twofold.

     For one, I think the media doesn't want to report on this stuff because they are focused on making money, and reporting on this information might not be very lucrative in their view.  The other part, which ties into it, is that they try to report on things that an average Joe will understand.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I honestly don't understand foreign policy very much, even though I do pay attention to politics.  Even if I'm told what happens in the Middle East, I'm not going to understand it very well unless it's carefully explained to me.  And the mainstream media isn't really the place for that.  They're focused on boiled down, quick explanations of things, and foreign policy is too deep for that.  At least, that's how I see it.  I could be wrong.

     I think that the reason we have to find obscure websites for this kind of information is because it's kind of a niche topic.  Unless you're already interested in foreign policy, it's not really something you'll be able to readily understand if you come across it.  I think that's why websites like antiwar.com are obscure.  They're the kind of topics that need to be sought out rather than stumbled upon.

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/realism-restraint/

Week 4 Reading Response

     Black Lives Matter has been a very hot topic the past couple of months.  The phrase "black lives matter" has become what conservative podcast host Ben Shapiro has called "semantically overloaded."  This means that the phrase has too many different meanings, and that agreeing with one definition doesn't necessarily mean you agree with every definition.  In the case of Black Lives Matter, conservatives argue that the basic statement that black lives have value is uncontroversial, but the movement of the title "Black Lives Matter" is a bad movement.
     Part of what they mean when they argue against the movement is their tactics.  The movement BLM has routinely participated in anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric, as well as a lot of physical violence and aggression toward those groups.  Because of all this damage BLM has caused and advocated, certain areas are beginning to place restrictions to curb their violence and destruction.  But BLM and their supporters see this as discriminatory and as violations of their First Amendment rights.
     The problem with their claim that their rights are being violated is that the First Amendment protects citizens' rights "peaceably to assemble."  Given the amount of violent behavior BLM consistently participates in, putting limitations on their assembly definitionally does not infringe on their First Amendment rights.  One note the article makes is that "Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles contends that these curfew orders limit their ability to engage in peaceful political protests," but they often fail to meet the "peaceable" requirement to claim this protection.
      Another thing the article mentions is that the lawsuit in question regarding a curfew in San Bernadino and Los Angeles County, CA gives exception to travel during curfew to and from religious meetings.  Those filing the lawsuit claim that this exception is equivalent to the government advancing religion, which goes against the clause in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  But this, too, is faulty reasoning by BLM and its supporters.  For one, this exception applies to religious practice in general, not favoring any particular religion.  And also, they are ignoring the very next clause, which says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (referring, of course, to religion).  On the contrary, if the curfew in question didn't have such an exception, there could be an argument to be made that it infringed on this clause of the First Amendment.
     The way I see it, BLM has no grounds to legally dispute this curfew, considering they are not a peaceful assembly, and thus, their exercises do not fall under the First Amendment's protection.

 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/708/black-lives-matter-others-challenge-curfew-orders-on-first-amendment-grounds

 

What 5 Media Sources Do I Use?

What 5 Media Sources Do I Use?:

1. FOX News (https://www.foxnews.com/) - FOX News is the main TV news channel I watch.  I honestly don't watch very much TV anymore; I usually watch YouTube.  But I occasionally watch FOX to see the headlines and what they're talking about.  I like FOX not necessarily because they're conservative (though that's part of it), but because they are one of, if not the only, mainstream news outlet that isn't on the left.  It's nice to see a news channel go against the grain.  That being said, I won't hide the fact that I'm a conservative, so I also like them because they're on the same side of the aisle as me.

2. CNN (https://www.cnn.com/) - Similarly to FOX News, I don't watch them too often because I just don't watch TV that much, but I like to turn them on occasionally to see what they have to say.  Like I mentioned before, I'm a conservative, so I strongly disagree with much of what CNN says, but I think it's important to hear what people who you disagree with have to say.  And I don't care if CNN claims to be objective; they are far from objective.

3. The Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/) - The Daily Wire is a conservative news outlet that operates mostly on YouTube and on their own website.  It hosts conservative talk radio/podcast hosts such as Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, and Michael Knowles.  I mostly listen to Ben Shapiro's daily podcast, as I think he does a very good job explaining the details of different news stories.  He doesn't hide his conservative biases, but he does his best to give his listeners/readers as much info as he can.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaeO5vkdj5xOQHp4UmIN6dw

4. Louder With Crowder (https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/) - Louder With Crowder is the podcast owned and hosted by Steven Crowder.  Crowder labels himself as a comedian, and his show is intended to be a conservative alternative to standard late night talk shows like those hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, Trevor Noah, and Samantha Bee.  He talks about current news stories, often making jokes about them.  I don't watch him quite as much as Ben Shapiro, but I like to see his take on issues as well.
https://www.youtube.com/user/StevenCrowder

5. The Beauty and the Beta (https://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com/) - This is another podcast hosted by a smaller YouTube channel owned by Matt Christiansen.  Christiansen voted down-the-line Democrat his whole adult life up until 2016, but he started to become wary of the left's changes to more and more radical positions.  He is a staunch defender of the Constitution and especially of the 1st Amendment.  Every few days, he uploads 10-15 minute videos covering specific news stories, and every Sunday he hosts his podcast with a friend, where he discusses all of the week's news in greater depth.  I really respect his commitment to his principles, and I like to see the two's back-and-forth about topics.
https://www.youtube.com/user/LibraryOfCODRage