West Wing Analysis

Connections:

1. At the beginning of the episode, the Executive Branch is starting the process of a appointing a new Supreme Court Justice, showing one of their powers of checks and balances. 
2. The episode mentions the Judiciary Committee which is a standing committee of Congress made up of 18 members, and is charged with conducting hearings prior to the Senate votes on confirmation of federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) nominated by the president. This also highlights the check and balance system.
3. The episode contemplates allegations that could come up against the Supreme Court, one being judicial activism which describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.
4. In the episode they talk about how the appellate system is backed up. The appellate system refers to  any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal.
5. This episode brings up the major court case of Roe vs. Wade. Roe vs. Wade was a landmark controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. 
6. The episode references one of the characters being on the 9th circuit state court. A circuit court is a moveable court in which the judge holds court sessions at several different locations for pre-specified periods of time. These make up the state level of the judicial branch.
7. In the dialogue of this episode, they mention an author who "flushes the entire doctrine of enumerated powers down the toilet." Enumerated powers are any power that is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution. These powers are important for Justices in deciding a case. 
8. Towards the end of the episode the characters mention precedents. A precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Precedents are what is used to decide court cases because previous cases lay the baseline for future cases.

Questions:

1. Why is the Judicial Branch so essential for the government?
2. Why is the Senate and not the House given the authority to approve appointments?
3. Should justices be able to be voted off the Supreme Court?
4. How serious must a case be for it to make its way to the Supreme Court?
5. Should Justices act upon precedents when deciding their cases, or base the case off of today's standards and their own court's views?

Federalist Paper # 78

Quotes:

1. "And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." - I believe this quote means that there is no downside of liberty alone, but it can become a problem when the other branches of the government get involved.
2. "The Judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will."- The Judicial Branch cannot take any action or force someone to do anything, it simply interprets the law and relies on society to make their own decisions.
3. "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."- This quote highlights the importance of a Supreme Court Justice serving a life-term on the court. 
4. "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." - I chose this quote because it elaborates on the fact that the Judicial Branch is the least affected by political parties and is the least controversial because everything they do must be constitutional.
5. "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." - This quote shows that since the Judicial Branch cannot enforce the laws in which they are interpreting, then they must rely on the executive branch in order for the law to be effective.

Questions:

1. Do you truly believe that the Judicial Branch is the least powerful due to its lack of enforcement?
2. How does allowing a Supreme Court Justice serve a lifelong term play into the differences among the three branches?
3. Do you believe that each court should base their decision on current standards and their own beliefs, or use precedents of past courts in making their decision?
4. Does the act of judicial review give the Supreme Court too much power of the legislative branch in the process of making laws?
5. Do you believe that the Judicial Branch is the most responsible for protecting the rights of the citizens?

Supreme Court and the 2000 election

Facts/Details:

1. Bush vs. Gore was decided under the Rehnquist Court
2. The court decision was 5-4 in favor of Bush
3. Bush vs. Gore was actually the 4th intervention by the Supreme Court in the litigation over the outcome of the presidential election.
4. On November 13th, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that the statutory deadline of the recount was November 14th, 2000. It was later extended.
5. In seeking certiorari, Bush raised three federal challenges to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
6. On December 8th, the Florida Supreme Court ruled a manual recount was required by state law. 
7. The Court's decision lacked any basis in precedent.
8. In the 1960's and 1970's there was an effort to use the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to try and ensure more rule-bound decisions. 

Questions:

1. Since there was no precedent, how did the Supreme Court go about making its decision?
2. What are the effects of minimalism?
3. Should a Supreme Court decision have to be unanimous to go into effect?
4. Did political ideology play a factor in the Court's decision?
5. How will what happened in the 2000 election prepare the government for a similar problem in the future?

The Common Good

The Common Good was defined as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage." That simple question makes me question if certain conditions can be an advantage to everybody. In a World where people have their own unique and specific goals and self-interests, it seems impossible that there are things out there that satisfy everyone. Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes "the good life for human beings", differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been heard. Everyone has their own agenda and like everything else in this World, certain things are just impossible to agree on. For example the article mentions universal healthcare as a common good. Would richer people who have to pay more taxes to provide for those less fortunate think that is an advantage? Then you also face the problem of people who just take from the common good of society. They are referred to as "free-riders" and are those who take the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good. For common goods to take place, some people need to take sacrifices and give up things in order to benefit people. Unfortunately we live in a selfish society where most people don't do anything unless it directly benefits them. Americans are too focused on individual goals and protecting individual freedoms that the idea of a common good is abstract. In conclusion, the "common good" is unattainable because its unrealistic to imagine we could have something that everyone can agree on and that will benefit everyone. That's not to say that it does not exist, but we as a country cannot go and and try to achieve it, it comes naturally over time. The "common good" is at the core of any situation where two or more people form a partnership, group or country. The reason many organizations exist is to provide a common defense, mass-transit, public safety, public health and many other functions. Without common good, there would be no other reason to form an association That simple concept unites our country and helps us strive to become a better nation. 

Paul Ryan Update

Paul Ryan has sponsored 62 bills since Jan 6, 1999 of which 55 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Ryan has co-sponsored 746 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Ryan and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

Bills Include:

• Expressing support for the designation of August 22, 2011, as Rose Brucia Stranger Safety Awareness Day, and for other purposes

• H. Res. 126: Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress

•  Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021.

   

Recount Facts and Questions

Facts:

1. Florida is worth 25 electoral votes
2. They had 6 days to certify the recount
3. Only asked for recount in a few of Florida's counties
4. They were not authorized to hand count ballots
5. The  U.S. Supreme Court concluded to end the recount.
6. The faulty punched through ballots were known as "hanging chads"
7. The Supreme Court ruling was 5 to 4
8. George Bush ended up winning the election

Questions:

1. Should the voters who were confused be able to revote?
2. Knowing the vote was so close, Why would Gore concede so early on?
3. Should the deadline of the recount been moved back?
4. How is it effective to only have a recount in a few of the counties?
5. How can you decide what counties there would be a recount in?
6. How can they improve the current voting method in Florida?
7. Should there be a uniform voting ballot for the entire country?
8. Why is the process of a recount so confusing and complicated?