Research Question

Is our judicial system set up to favor certain races?

I chose this question because since as long as I can remember, the word racism has been associated with convicted criminals and the jail population. The breakdown of races for convicted felons does not match up with the breakdown of races in the country. This discrepancy leads me to wonder, does our judicial system favor certain races?

3-2-1 Gideon v. Wainwright

I was suprised to learn that State Courts actually denied people the right to counsel because it was never a right specified in state law even though it is stated in the Bill of Rights. I also found it surprising how Clarence knew he was being denied this right and that he even brought it up in court in front of the judge. Even though he did end up going to jail, I found it really cool how he still petitioned to the Supreme Court through a handwritten letter on jail stationary. 

This reminded me a lot of the Civil Rights movement in our country. The video mentioned that lawyers like to set the precedence for future cases and this reminded me of segregation, and how state laws allowed for it even though they denied African Americans their basic rights. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in schools was banned--setting precedence for all other segregation in the country.

Did Gideon send his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court right away? No. Gideon filed a petition to the Florida Supreme Court first, claiming that he was unconstitutionally convicted because he was not provided a defense attorney at trial. However, it wasn't until the Florida Supreme Court denied his petition that Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay Rights and The Judicial System

In 1994, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted and states that in the eyes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. 

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007; their marriage was recognized by the state of New York. In 2009, Thea died and left her estate to spouse Edith, but because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes. However, if their marriage would have been recognized by federal law, no taxes would have been imposed because their esate would have qualified for marital exemption. 

In November of 2010, Windsor filed suit in court seeking a declaration that DOMA was unconstitutional. This seemed almost impossible because at the time the goverment was in full support of DOMA; however, on February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend The Defense of Marriage Act. On April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives motioned to dismiss the case, but the  district court denied the motion, and held that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court held that the purpose and effect of DOMA was to create a "disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" of same-sex couples. They ruled that because of this, DOMA was in violation of the 5th Ammendment's guarantee of equal protection. 

Obama's Way

I thought this interview was very interesting in the sense that it was so casual and unofficial. 

I learned a lot about the President and his life outside his demanding job of running the country. I enjoyed reading about how "normal" he is and how he is so effortless in trransitioning from her proper serious role into a more laid back role. I thought it was interesting how he coach's his daughter's basketball team and how he is so open to being involved in other things than his job.

Reading this article made me think of many celebrities who use their fame to get attention and direct the spotlight on them. I think today many celebrities use the media in order to further their fame. I admire how Obama doesn't use his title in this type of way. In certain cases, celebrities use the media to blend their professional lives and personal lives together by making sure the good deed they do are photographed to make them look good. I like how Obama does the activities that he does, for example playing basketball, solely because he enjoys to--not to make headlines.

One question I have would be when does Obama have the time to go out and do what he wants? Does he work around the clock? In an interview with Newsweek, Obama explains his daily schedule as follows...

"I'm a night owl. My usual day [is]: I work out in the morning; I get to the office around 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.; work till about 6:30 p.m.; have dinner with the family, hang out with the kids and put them to bed about 8:30 p.m. And then I'll probably read briefing papers or do paperwork or write stuff until about 11:30 p.m. and then I usually have about a half hour to read before I go to bed . . . about midnight, 12:30 a.m. -- sometimes a little later."

Legislation Recently Passed in Congress

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

 There are over 5,000 bills and resolutions currently being seen by Congress. They must all be enacted before the 2013-2015 session--which is made up of the "113th Congress." However, only 5% of those bills will become law. Recently, one act was lucky enough to be passed by the Senate, Congress, and even signed by the President. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 was passed to amend the previous act passed in 1994. This new act makes many changes to the Act, such as: amending the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, amending the federal criminal code, and revising the grant programs for supporting families with a history of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. 

This bill was introduced to Congress and reported to committees in January of this year. It was passed by the Senate in February 12 by a vote of 78 to 22. Then it was sent to the House, and on February 28, they passed the bill by a vote of 286 to 138. This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on March 7, 2013.

LGBTQ Rights & the Media

Ever since the emmergence of technology, the media has played a major role in how society views certain issues. The media has the power to promote, but they can also condemn. Ever since gay rights was thrown into the media pool of hot topics, many believe that the media has negatively covered this topic.

The Fox News Watch center found 44 percent of stories covering gay rights were "pretty neutral." But in stories that largely reflected one side or the other, statements supportive of gay marriage dominated those opposing it by a 5-to-1 margin. Amy Mitchell, director of th Project for Excellence in Journalism, is hesitant to suggest bias and says,"viewers and listeners and readers will necessarily see bias." After the Supreme Court's ruling to strike down Prop 8, Audie Cornish from the Host says, "Yesterday's decisions by the Supreme Court on gay marriage brought widespread celebration and a lot of coverage of those celebrations. But cultural conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage believe recent coverage of the issue has not fairly reflected their views."

This leads me to think, can there be such a thing as neutral coverage? To me the answer isn't that simple. Yes, an article can be unbiased by equally representing all aspects of a topic and choosing a unbiased headline, but does all that matter if the reader doesn't agree with what's being presented? I think that until the media stops covering controversial topics, there will always be bias in media coverage. 

Here are some examples of biased gay rights articles..

So does this mean that all articles are biased because of the way they are read? I belive that no matter if an article is neutral, it will still be viewed as bias by either side because they will feel their argument isn't represented well enough. So this leads me to ask

"Take the Money and Run for Office"

When you think of political fundraisers, what comes to mind? Galas, balls, suits, evening gowns, expensive champagne? Well think again. Contrary to popular belief, political fundraising isn't as glamorous as the public think. Yes, fundraising takes form in fancy galas or expensive brunches, but I was surprised to learn that most of the money political candidates raise are over phone calls. Political candidates spend 2-3 hours a day making call after call in an attempt to get donations for their campaign. With a $10-15,000 goal each day, no wonder why there is a desperation to raise the money-and fast.
I was also surprised to learn that lobbyists are the ones that organize events and fundraisers to raise money for a certain politician. A large amount of the time, lobbyist pick and choose which candidates they want to support, often ignoring the calls from those they aren't interested in helping.
Another thing I learned (but also common sense) is that once a particular politician has called multiple times, they are ignored. Yes, lobbyists do have the power to pick and choose, but the constant phone calls also play a role in their choosing of candidates.

After listening to this podcast, I was reminded of when Obama first ran for office. My family was always receiving mail from the Obama campaign, subliminally asking my parents to vote for him. These letters would never directly say "Vote for me!" but they would include a list of his accomplishments and goals in order to entice voters. These are basically like the daily phone calls candidates make because they are appealing to the voter community. Instead of asking the public for money, they are asking for votes.

I'm curious to know who donates the most to political campaigns.
While I always thought that generous donations came from financial/corporate firms, I found out that many large donations are made from well-known brand companies such as AT&T, Microsoft and even Dreamworks! The link below is about Wall St. investigation into public companies' political contributions in the current election cycle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1644375.html