North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test

Three years after successfully detonating a nuclear weapon, North Korea once more was able to detonate yet another nuclear device, according to the Associated Press. It was carried out in the northeastern part of the country, where it had performed its first such test, in an underground laboratory. The magnitude of the explosion was reportedly a 9.3 nuclear explosion. At the same time, there are reports that North Korea is also test-launching short-range, ground-to-air missile. These actions have been condemned widely by the international community. The United Nations has led the call for sanctions against the country, which would severely hurt North Korea's economy. This course of events has have shown that North Korea has restarted it's nuclear program, in the hope of manufacturing more nuclear weapons. Even while facing the threat of sanctions from the United Nations, North Korea clearly wants to have more prestige on the international stage then it has been shown in the past. Yet despite these sanctions, North Korea and other nations still keep holding negotiations to end the country's nuclear program, or at least put a hold on it, in exchange for North Korea receiving international aid. These negotiations typically involve North Korea promising to end it's program, only for them to default on the deal once the country has received its aid packages.

"Democratic Character of Judicial Review"

1) Judicial review is a democratic process, Eugene Rostow ascertains, though it has often been portrayed as the opposite due to the undemocratic nature of the Supreme Court. Though the Court may decide the outcome of a case, this decision has to be implemented by the federal and/or state governments. Therefore, the legislative branch of government has the power to check the Supreme Court and the judicial branch.

2) In one "democratic" case, the Supreme Court , under Chief Justice John Marshall, decided in favor of the Cherokee tribe in the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia, declaring that it was unconstitutional for the state of Georgia to force Native Americans in the state off their lands. President Andrew Jackson then famously ignored the order and continued the federal government's policy of Indian removal.

3) Judicial review is undemocratic because many cases decided by the Supreme Court are not influenced by legislative or executive branch, the members of both representing the public. The members of the Supreme Court are also not democratically elected, instead being appointed by the executive, and serve life terms, unlike most public officials.

4) In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court "undemocratically" struck down the Florida Supreme Court's method of counting ballots during the 2000 election, essentially handing the presidency to George W. Bush.

5) I agree with the idea that the Supreme Court is not completely without limitations of its own. The Court may be essential to the creation or preservation of a policy, but it is, in essence, powerless to enforce its own rulings.

6) Looking on the other side of the issue, it is also fair to say that judicial review, in theory, is undemocratic. The power to decide and affect policy is in the control of unelected officials who can ignore the public view.

The Clarence Thomas Nomination

In 1991, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice on the court,  planned to retire due to ill health. On July 1, President George H.W. Bush announced that he would nominate Clarence Thomas, a 43-year old black federal judge from Georgia.  Though Thomas would be expected to fill the "black seat" that Marshall would be leaving, unlike Marshall, Thomas was ideologically conservative. As such, his nomination faced immediate criticism from groups such the NAACP and National Organization for Women. Legal groups such as the National Bar called into question Thomas' qualification and experience, as Thomas had only been a judge for two years.

Clarence Thomas

The first few days of nomination hearings before the Senate Judicial Committee were uneventful or non-noteworthy, beside Thomas' assertion that he had not formed an opinion on legal abortion. The committee's recommendation vote was split 7-7, so the nomination moved to Senate for a vote, with many assuming Thomas would be confirmed easily. The nomination soon took an about-turn when a classified report was leaked, the contents of which contained allegations by Anita Hill, a University of Oklahoma law professor and former colleague of Thomas that Thomas had sexual harassed her while both were working together.

Anita Hill

Anita Hill was called to testify before the Judiciary Committee on October 11. Hill alleged that Thomas had harassed her by talking to her about pornographic movies and other sexually inappropriate matters after Hill had refused Thomas invitation to date her. Hill's testimony was supported by statements from friends and former colleagues Angela Wright and Rose Jourdain. Statements in support of Thomas came from former colleagues as well, who claimed there had been no signs of harassment. Thomas himself denied the allegations and decried it as "high-tech lynching of uppity blacks".

On October 15, in one of the most narrow confirmation votes in a century, the Senate confirmed Thomas 52-48. The vote was mostly among party lines, with 41 Republicans & 11 Democrats voting to confirm, with 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting nay. This seems to illustrate the increasingly polarizing event Supreme Court nominations had become since the Robert Bork nomination in 1987. Thomas' nomination was one of the most controversial nominations in American political history. A significant aspect of the hearings was that the number of sexual harassment lawsuits doubled from 1991 to 1996, possibly an effect of Hill's testimony. Hill's testimony itself is still controversial and is still making news today. Only last year, Thomas' wife left a voice message on Anita Hill's message machine demanding a apology for Hill's testimony against her husband.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hilloutline2.htm

Orrin Hatch Gets Angry & Ted Kennedy Requests Recess - Clarence Thomas 2...

Brennan v. Rehnquist

1) During their tenure together, Justice William J. Brennan represented the liberal wing of the Supreme Court while Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist represented the conservative wing. The jurisprudence of Justice Brennan was that the Constitution is not static, or frozen in time, in part because of the "due process" clause. This clause intends for a reading of the Constitution which is flexible and suitable for changing times. It is also important in regards to the concept of judicial review, in which the Court can decide whether a law is constitutional and uphold or nullify acts of the executive or legislative branch. According to Brennan, it was the responsibility of the Court to make sure the rights of minorities were on trampled on by majorities. Another important part of his philosophy is that Justices in a way represent American society as a whole. While they may not rely on opinion polls or believe that their judgments are greater than the American people's, their interpretation in using the zeitgeist and knowledge of the times allows them to view the Constitution through modern lenses.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, on the other hand, was opposed to the idea of a "living Constitution" as advocated by Brennan. His view is strictly constructionist. While conceding to the Court's right of judicial review, he believed that this concept was "undemocratic and antimajoritarian". Rehnquist stated that majorities had the right to enact "positive laws" and impose their views on minorities.

2) I side with the original interpretation stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist. While I believe in the concept of judicial review, Rehnquist's ideas are important in implementing the laws of the Constitution. The majority should have the right to impose its views, for better or worse. Otherwise, political stalemate would occur, slowing and and hindering the democratic process. The Court operates in this way and is the only way to ensure order and stability.

Hugo Black

Associate Justic Hugo Black, who served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971, is considered one of the court's most influential justices. Black was also the fifth longest-serving justic, a longevity that allowed him to weigh in on the most pivotal legal issues of late 20th century America. Appointed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937, the same year of fight between the Supreme Court and the administration over the president's controversial "court packing" plan. Black, a former Democratic Senator from Alabama, was an ardent supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal Policies, a deep contrast with the Court's conservative stance at the time. Despite his support for these liberal policies, Black urged his fellow justices to use "judicial restraint", meaning that the Court should separtate itself from lawmaking. Black tooka literal, also called "texualist" approach to his interpretation of the Constitution. A prime example of this viewpoint was Black's refusal to support the abolishment of the death penalty, arguing that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amedments references to the "taking of life" were evidence of the legality of capital punishment. Black was also a prominent defender of civil liberties, particulary in the case of Chambers v. Florida. A black man, Chambers, was one of 30 to 40 black men accused of murdering an elderly white man in Florida. Chambers was convicted of murder along with three other men, whose "confessions" were most likely the result of intimidation by authorities. The case was appealed to the court in 1940, which voted to overturn the conviction. Justic Black wrote the majority opinion for the case. In it, he wrote that "the determination to preserve an accussed's right to procedural due process sprang in large part from knowledge...that the rights and liberties people accussed of crimes could not be safetly entrusted to secret inquisitorial processes".

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/hugo-black-1937-1971.html

Then & Now: 1995 Government Shutdown

In 1995, the federal government of the United States went into a shutdown mode after the Republican controlled Congress and the Democratic Administration of Bill Clinton failed to agree on an annual budget. Between November 14, 1995 through November 16 & later December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996, the United States did not have a fully functional federal government. What lead to these dramatic events had been the legislative standoffs between President Clinton and the Republican Congress lead by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Republicans had swept into majorities in the House and Senate in previous year's midterm elections. Since then, the Clinton Administration had engaged in political fights over legislation that Republicans wished to pass, originally incorporated in the "Contract with America" campaign pledge. A part of the "Contract" had been to make spectacular budget cuts in order to balance the federal budget. The Clinton Administration refused many of the Republicans proposals, leading to months of public argument.

Bill Clinton

Newt Gingrich

By the end of the 1995 fiscal year in September 30, no budget plan had been reached between the White House and Congress. As a result, the federal government shut down. On November 14, major institutions of the federal government, including executive departments and government agencies, closed down as they could no longer operate without a budget. Employees of such agencies didn't show up to work. A controversy that soon arose was whether veterans and those eligible for Social Security would receive any of their benefits. The first shutdown was resolved by a temporary spending bill, which then expired resulting in a second shutdown. By the end of the crisis, it seemed that the public held Gingrich and the Republicans responsible while siding with the president. It severely damaged Gingrich's reputation, as well as Majority Leader Bob Dole, and may have contributed to Dole's loss in the 1996 Presidential Election.

John Boehner

Barack Obama

Today, sixteen years later, another budget battle is looming between the Obama Administration and the Republican controlled House led by Speaker John Boehner and Republicans in the Senate led by Mitch McConnell. The Republicans want to make major cuts to the federal budget. Similar to the 1995 debate, both sides have yet to come to a conclusive agreement. Last week, in order to prevent a shutdown of the federal government, Congress passed a continuing resolution that would continue to fund the federal government with the previous year's budget until an agreement is reached. It seems unclear what the future may hold regarding this budget battle, whether President Obama or the Republicans will compromise their values for the sake of preventing another shutdown. The potential crisis may be averted, whether through negotiations or through external pressure by the public. Another pressure point may be the 2012 election, which both sides may feel the need to negotiate or even continue the fight in order to attack their opponents One wishes for the best, but with such a bitter partisan feeling amongst Democrats and Republicans in Washington, a clear resolution is foreseeable.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-18/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038315-503544.html

"Locked in the Cabinet" Summary and Review

The article is an excerpt from a memoir written by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton Admnistration. In this account, Reich recalls the early days of his tenure as head of the labor department after the swearing in of Bill Clinton in January 1993. Reich was beset by the problem of appointing new officials for the apartment. The number of potential  secretaries and under secretaries numbered in the thousands and Reich wanted to have each of his choices confirmed as soon as possible, or else his picks would be put on a year long waiting list. Reich also did not know clearly whether some candidates were qualified enough or not. Reich also has to deal with his own staff, who place him in a "bubble" meant to protect the precious time of the secretary, but at the same time isolating him from serious challenges and problems. Later on, Reich arranges for all employees of the department to meet with him and hold a question & answer session, where he believes the workers will introduce fresh ideas and will feel that they are not being ignored. One worker's idea in particular is seized upon by the staff brilliant toward budget policy. This idea is eventually signed into law by the president (referenced as B). Reich then introduces the employee to the president.

The account, like all memoirs by public servants, offers an interesting insight to how the functions of government look. Reich's attention to detail is especially noteworthy, as it allows the reader to a fresh glimpse into the working world of the federal bureaucracy. The only thing I take offense at is that Reich does tend to portray himself in a postive light than any other characters, which makes one belive that his account could contain bias.

"Government of Strangers" Summary & Review

The article examines the relationship between the political appointees of executive departments and the civil service workers who run the bureaucracy there. Accordingly, there is great tension between executive heads and the bureaucrats over a variety of issues. Newly appointed heads, upon arriving on the job, wish to exert an amount of control over the bureaucrats, many of whom have experience in that department and field, or are career civil service workers. Some of these workers may attempt to bypass the authority of these executive heads, either because of personal agendas or feelings of self-righteousness. A large portion of the article is centered on the workings of the "iron triangle", the often quid-pro-quo relationship between Congress, the bureaucracy, and lobbying groups. Sabotage in the iron triangle is also inherent and used often for political and personal reasons.

I found it interesting to have an in depth look at the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy. The complex relationship between executive heads and bureaucratic workers, the behind the doors meetings, cloak-and-dagger-tactics are revealing look at Washington politics, one that is both slightly disheartening, and eye-opening. From an idealistic perspective, I would frown upon the tactics used by all groups to advance their own agenda. A realistic look at politics, however, tells me that this approach is natural, and it is what keeps the wheels of government working.