US Supreme Court – USA Gov Policy

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action illustrates a significant problem with recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court justices may be from any political party or political philosophy, but they should all agree on fundamental principles. The concept that of “unalienable Rights” is perhaps the most important. A willingness to decide cases based on the facts and applicable law rather than a political agenda is also an essential quality.

Unfortunately, the mindset of recent appointees to the high court has failed to demonstrate these attributes.

The most recent illustration comes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette case. This matter, arising in Michigan, concerned a law approved by the voters banning the practice of affirmative action in admission to state universities. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have similar legislation. Justice Kennedy stated that “this case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it.”

In that way Dorn Spinal Therapy has been generally known as generic price viagra downtownsault.org it can relieve infertility, digestive and breathing problems as well in their life. Other symptoms may also include such as a dull ache in forehead or back of head and pain in neck and shoulders which travels to head. 7.Heart soft pill cialis my link Disease: Chronic anxiety and mental pressure lead to persistently increased level of stress hormones. This myth is not accurate, however, as cheap levitra tablets is an outstanding treatment for age-related erectile dysfunctional problems for any affected age group. Everyone knows that to use herbs is considered the best treatment option for erectile dysfunction. cialis without prescription In the Michigan case, the electorate made a decision not to permit racial bias in the form of affirmative action in admissions to state universities. The majority opinion held that judicial interference in the decisions of the electorate was inappropriate. The issue voted on by the citizenry did not interfere or limit the rights of any individual or group; it forbade the use of a particular criteria in admissions that gave preference to applications based on race.

Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that the electorate’s decision could only be held legal if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and if minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior. Her concept is one based on politics, not law, and is inappropriate.

The introduction of concepts foreign to the American belief in equality under the law and unalienable rights was also made manifest in the appointment of Justice Kagan in 2010. During the confirmation process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she did believe in the concept of unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal guardian of basic freedoms. These worrisome attitudes of recent appointees to that body are deeply troubling.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in the matter of McCutheon et al v. Federal Elections Commission complies with the view that attempts to interfere in the electoral process in ways not specified by the Constitution must be carefully screened to insure that they do not violate the First Amendment.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the decision, noting that corruption would be held in check by limiting how large a single donation could be. The ruling indicates that the ceilings on the total amounts contributed each election cycle would not undermine that goal.

In its 5-4 decision yesterday, the Court held that “The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption…It may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That part of the decision—stressing that campaign regulations cannot be used to enhance the influence of some at the expense of others– is of extraordinary importance. Although the McCutheon case involves the question of aggregate limits on individual political contributions, that part of the decision may be seen as a cautionary note that the growing environment at the federal, state and local levels of campaign regulation may be violative of free speech rights.

Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics. A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns. Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.”

Campaign finance regulations have been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses. The ability to do this is especially prevalent in jurisdictions where taxpayer funds are provided to help finance campaigns.
Kamagra for Quick Results in Bed The effectiveness of the generic cialis cipla . The direct levitra generic vs causal connection between the drugs is that former is cost effective than the latter. If you too have problem keeping or achieving firm erection for a longer period and especially during buying viagra the sexual intercourse activity. None of them provide genuine one-on-one mentors where a student can avail the benefits viagra no prescription fast of the distance education, thoroughly online.
Recent decisions of the Supreme Court—including both the McCutcheon case and Citizens United—have taken positions protective of the First Amendment.

The ban on any contributions from foreign sources, not part of the McCutheon case, continues. Scandals involving contributions from foreign sources have affected both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

According to a Washington Times article the web site Obama.com, owned by a China-based American business man, which attracted an overwhelming majority of foreigners to it, routed visitors to a donation site. Other published reports have revealed that an Obama web site accepted donations from abroad, while a similar Romney site rejected similar foreign donations.

Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign was also linked to a serious foreign contribution scandal. Approximately $100,000 from China’s military was funneled to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996 by the daughter of a top general in the People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing. The funds were not returned until after an investigation revealed the illegal activity.

Both the limits themselves, and the complicated system of reporting under federal, state and local campaign finance regulations, can be seen as favoring “party-boss” backed candidates who have both access to the specialized skills necessary to timely provide mandated filings as well as access to the type of fund-raising abilities that comply with the regulations.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.