Thursday, December 29, 2011

Changing Time (s) in Russia?


  In 2007, Time magazine made Vladimir Putin, then in his last year as Russia's president before becoming prime minister and planning to come back to the throne again, Person of the Year.

2007 Time Person of the Year

This year, 2011, Time chose "The Protester" as person of the Year.

2011 Time Person of the Year

The protests in Moscow over the rigged December elections continue and as outlined by Foreign Policy Russian correspondent Julia Ioffe in a series of articles, the Times in Russia May be a Changing. The series gives good insight into the goings on on the ground in Moscow that will help you when we study Russia next semester. Interesting not only to read the articles, but the opposition comments posted. One needs to be reminded, it is one-thing to be a government-critiquing journalist in a liberal democracy, quite another to be one in still Putin's Russia.

Kreminology 2012

'Tis the Season

The election season begins Tuesday with Iowa's Caucus. It will be must-see political TV. Since it's been "frontloaded" to DURING our Winter Break, you have to take care of this one on your own.


When you get exasperated at FOX/MSNBC/CNN analyzing the results with holograms and muti-touch gestures, CSPAN has traditionally been live at several caucuses. You should definitely check out what they actually look like.

In the past, I have posted live comments while following the action here, but I will be in the home of Mickey Mouse (insert your own political joke here), but I will be checking out the blog from my smart phone. Post your comments here.
Let's see who gets the "Big Mo'." To break down the polls, Nate Silver on fivethirtyeight.com has Ron Paul still looking good. His read gives you good insight in predicting election outcomes:
I’m not always a big fan of dissecting individual polls — mostly because there are liable to be a plethora of them in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next several days and their errors will tend to be mitigated as more are added to the average.


"Nevertheless, the new CNN poll of Iowa contains a methodological quirk that is worth bringing to your attention and which will probably result in the survey underestimating the support for Ron Paul.

The issue is that CNN’s Iowa poll was conducted by using a list of registered Republican voters and registered Republicans only:

Sample was drawn from the complete list of registered Republican voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State.

What’s wrong with using a list of Republican voters for a Republican caucus poll? The answer is that it’s extremely easy for independent and Democratic voters to register or re-register as Republicans at the caucus site. Historically, a fair number of independent voters do this.

According to entrance polls in Iowa in 2008, for instance, about 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site. Although the way that voters self-identify is not technically the same thing as which party they are officially registered with, this is probably a good proxy for what percentage of voters changed their registration to Republican when they signed in at the caucus location.

Read more

Also, CNN has an interesting take on has the negativity of the 2012 campaign maybe leading to the downfall of the Iowa Caucus and its need for "retail politics" The author fears there migh t be bad moments when citizens come out to publicly voice their support and vote for their candidate Tuesday night.

Could negativity kill the Iowa caucuses?

Political TV pundits have said that this could be shaping up as the most negative campaign in US History. Really? Not quite, check out this video that puts the words of Jefferson and Adams into today's media. The election of 1800, with quotes taken out of context from the NY Times, makes the tiff between Gingrich and Romney over the Lucy Chocolate Factory comment look "sweet."


Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Set your alarm: Review and Study


The first 5 minutes or so of this is a really great overview of our course! It is must see TV  before the final - nice review "The Great Debate."

The Great Debate

Your Final Exam test is first thing tomorrow morning. Review in you Patterson text First Amendment issues -- we will hit them the week we get back from break.
 AP Government 1st Semester Final Exam (U.S.) 

60 multiple choice (45 min.); 1 of 4 free response (25 min.)
Free Response:
Media Coverage of Campaigns


 Interest groups and policymaking institutions


 Congressional oversight of federal bureaucracy


 Budget/Policy barriers


Multiple Choice:

Constitutional principles
Checks & balances
Judicial review
Separation of powers
Federalism

Popular sovereignty
Limited government


 Political Parties, Campaigns & Voting Behavior


Political ideologies

Voting behavior (influences on)

Political socialization
Voter turnout
Electoral college
Primaries (open, blanket, closed, runoff)
Special interest groups/PACs/lobbyists
Media coverage
Critical elections


 Congress
Committees
Conference committees
Key pieces of legislation
Incumbent advantage
Rules
Presidential removal
Apportionment, Reapportionment, Gerrymandering
Authorization of spending (oversight of bureaucrac
Legislative process
 Presidency
Role
Constitutional Powers
Nominating Process
Powers (Increase of: “Imperial Presidency”)
War Powers Resolution
Line-Item veto ()why the president doesn't have it, and many governors do)
Cabinet
Appointment of Federal Judges
Vice-President (what presidential candidates look for in a running mate)
Reagan legacy (from a chart)


 The Judiciary
Tenure
Caseload
Strict v. loose constructionalist

Landmark cases: McCullough v. Maryland, Grisswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona.
Warren Court (from a political cartoon)

Dual court system: Federal/State, Criminal/Civil

 Misc (Bureaucracy, 1st Amendment: free exercise, establishment clause; freedom of expression, symbolic speech; exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 14th Amendment “Modifying Clause” reserved powers







Dual Presidency: Juggling a Sick Congress and Kim Jong Il's death

Patterson outlines the complexities of a dual presidency, where major foreign policy and domestic issues need to be juggled simultaniously. This week started with delayed news that reported the death of a dictator and the killing of 89-10 Senate passed two-month payroll tax exemption by what amounts to a House filibuster.

(From FP blog and the NY Times)
Kim Jong Un, the third son and successor to Kim Jong Il, visited the mausoleum where his father's body was lying in state on Tuesday. Meanwhile, praise from state media suggested that his transition to power remained on track.


In the capital of Pyongyang, weeping North Korean citizens filled the city's squares and placed flowers at monuments around the capital to mourn the death of Kim Jong Il. China and Russia, North Korea's most important allies, also declared their support for the new government.

South Korea released a statement offering its condolences and expressing hope that the two countries could work together for peace on the Korean Peninsula. It will not, however, be sending an official delegation to Kim's funeral on Dec. 28.

Meanwhile, South Korean and U.S. intelligence agencies were forced to grapple with questions of how they knew nothing of Kim's death, even two days after it occurred. The lack of reliable intelligence suggests that the two allies know relatively little about the inner workers of the Kim regime, or how the coming transition will play out.
_____________

And on the domestic front.......cancel that Christmas vacation to Hawaii, Mr. President.

(From NPR)

Rather than holding a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate-approved package to extend payroll tax cuts and long-term unemployment benefits for another two months — a package they oppose — House Republicans now plan to effectively reject the measure without having to cast "no" votes

As The Hill explains:

"House Republicans are setting up a vote on whether to go to a conference with the Senate. They say a vote to go to a conference with the Senate would serve as a vote against the Senate bill. Critically, however, it would be expressed as a vote in favor of going to the conference, and not a vote against cutting the payroll tax."

Or, as Politico says, "House Republicans postponed a planned Monday night vote on the Senate-passed payroll tax cut bill, bowing to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers to fight the battle in a fresh media cycle, avoid a dark-of-night vote and, perhaps most important, find a way to reject the Senate bill without voting directly against a tax cut."

The vote is expected to happen around midday.

As Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been saying in recent days, Republicans in the House (which they control) want the extensions to be for a full year, not two months. They don't want to just "kick the can" down the road, he says.

Getting any extension done before the payroll tax cut and long-term jobless benefits expire on Dec. 31, however, may prove impossible. The Democratic-controlled Senate has adjourned for the holidays. And Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said his chamber won't negotiate with the House unless the short-term, two-month extensions are passed first.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Commander in Chief: 'Welcome, Home!'

(From White House blog)
President Obama traveled to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Wednesday -- home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces -- to salute the service of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines who fought in Iraq and helped to bring the war to an end.


"As your commander in chief, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I’m proud to finally say these two words," he said, "Welcome home."
-------
It was President George W. Bush's executive agreement to have U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of this year, a promise kept by the Obama administration, whose address was more somber and sober, and welcoming to the troops and the reflection of over 6,200 US lives (over 150,000 Iraqis) lost in the warm, than Commander in Chief Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003.


Monday, December 12, 2011

Holding Court

Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views (article on Stevens "The Dissenter," and "The Incredible Shrinking Court," need to be read by Tuesday):From the NY Times Supreme Court blog:

Justices Agree to hear Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law
1) An example of certiorari being granted in a highly controversial, political and social policy that has been playing out in Arizona.

The Obama administration challenged parts of the tough immigration law in court, saying it could not be reconciled with federal immigration policies.




2) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.


Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335

3) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news recently by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.


As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.

When he does speak during oral arguments, it's almost always in private conversation with Justice Breyer. (And from the looks at the menus that they swap, those conversations are often about what to get for lunch.)In the past, Justice Thomas has said the oral argument time is not meant for Justices to show off but for the lawyers to make their legal arguments before the Court. But Thomas has recently said--in jest-- that “My colleagues should shut up!”
_____________


4) In the Ny Times article, "The Disenter," gives insight into how the High Court has moved right and now the self-proclaimed conservative, and eldest (and now retired) member of the Supremes, may have been be The Nine's most liberal justice:


"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Tuesday.

5) The second article you need to have read by Tuesday is Time's cover story from last October:


The Incredible Shrinking Court

"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489,00.html

5) Finally, a re-run post from 2009's 'Global Warming' SC decision:


The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.

The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.

At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.

From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.

JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.

(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.

MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.
__________________

As we watched the Elena Kagan hearings last June, here are some sites to help you teach the US Supreme Court. First off the Chief Justice always writes a year end report which, among other things, talks about the number of cases appealed to the Court each year and how many were given certiorari. It is a very short document that you can easily digest.OYEZ.org


SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.

Where does Elena Kagan stand on...















http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html?ref=politics