CBS 2 School

Good teams, we are told, have good chemistry.

Good chemistry assumes players that get along.  A team with good chemistry works and lives on the same page.  Individuals on those teams sacrifice their own selfish ambition.  Team goals trump personal goals.  Teams with good chemistry act cohesively, with unified purpose and pointed energy.

The United States Supreme Court is not generally described using these terms.  Good chemistry is generally not the concern of our nine justices.  They act and serve as nine independent law firms.

Yet good chemistry, in the most literal of senses, is indeed involved in the make up of this Court and every Court.  Every justice on the United States Supreme Court before being confirmed by the Senate must pass a litmus test.

In chemistry, a litmus test is still used even though it is one of the oldest pH measurements.  The test involves the use of a litmus paper that can when introduced to an outside substance determine acidity.  According to chemists, “acids turn blue litmus paper red; bases turn red litmus paper blue.”  These red and blue litmus tests have taken place in chemistry labs for hundreds of years.

Testing for red or blue justices is almost as old.  When openings on the Court arise sitting presidents seek prospective jurors who agree in principle with the incumbent administration.  That is red Republican presidents look to pack the Court with red conservative leaning jurors.  Likewise blue Democrat presidents look for red leaning liberal jurors.  This kind of litmus test is as old as the Court itself.

Is this the type of chemistry we desire?  Would it not better serve the pursuit of justice if the good chemistry on the Court was likened more to that successful team that worked well together?  Do litmus tests raise serious political and ethical questions regarding the nomination process?

Back in 1937 when Franklin Roosevelt tried to dramatically change the chemical make up of the Supreme Court, he wanted to add six more blues, the American people said no.  Yet when subsequent presidents act no less politically, albeit one justice at a time, no one seems to object.

As the litmus test becomes more and more familiar and as the American people become less and less trustworthy of our legal system is it time for the doctors of our American political system to order up a different test?

Good chemistry may not be a win for us after all.

Illinois has discovered that changing abortion laws can be as complicated as it is controversial.

In 1995, the Illinois legislature passed a law intending for parents to be notified if their under-aged daughter was seeking to have an abortion.  The bill was signed into law by Gov. Jim Edgar (GOP) and allowed for several exceptions to the notification requirement.

But it has taken 14 years for the law to go into effect due to the intense controversy and legal complexities involving the issue of abortion.

For decades, abortion law was purely a state issue.  Before the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) most states—including Illinois--banned abortion while just a few allowed abortions with certain regulations.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade forever changed abortion law because the Court mandated that abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy be made legal in all 50 states.

The majority claimed that a woman’s ability to seek a medical procedure from her doctor was protected by an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights.  Opponents of the decision claimed the Court used judicial activism to alter social policy through a judicial edict not by the legislative process.

Since then some states, like Illinois and New York, established very few barriers to the right of women to seek an abortion during a pregnancy.  Other states tried to place extra regulations on the practice of abortion including requirements for parental notification and parental consent when a minor is seeking to have an abortion.

As supporters of the parental notification law discovered in Illinois, any attempt to add new restrictions on abortion are met with a whole host of legal barriers.

Implementation of Illinois’s notification law was delayed for more than 10 years because of the Illinois State Supreme Court.  This Court refused to detail the how a minor could seek exemptions from the notification rule.  But three years ago, the State Supreme Court decided to detail how a minor could waive the notification rule including if she was the victim of abuse.

Even though the law would not allow parents to block an abortion, Federal courts placed an injunction on the implementation of the law due to questions about its constitutionality.

That injunction expired this fall, but the issue hasn’t been officially settled. The law is set to be implemented only after an Illinois board approves final details of how the law will be enforced.

So the law’s 14 year legal journey, a process very indicative of the complexities regarding the abortion issue, will wait at least a few more days.

Would you believe our first big dose of hopium was twelve months ago?  The historic Obama presidential victory was one year ago.  It was a year that flew by.  Obama promised change and change he delivered.

Has it been the right change?  And why is it we don’t feel so good?

An energized electorate had hoped for a fundamental change in the way politics is practiced.  Red and Blue America was to be replaced by the United States of America.  We hoped for a post racial America.  An energized generation of newcomers and outsiders was to replace the in-crowd.  We were told no more troops in Iraq, new jobs and comprehensive healthcare and energy policy.

What happened?

Has Obama caught Potomac fever?  Has he exchanged an outsider campaign for an insider presidency?  Or is governing that much more difficult than campaigning?  

Historic trends for all sitting presidents is to lose public support, except when they run for reelection, throughout their four-year term.  Honeymoon periods have become short weekends, for Obama too.

Can presidents be inoculated from this apparent inevitable slip in public confidence?  Has our presidency grown into what LBJ self described as a “pitiful helpless giant”?  What can Obama do to overcome our bellyaching?

First he must fight the temptation to spin this week’s elections as a proxy vote for or against his presidency.  Political science teaches us “all politics is local.”  If Korzine loses in New Jersey or Deeds in Virgina, the pundits will be out in force blaming the failed policies of Obama.  Avoid the rush to judgment.  Get a second opinion.

Second Obama better hope an economic recovery bears fruit by next year’s midterm elections.  If the next twelve months plays déjà vu this president will be in seriously sick.  Whether policy choices or circumstance make the difference, Obama cannot afford increasing unemployment numbers.  Healing cannot be discussed it must be felt.

Most importantly, President Obama must listen first and foremost to those who got him elected.  The audacity of hope resided in his soul not those inside the Capitol who claim to be his soul mates.  The politics inside of Congress looks increasingly like old bandaged remedies.  The problems we face today require new treatments.  

After Tuesday’s election there will be many who will declare the Obama presidency as sickly.  It would be premature under any circumstances let alone the depth of the crises faced by this administration.  Yet if today’s symptoms persist for another twelve months, Obama and the Democrats will be really sick.

Then Republicans will make the only House calls.

(n) the manner in which courts make decisions.  The science or philosophy of law.


What is the basis of Supreme Court decisions?  Ralph Lerner has described the Supreme Court as a "republican schoolmaster" whose responsibility it is to "transfer to the minds of the citizens the modes of thought lying behind legal language and the notions of right fundamental to the regime," (Ralph Lerner, "The Supreme Court as Republican Schoolmaster," in 1967 Supreme Court Review. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp. 127-128. ).  Conservative justices tend to reserve their judgments to the original intent of the Framers, thus practicing judicial restraint.  Liberals opt for a more activist jurisprudence.  This approach recognizes the Constitution as a living document and whose spirit must be adapted to contemporary issues.   These varying views regarding jurisprudence make for interesting gamesmanship on today’s highest court.


“Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected.”    Joseph Story


Today’s Supreme Court
Box Score

Chief Justice:

John Roberts                (G.W. Bush, 2005) CB

Associate Justices:

John Paul Stevens        (Ford, 1975) LB
Antonin Scalia               (Reagan, 1986) CB
Anthony M. Kennedy     (Reagan, 1988) CB – S
Clarence Thomas          (H.W. Bush, 1991) CB
Ruth Bader Ginsburg    (Clinton, 1993) LB
Stephen G. Breyer        (Clinton, 1994) LB
Samuel Alito                  (G.W. Bush, 2005) CB
Sonia Sotomayor          (Obama, 2009) LB

(President/Year Appointed) CB =Conservative Bloc, LB= Liberal Bloc,  S = Swinger (often determines majority)

With two high-profile death penalty cases being decided in the Chicago area this month, Illinois is once again front and center in the debate about capital punishment.  Here are 8 things you should know about the 8th Amendment.

1. U.S. Supreme Court
Although the 8th Amendment’s Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” executions were carried out unfettered until 1972 when the U.S. Supreme Court halted the practice unless courts took special precautions in issuing death sentences.

The Court has allowed murderers to be sentenced to death since 1976 with a few exceptions.  In the last five years, the Court has prohibited carrying out the death penalty against the mentally retarded and those who committed a murder as a juvenile.

2.Foreign Precedent
While opposing the death penalty in recent cases, Justice Stephen Breyer has cited foreign legal precedent to show how unusual the death penalty is in the world.  This has ignited a debate within legal circles about the role of foreign law in American jurisprudence.

 3. States
The U.S. Federal Government and U.S. Military can impose the death sentence, but most executions are carried out by the 37 states who re-adopted capital punishment starting in 1976.  Two of those states (New Jersey and New Mexico) have ended up abolishing the death penalty in the last three years.

4. Texas
Texas has carried out the most death sentences since 1976 with the execution of 441 convicts. But the imposition of the death penalty has slowed across the nation in recent years.  Texas executed 18 people on death row in 2008 as compared with 40 in 2000.

5.  Illinois
Illinois renewed its capital punishment law in 1977.  John Wayne Gacy was the first person executed under this law in 1980 for the murder of 33 young men and boys.  Illinois put 12 men to death under this law.

6.  Illinois Moratorium
Illinois has not carried out a death sentence since 1999. Gov. George Ryan imposed a moratorium on the death penalty after the exoneration of more than a dozen men awaiting the death penalty.  Before he left office, Ryan commuted the sentence of 156 death row inmates who were sentenced to life in prison without parole.     

7.  Illinois Death Row since 2003
Since Ryan left office, 16 men have been sentenced to die in Illinois.

8.  Jury Process
To be seated on a jury in a capital case, prospective jury members can not have blanket opposition to the death penalty. If a jury convicts in a capital offense, the law requires a completely separate sentencing hearing to take place. The jury must be unanimous in its decision to impose the death penalty.

In the case of the Brown’s Chicken murders in Palatine, both of the convicted murderers were spared the death penalty because just one or two jury member refused.    

A jury in DuPage County is currently deciding whether to sentence Brian Dugan to death after he pleaded guilty to the 1983 rape and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico.  Dugan is currently serving two life sentences for the murder of a 27-year old woman and the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl.

Rule of Law (n) a fundamental distinction of a people governed by limits; constitutionalism; ideally an ordered society conformed to laws derived from the people.

                                        
With the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the British royalty could no longer rule arbitrarily.  “...The law of the land” became sovereign.  With it, a fundamental concept took root, ultimately flowering in the United States.   Essential to our make-up, an underlying theme to our whole system of justice, is the fact that “we are a nation of law, not men.”  Our government today cannot rule unconstrained.  Rather, because of the rule of law, our inalienable rights are guarded by constitutional and statutory  fences.  John Locke wrote, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”  Indeed, with great power comes great responsibility.  Is this our gift or our curse?  The results found in history of those choosing anything but law have proven to be at best societies with short life spans and worse societies characterized by barbarism.  Choose wisely, are we to be a nation of law or of men?

Theban Herald

No worse foe then the despot hath a state,
Under whom, first can be no common laws,
But one rules, keeping in his private hands
The law: so is equality no more.
But where the law one written, then the weak,
And wealthy have alike but equal right.
Yea, even the weaker may fling back the scoff
Against the prosperous, if he be reviled;
And armed with right, the less o’ercomes the great.

Hammer time?

The news from Afghanistan is troubling at best.  At play are more than election results in a far away country.  In trouble is the very institution of democracy.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared himself victor in this past summer’s election.  He claimed victory based upon a 54% – 28% tally of the ballots.  His primary opponent Abdullah Abdullah challenged the August 20th count.  This resulted in even more violence in this already war torn land.

Let us not forget that Obama has made Afghanistan his war of choice.  American troops have been hunting down enemies of state for almost eight years.  Obama made it a priority.  Increasingly, however, our troops are seen more as occupiers than liberators. Worse, now American troops are seen as allied to the illegitimacy of the Karzai presidency.  General Stanley McChrystal has asked for 40,000 additional troops to suppress Taliban insurgents.  The political and military ramifications of the decisions ahead corner Obama.  Obama’s political future is now seemingly tied to the political future of Afghanistan.

The UN backed Electoral Complaints Commission in Afghanistan has verified ballot irregularities.  President Karzai, after highly publicized meetings and photo ops with a delegation of U.S. Senators, has agreed to a run off election against Abdullah.

The reputation of America and Afghanistan are at stake.  More importantly, the reputation of democracy is at stake.

As noted by John Keane in his magisterial new book The Life and Death of Democracy the survival of self-government has always been uncertain.  After democracy failed in ancient Athens a thousand years passed before it’s spirit was resurrected.  In the life of medieval Europe Keane writes, “Democracy became little more than a fribble.”  Today democracy looks no less foolish in Afghanistan.

It was not too long ago that Francis Fukuyama claimed the end of history occurred with the triumph of self-government at the close of the 20th century.  The authority and legitimacy of democracy seemed unquestionable with the close of the Cold War.  Now questions of democracy’s legitimacy span the globe.  Such doubts are not just in Afghanistan.  Even in the United States legitimacy became an issue in our 2000 election.  Chinese collectivism is seen as more stable.

Is it hammer time for democracy, again?

The outcome in Afghanistan may set the table for democracy’s future.  There democracy is on trial.  Will it be too legit to quit?

James Wilson, delegate to our Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, said it best: “No government could long subsist without the confidence of the people.”  History suggests that such confidence is difficult to build if your tools are an occupying foreign force that accepts anything less than fair and free elections.  What we need is some common sense.  Can’t touch that.

A recent decision by the federal government about the enforcement of drug laws provides a very clear glimpse into some abstract concepts in American Government.

Federalism
Under the Constitution, the national government and state governments have overlapping powers.  In the case of anti-drug laws, the national government has long enforced the Controlled Substances Act that prohibits the sale and distribution of certain drugs (including marijuana) across state lines.

But what happens when that national law conflicts with a state law allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes?

The Supreme Court answered that question in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich when it said the national government’s power to prohibit the interstate distribution of marijuana allowed federal agents to crack down on marijuana purchases and possession even in states that had legalized medical marijuana.

Direct democracy
Thirteen states have legalized the purchase and use of medical marijuana.  Most of these states have passed this policy through the use of ballot initiatives and referenda.  

While some policy makers question the science behind medical marijuana, voters in California, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved medical marijuana measures by upwards of 65% majorities.

Chief Executive
The Constitution directs the President to act as Chief Executive in order to carry out the laws passed by Congress.

The Federal Justice Department has a long track record of enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, and the USSC has said the feds can enforce this law even in medical marijuana states.

But the Justice Department recently announced its prosecutors will no longer be bringing federal charges against those who purchase or sell medical marijuana in states where it is legal.

President Obama, like any president, has the authority of the chief executive.  This allows him to direct the resources of the federal government in the areas he prefers.  

As he campaigned for President, Obama said he would respect the rights of states that had legalized medical marijuana.   He is now using his authority as chief executive to fulfill this campaign promise that frees medical marijuana states from federal intrusion.

The mother’s milk of politics is money.  It is the primary means of influencing public officials.  Usually it begins with a noticeable campaign donation.  A plutocracy we are not.  We are not governed by and for the rich.  Although when you look at the gross sums of money required to win national elections one begins to wonder.

There have been many attempts to limit and regulate the role money plays in our political system.  Substantiating substantive corruption is rare, but our perception, as citizens, is that money significantly tarnishes the integrity of our political process.  Congress has routinely proposed finance limits and regulations.  Presidents have willingly enforced these restrictions and the Supreme Court typically has found little constitutional burden.  Nevertheless, our perception of monies’ corrupting influence goes unabated.  We look upon interest groups, lobbyists and “the special interests” with great disdain.  We often forget that these despicable folks are regular citizens just like us, organized under the protection of the First Amendment’s right to petition our government.  Perhaps our hopes of a government which is lactose intolerant is misguided.  Maybe mother’s do know best.

Here is a glossary of Campaign Finance Essentials

Bundling In this practice, small donations are combined and delivered to campaigns by an individual or group. It's a way for an interest group to stay within legal limits on individual contributions, yet demonstrate its money-raising prowess. The McCain-Feingold legislation would ban most instances of bundling.

FEC The Federal Election Commission. Founded in 1974, it is the federal agency that oversees federal campaigns. It's considered something of a toothless watchdog, however. It has proven to be very slow to act and not very effective in combating campaign abuses.

Full Disclosure Many Republicans believe that in the debate over in money and politics, what really matters is knowing where candidates' money is coming from. "Full disclosure" simply refers to a process whereby candidates would be required to disclose publicly the source of all their campaign contributions.

Independent Expenditures Some groups spend money on activities that support presidential candidates, but have no direct link to the candidate's campaign, and thereby are able to get around spending limits. An example of this was the infamous "Willie Horton" ad that attacked Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis' prison furlough policy in Massachusetts. Though the ad was clearly designed to buttress President Bush's re-election effort, the group that made the ad was independent of the Bush campaign.

McCain-Feingold Refers to a bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) that would ban soft money, ban PAC contributions and provide incentives (free broadcasting, lower media costs, lower postal costs) to candidates to abide by spending limits.

PACs Political action committees are essentially groups of individuals united by similar interests. They range from business groups to labor groups to single-issue groups. By law, they can only donate $5,000 per candidate per election.

Public Financing To lessen the need for constant fund-raising and level the playing field for challengers, many reformers favor having the federal government pay all or part of the cost of campaigns. Democrats generally favor the idea; Republicans generally oppose it.

Soft Money These are funds raised by the political parties that are used, ostensibly, only for party building efforts and not for direct support of federal candidates. In practice, most believe the money ends up helping candidates just as much as the party organizations. It has been banned by the most recent campaign finance law, McCain - Feingold.

Terms and definitions taken in part from Copyright © 1997 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved.


Despite attempts to assuage the corrupting influence of money there appears to be no remedy.  As political consultant Ralph Reed has said, "Money is like water down the side of the mountain. It will find a way to get around the trees."

In the latest campaign cycle, $4 billion was spent.  During that same period, over $7 billion was spent on purchasing flowers.

Handlers are the Beltway buzzword for political consultants.  These hired spinmeisters are employed to not only win elections for candidates but also to keep the victorious candidates’ popular while in office.  They have become essential to modern politics.  Handlers could also be called Ministers of Marketing.

Elections are not new to democracy, but the types of campaigns we currently witness are.  The modern campaign demands much more than a few whistle stops and posters.  Handlers coordinate advance work, scheduling, speech writing, media, polling, finance and spin.  Running a campaign is now a career choice.  Some have wondered if governing has become just another name for campaigning.  With handlers ever present, the blur between policy and politics is ever apparent.  Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s campaign consultant, is the archetype of the modern handler.  Nicholas Leman wrote: “Rove is both a fox and a hedgehog.  He is the detail man of all detail men, but he also makes a point of doing more long term strategic planning than other political consultants.”  He has shaped George W. from the beginning.  It has been said that Rove is “the most powerful political figure America has never heard of.”

Barack Obama’s handler is David Axelrod.

 Electability once anchored on character, with modern day marketers handling candidates, winning now depends more on likeability.  With a voyeuristic media and a savvier electorate, candidates need to be cautious of their image at all times.  They need proper handlers.

Paul Taylor, of the Washington Post, has recently written:

“We are reporters in an age when personality and image dominate politics the way party and ideology once did. This shift has had everything to do with the ubiquity and intrusiveness of modern communications technology. It is beside the point to argue whether the change has been for the better. One can not uninvent television ... Nor can one wish away the simple truth that as our culture has become more media-soaked, the way we conduct political campaigns and measure political leaders has become more personality-soaked.”

And whom can we thank?  Start with the handlers.

If you were a handler, explain how the words below are important when planning the modern campaign.

the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years
Primary v. Caucus
Horserace Journalism
Cattleshow
GOTV
Nat’l Conventions
PACs
Approval Ratings
Incumbency
Bush v.Gore (2000)