By Zack Valdman On April 10, Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. His appointment ended a nearly yearlong struggle between Republicans and Democrats to fill the late Justice Scalia’s vacant position. In order to have a vote and confirm Justice Gorsuch, Senate Republicans had to resort to the aptly named “nuclear option.” What is the nuclear option? Originally proposed by Harry Reid in 2013, it lowers the requirement to cut off debate in the Senate (aka end a filibuster) from 60 votes to only a simple majority of senators, 51 votes. To implement the nuclear option, the original rule requiring 60 votes is appealed in the Senate handbook. The Senate votes on that appeal, the simple majority reinterprets the 60 vote rule to a 51 vote rule, and then that same simple majority once again votes to end the filibuster, this time with enough votes because of the reinterpreted rules. How did this play out for Justice Gorsuch’s nomination? Democrats had successfully filibustered the vote to confirm Justice Gorsuch’s appointment (just as Republicans did last year with then nominee Merrick Garland). However, with the majority in the Senate, Republicans “nuked” the filibuster and lowered the vote threshold needed to continue on in the process, getting to Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation vote. What does this mean for the future of nominating and appointing Supreme Court justices? There are a wide range of opinions on this. Some believe that with the nuclear option, future presidents will be able to appoint judges whose previous decisions and ideology are much farther from the center than before, either farther to the right or farther to the left. They believe that because the President will no longer need to nominate a candidate with broad support from both parties, candidates that might not even be fully qualified could be nominated and confirmed. There is also the possibility that presidents appoint younger and younger justices who would serve on the court longer than their predecessors. Others believe that these fears are overblown and the use of the nuclear option is just a by-product of the hyper-partisan nature of modern politics. They believe that nominees in the future will be just as qualified as in the past, and the nuclear option will not affect the nature of more extreme ideological leanings of future nominees. Using the nuclear option to confirm Supreme Court nominees highlights the growing partisan divide in modern-day politics. Even the most apolitical branch of government, the judicial branch, is now knee-deep in the politics and power plays that once only occurred in the other two branches of government. Works Cited:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-will-the-nuclear-option-affect-future-supreme-court-selections/article/2619732 http://fortune.com/2017/04/10/neil-gorsuch-is-sworn-in/ http://www.wsj.com/video/the-senate-nuclear-option-explained/F194DB2E-A957-4AE4-BA6D-EE0CFDF29DBC.html
0 Comments
by Eleni Christofides A constant goal for those in law enforcement should be to balance the protection of society with the protection of individual rights, and within that, the equal protection of all groups. For women in America, there has been a long history of exclusion from the legal world and thus the subordination of female citizens at the hands of those who are supposed to defend them. Female victimization, particularly at the hands of a spouse or partner, is an area that requires special attention due to the nature of the offender-victim relationship and the frequency of such abuse. Yet, for decades domestic abuse had not been treated as a crime. Early perspectives on marriage are perhaps the greatest source of insight into female subordination by law, with a long-lasting effect. Throughout the U.S. during the 1950s, the marital rape exemption was still upheld in every state either by statute or common law (2). The origins of this exemption can be seen in 18th century legal interpretations: the key point was that marriage was a contract that controlled private relationships and assigned one party more power than the other. “Husband” became the superior or authority figure. Additionally, marriage was a contract that bound two individuals as one, forcing the wife to sacrifice her legal identity while her husband claimed a right over her, and she essentially became his property. Marital sex was seen as an essential component of the marriage contract in the 18th and 19th centuries. Legally, marital sex could be defined as a right given by the contract between individuals, and refusal of this right could be considered a “breach of contract” (2). Since the basis of the marital contract was a complete unity between two people, the relationship held privileges that placed it above the law in many respects. For example, spouses were not able to commit certain crimes against each other under the law because that would assume the two parties have a separate existence. And because the man was considered the authority within the relationship, privileges enjoyed by marital unity were mostly a protection for the husband. For example, it became common practice to deny criminal penalties against men who committed domestic violence against their wives (2). This definition of marriage became problematic in the 19th century when legal scholars began to place a greater emphasis on individual rights. How could the legal nonexistence of a person now be justified? Feminist scholars such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton insisted that women possessed independence and individual identity under Natural Law, just as men did, and so the conditions of a marriage contract allowed for an unequal distribution of rights (2). As women were becoming more economically independent, it was also easier to extend legal independence to the right of marital sex. However, it wasn’t until the 1970s that legal feminists were able to change attitudes and expose marital unity as enabling a patriarchal system that condoned gender inequality, particularly within sexual expression. Although marital rape and general domestic abuse are no longer legal in the United States, there are lasting cultural artifacts from a time when such violations were legal. For example, Section 2907.02 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits rape with the following opening phrase: “No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender.” The very last element of the law, division G, now clarifies that: “It is not a defense to a charge under division (A)(2) of this section that the offender and the victim were married or were cohabiting at the time of the commission of the offense” (1). However, it is clear that at some point in Ohio’s history marital union would have been a legitimate defense against a sexual assault or rape claim. Historically, law enforcement tended to treat domestic disputes between spouses as a private matter rather than any other assault because of the perceived sanctity of marriage. This frequently led to officers dealing with calls in unofficial ways and even failing to make a report; officers preferred to leave couples to work it out themselves and felt that, since the woman was likely to return to the man in any case, there was no point in becoming more involved (4). In the 1970s, attitudes began to change and law enforcement was forced into the spotlight. Women’s rights activists began to file lawsuits against police departments under the 14th Amendment, arguing that failure to respond to these assaults violated equal protection laws as it disproportionately endangered women. In one particularly brutal case in Connecticut, a woman had called 911 to report an act of domestic violence and was nearly killed while waiting 20 minutes for police to respond (3). This led to an unprecedented settlement of over $2 million, in addition to new legislation that created mandatory arrest policies for domestic abusers (4). When members of marginalized groups are not present in law or law enforcement, it often makes it more difficult for those groups to ensure that their interests are protected under the law in a practical way. From lack of representation in legal professions to the literal lack of legal existence that a marital contract created for many generations, women have long been absent from the positions that would empower them to preserve their rights under the law. There are still necessary changes to make in the law’s treatment of women: an improved understanding of the best way to combat domestic abuse, as well as a renewed cultural attitude that prioritizes the protection of the woman, are vital. Equal protection and women’s rights have come a long way in the past century, but there is still improvement to be made, and utilizing the law as a vehicle on the journey toward justice is the way to ensure success. Works Cited
1. Ohio Revised Code § 2907.02 (2002). 2. Ryan, Rebecca M. (1995). The Sex Right: A Legal History of the Marital Rape Exemption. Law & Social Inquiry, 20(4), 941-1001. 3. Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp. 1521 (C.D.1, 1984) 4. Walker, Samuel & Katz, Charles M. (2012). Police in America: An introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. By Olivia Worthington The primary job of a physician is to utilize medicine and provide the best possible medical care to patients in need. Physicians preserve the life of their patients to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, some patients are given a terminal diagnosis and cannot be cured of their ailments. Physician-assisted suicide is a widely debated legal issue that enables physicians to assist in ending terminally ill patients’ lives before death occurs naturally. Physician-assisted suicide is conducted by means (such as a drug prescription) or by information (such as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient's intent. The procedure is controversial, and states are divided on whether physician-assisted suicide is legal. Six states and Washington D.C. have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Five states of these states legalized the procedure through legislation, California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C., and one through court ruling, Montana. Forty-four states still consider suicide by the assistance of a physician to be illegal. Thirty-seven states have specific laws prohibiting this measure, and seven states prohibit suicide by common law. Some states in which the physician-assisted suicide is illegal allow terminally ill individuals to travel to states where it is legal, rendering their home state’s laws null and void. Individuals must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live to qualify for physician-assisted suicide. This process is not not the same as euthanasia, which ends an individual’s life without suffering and without legal authority. Those who choose to participate in physician-assisted suicide are under the legal authority of states who allow this procedure. Physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to hasten death in all cases. Physician-assisted suicide remains a controversial legal issue. Is it legally correct for terminally ill individuals to have to travel to a different state to receive drugs to end their life from a physician allowed to prescribe them? A common argument against physician-assisted suicide is that terminally ill individuals can end their lives at home despite the law, so allowing them to do so more humanely with a physician is more morally correct. A common counter argument says if a new treatment is discovered that may have saved the person’s life, the suicide can be seen as murder. This legal issue will likely continue to develop as time passes and new technology is implemented medically, but for now the law does not permit physician-assisted suicide in most states. Works Cited
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |