8. Commentary on Violence Against Women Act

To read the editorial click here.

In Ms. Sepassi's editorial about the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, she believes that there is more to the hold up to pass the act rather than just party rivalry. This bill could represent the increasing number of women voters and their power to sway the upcoming election. While this is a clever interpretation of what may be happening in the Senate, I believe the major reason why the two parties still haven't come to a conclusion on this bill is because of how the political process works.

As we learned in a previous chapter of our textbook, both parties must come to a majority consensus until a bill can be passed. The process is long and tedious, but in this case since there are more than 60 senators support the bill, a filibuster can't be used or it will be voted down. Given the unanimous Senate support favoring to pass renewals of this act in previous years (2000 and 2005), I'm not sure why 2012 should pose a different question. Maybe there is something to do with the election. 

If this bill manages to finally be approved by the Senate, Feldmann from the Christian Science Monitor reminds us that the Republican dominated House will pose another obstacle that is just part of America's checks and balances system. Furthermore, if no more actions are made the bill is due to expire in September. I do agree that the Senate is taking an unnecessarily long time to pass this bill--perhaps because some Republicans are trying to be cautious of each move in Congress in order to gain or hold on to as many supporters as possible. 

Resources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0425/On-renewal-of-Violence-Against-Women-Act-Senate-Democrats-have-upper-hand

http://www.thehotline.org/get-educated/violence-against-women-act-vawa/

7. House Support for Romney

Recently the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have taken steps to support the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, pushing other conservative representatives to back Romney. However at a conservative House gathering, representatives did not show much enthusiasm towards Romney's potential as president and mainly just wanted to kick the Democrats out. 

At one point Idaho Republican Rep. Labrador mentioned Romney "needs to reach out to every one of us who is sitting at this table and to all the conservative leaders throughout the United States to make sure he's not just speaking to a few select groups, but that he's speaking to the grassroots". This reflects what we've learned about in Executive Branch chapter of our textbook. The presidential candidate must rally support first from his base states where 55% or more vote in the favor of Romney's republican party. Connections and experience are also important factors of a successful candidate. Therefore gaining Boehner and McConnell's support is a huge advantage (in the textbook we learned that the House Speaker is the most powerful position in the House of Representatives and Senate Minority Leader position has some influence too). 

The view that some of the representatives see Romney reflects using the presidential position as a chess piece in order for the party as a whole for benefits. This ultimate goal to get Obama and his Democratic views out of controlling executive branch decisions makes the average voter feel less confident in Romney's capabilities as president. He will just be used as a pawn to facilitate conservative Republican Congress decisions. Although Romney may be taking this approach of conservative views to gain votes from Congress and change some policies if elected to office, I don't believe the lack of enthusiasm from representatives will motivate voters to take time out of their lives to support Romney. 

On the other hand, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sees that Romney is passionate about what he stands for and you can see there is a genuine concern about the well-being of our country. These types of views about Romney will lure voters, especially those not affiliated with a political party, to abandon voter apathy and support Romney. 

Sources:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/house-conservatives-appear-ready-if-not-excited-to-support-romney/

6. Commentary on GOP Race

To read Chelsea Hinojosa's blog click here.

In Ms. Hinojosa's editorial, she believes that the Republican match between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will drain their campaign resources and fatigue the candidate. This would result in an advantage for Obama's race to presidency. I do agree that this momentary attention divergence away from the Democratic will benefit Obama slightly, but there still are other factors to consider. Perhaps even the increased media coverage of the Republican party may end up as a form of free media used to campaign their platform.

While Santorum uses his more Republican conservative approach against the more moderate Romney, we must remember that American citizens tend to be more moderate. Santorum still hasn't dropped out of the race despite his dwindling campaign funds (on the other hand, Romney has been spending big bucks from PACs and his own wealth which may come back to bite him in the finals). Santorum has begun to take more personal approaches to campaign which we have learned can make a big difference. Pennsylvanian delegate votes are Santorum's priority right now and he hopes to win the majority vote in Texas, giving him 154 delegates due to the primary process explained in Ch. 12 of our textbook.

Another factor that can sway voters is the who Romney or Santorum and Obama may choose as their vice president. In the 2008 elections, John McCain's decision of Sarah Palin as vice president crushed his chances of being elected. According to CNN, the smarter choice is to have a "boring" vice president that will in other words be ready to take on presidency and do the job. We are unsure who Romney (the more likely Republican candidate) will select as vice president and if Obama will chose Joe Biden again. This decision is a potential game changer.

Resources:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/politics/santorum-stays-in/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/zelizer-romney-vice-president/index.html

5. Invasion of Privacy

In the recently decided Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders case, the issue of strip searches in prisons violating the Fourth Amendment was judged by the Supreme Court. Albert Florence was first arrested in 1998, charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon, which required him to make a series of payments. He eventually completed all of the payments, but somehow the warrant remained in a statewide
computer database. This became a problem when Florence was pulled over by an officer in 2005 and taken to the Burlington County Detention Center.

Records show that he was then subjected to a full body cavity naked search and imprisoned for six days. According to the court report, "Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. Petitioner claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals." After, Florence was moved to a Newark correctional facility where he was intrusively searched again. The conservative majority concluded a "suspicious" standard by which inmates would have to pass through certain examinations. We are uncertain whether or not racial bias is accounted for considering Florence is an African American. The next day the  facility released him after confirming Florence's claim that he had already paid the fines. These searches that have possibly scarred Florence were justified by the crack down in security after the 9-11 attacks and inmates with crime records need to be checked in order to keep the jail environment more safe. 

Florence lost his Supreme Court appeal which was divided 5-4.  This decision makes an impact on every citizen's right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated, in other words, the Fourth Amendment. In this particular case, the searches no matter how precautionary have slightly crossed the line. I do see the need for detailed search, but a full body pat down would have been sufficient. The true question remains: how far are we willing to go to maintain safety? 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/scotus-strip-search-ruling/index.html?hpt=ju_c2