Country Over Party

Country Over Party

Thus far, the debate regarding Trump’s impeachment has revealed the intense partisanship that the Trump campaign has incited. Liberals have become more left, and conservatives have become more right. Republicans have remained loyal to Trump out of partisanship rather than common sense, and Democrats have been behind the idea of impeachment since the beginning.

Both witnesses, George Kent, and Bill Taylor, have “laid out [a] case in exacting detail” that Trump did in fact communicate with Ukraine in order to “investigate Biden”. Republican Bill Taylor affirms in his opening statement, that “withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign” is not something that he supported, and it is still something he refuses to overlook. Considering the intensity of partisanship surrounding the impeachment, it is very telling when a republican deviates from their party. The mere fact that Taylor is a republican possibly reveals that within republicans, loyalty to party is perhaps stronger than to the facts. It is also worth noting that, according to 538, eighty percent of Democrats want to impeach Trump.

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi plays an interesting role when looking at partisanship. Even when most Democrats agreed that Trump was chaotic and dangerous in the White House, Pelosi was firm in her opinion he shouldn't be impeached. Now, she recognizes that the next eleven months in the white house will be chaotic regardless of whether he is impeached or not. Amongst the chaos of partisanship, it is easy to be mislead. 

The facts of the matter are as follows; Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine. But it has also been stated that Ukraine knew about the military freeze in July, a month before Trump's phone call. There is also very strong evidence to prove that Trump did in fact pressure Ukraine to pursue investigations of Biden. To President Zelenskyy, Trump says, 

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

“The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the persecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.”.

 To which President Zelinskyy eventually agrees, 

“I also want to assure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries” 

It is easy to get misinformed or wrapped up in the partisanship of Trump's impeachment. But, as a country, it is important to step back and take an objective, unbiased look at the facts of the matter. Trump's impeachment could potentially have a ‘huge’ impact on American History, and as citizens, it is important that we remain informed.

1. Are Trump's offenses impeachable, as the Democrats have been arguing?
How will possible impeachment affect the coming months before the 2020 election?
2. Have you found it difficult to stay properly informed during the impeachment
hearings? How can American citizens avoid being misinformed? Why is that important?
3. Throughout his term, Trump has lied and done some shady stuff. Has he
done anything else that could be considered Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors? If you think not, justify your opinion.

Controversies Surrounding The 1964 Civil Rights Decision

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender.html

On October 8th the supreme court began their arguments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act to decide whether or not the law provides protection for members of the LGBTQ community from job descrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment descrimination on the basis or race, religion, sex and national origin as well as prohibiting descrimnation in the process of voter registration, racial segregation in schools and employment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the court’s four major gay rights cases, and joned the 5-4 ruling in the case of same sex marriage retired just last year. As the hearings begin to catch momentum it is evident that justices are divided amongst their presumed ideological standings, however Justice Gorsuch appears to be an exception. As a believer in textualism it appears that Justice Gorusuch may vote for the law to protect members of the LGBTQ and transgneder community alike, however Gorsuch does have a few reservations. Gorsuch believes that if the court were to come to the conclusion that the law provides protection for previously unprotected individuals, such a verdict seems more likely to come from congress and not the supreme court. Gorusuch also fears the massive public uproar the court's decision poses, however if the court decides that the civil rights act protects the individuals in question an entire community will finally be protected in the same way most citizens have been for the past 55 years.

What are some other popular ideologies seen in the supreme court?

Why does Gorsuch believe a verdict favoring the protection of members of the LGBTQ and transgender community is more pausable coming from congress?

What is your opinion on textualism, does it restrict members of the court from siding with their party?

Impeachment Scandal

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880



Summary: While allegations about Trump's misdemeanors have been surfacing the media for months, the Democrats efforts to impeach Trump have gained attention in recent weeks over suspicion of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Though the Muller report did not clear the president of obstruction of Justice, the Ukraine Call may call for further investigation. Trump portray's the accusation as a "Witch Hunt, and members of Congress have criticized the accusations as well claiming that it violates the president's due process rights and interferes with his ability to conduct foreign policy. The leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced the formal opening of the impeachment inquiry saying the president betrayed his oath in office and our national security. However, the impeachment process is dictated entirely by the ruling party. The House of Representatives is currently majority democrat, meaning that they will most likely vote to impeach him. This would not change much though since the president has to be acquitted in both the House and the Senate to actually be impeached, and the Senate is majority Republican. If the senate fails to convict, the president will be considered impeached but not removed. If Trump were to be impeached, the vice president would assume office under the 25th amendment. Only two presidents were impeached in the past, Johnson and Clinton, and we will see if this number will change after the upcoming trials.

Questions:
In what ways would the accusations against Trump violate his due process rights?

How are these impeachment trials going to effect the upcoming election?

In what ways does what was said on the phone call categorize as a misdemeanor, felony, treason or bribery?

Favoring Money Over Rights

https://www.wsj.com/video/free-speech-vs-chinese-market-us-companies-face-tough-choice/92AFA903-5523-4023-B51C-2111B45A24EA.html
https://in.ign.com/hearthstone-heroes-of-warcraft/140306/feature/fans-pledge-to-boycott-blizzard-over-hearthstone-pros-ban
A few weeks ago two large companies, the NBA and Activision-Blizzard, came under fire for stopping their employees and players from speaking out about the ongoing Hong Kong protests. The decision from both of these companies has resulted in massive blowback from their respective audiences as protests were staged and Blizzard employees even walking out in support of Hong Kong protestors. The main issue that has been brought up because of these protests has been the necessity to favor national values over profit. What is going on in China right now is a civil rights catastrophe, but large companies restrict their players from complaining because of the possible repercussions from the Chinese market. For years almost every type of media has worked with the Chinese government in order to allow their products to enter the market. In movies and games, it usually involved removing parts of the story or game to fall in accordance with China's strict policy. For over a decade Activision-Blizzard has been running a separate version of their game World of Warcraft that cuts all of the bones, blood, and references that go against China's standards. This calls into question the morals of companies like Activision-Blizzard because of their complacency of China's actions in order to enter their billion-person market. People are demanding that lines are drawn in the sand to withdraw out of the Chinese market until their civil rights issue is properly resolved to make a statement that they are not okay with China's actions. Activision-Blizzard has already made a step with an official apology and reversing the decision that caused the outcry in the first place. But this is only the first step in showing that the rights of people are more important than the buck.

Do you think companies should withdraw from the Chinese market?

Can and should the government require U.S. companies to stop trade with China?

What would your response be if you were the NBA or Activision-Blizzard?

Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT workers? The Supreme

Court is about to decide

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/08/does-the-civil-rights-act-protect-lgbt-workers-the-supreme-court-is-about-to-decide_partner/

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate
based on numerous factors, including race, religion, and sex. Lower federal courts
have disputed how sex should be defined as stated in this act for many years, with
three cases about LGBT employment discrimination even reaching the Supreme Court
in October 2019. Until now, however, the Supreme Court has avoided making
a definite ruling on whether Title VII prohibits LGBT employment discrimination.

It is expected that Justices who subscribe to originalism—such as Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh,
two of Trump's nominees—are more likely to define sex narrowly, as the writers of Title VII
did not have LGBT rights in mind when writing it. However, there are also some strong
precedents set for broad interpretation of sex, even among originalists. Consequently, it is
difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide. The Supreme Court's final
decision is expected to occur in mid-2020.

• How are originalism and judicial activism applicable to the interpretation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act?

• What do you think the Supreme Court will decide? Why? 
• How is this case relevant to the Free Exercise Clause? What role has this clause played 

in past decision(s) regarding LGBT employment discrimination?

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower?

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law 

In the midst of the impeachment inquiry, many Trump supporters and the president himself have pushed for the unmasking of the whistleblower. This poses the question of whether it would be considered a crime if the president were to expose the identity of the whistleblower to the public. Several experts weigh in on the issue, agreeing that while “outing” the whistleblower would not be a crime, there are potential consequences if revealing the identity resulted in danger for the whistleblower or their family. Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, stated that if Trump revealed the name, “he's probably as protected as anyone is," whether he says it or tweets it. They declared that if Trump, a news outlet, a member of Congress, or even a normal citizen revealed the whistleblower, “no criminal law would be violated”. Federal law does not protect the identity of the whistleblower as “Congress has never provided that protection”. 

In theory, however, exposing the identity could lead to retaliation against the whistleblower and their family so consequences do exist if a person chose to publicize the name. The person could be at risk of a civil lawsuit, and if they are a member of Congress, they could be removed from committees. As we have learned, workplace retaliation is in fact a federal crime, so while the action of outing a whistleblower is legal, there are many ramifications to this action that could be illegal. McLaughlin, the former acting director of the CIA, explained that there is a “longstanding deference to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs to expose corruption, waste and abuse that has largely prevented federal government officials from naming them”, but now under the Trump administration, there are concerns that the president may ignore this history. Precedent such as this can be ignored, but this would create a new precedent that may discourage future whistleblowers from stepping up. The law was made to protect their interests from possible vengeance. Whistleblower protections in this case stem from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998. This act bans retaliation and prevents the inspector general from revealing the whistleblower's name, however it does nothing to prevent anyone else from identifying the whistleblower. This brings attention to the gaps within whistleblower protection laws, and the threat is poses to protecting their rights and safety. 

As we study civil liberties and rights, we discover more holes like those in the whistleblower protections. These gaps have significant consequences and may even contribute to silencing people by allowing others to potentially threaten to their safety if they speak out. 

1. Is it legal (for anyone) to reveal the identity of a whistleblower? 
2. Explain the protections included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
3. What are the potential consequences of outing a whistleblower, and how could precedent be changed if the president were to reveal the identity of the whistleblower?

Judge Voids Trump-Backed "Conscience Rule" For Health Workers

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/upshot/trump-conscience-rule-overturned.html

On Wednesday, Judge Engelmayer of the District Court for the Southern District of New York
voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule.” Planned to be implemented
this month, the rule built on existing civil rights protections for religious health care
workers by merging 25 separate laws into a single framework, and it would have
permitted medical providers to deny care if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
Under the rule, the government could withhold or even terminate funding if recipients
compelled their employees to perform such tasks despite objections—a provision that
Engelmayer concluded to be “impermissibly coercive.” To justify the rule, administration
officials claimed that the number of conscience complaints from health care workers
had skyrocketed, but Engelmayer argued that the officials mischaracterized many of
these complaints. In his written opinion, he states that the Department of Health and
Human Services does not even have the authority to impose much of the rule. Opponents
of the rule lauded Engelmayer for voiding a policy that they believe permits legal
discrimination, whereas supporters express disappointment in his decision, claiming
that it harms medical professionals by denying them religious liberty. It remains unclear
whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling.

1. How does New York v. H.H.S. illustrate the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights?
2. How does the federal judge’s decision in New York v. H.H.S. compare to recent decisions the Supreme Court has made in similar cases? Does the judge’s decision overturn or uphold precedent? Perhaps consider the Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 
3. Do you think the “conscience rule” is unconstitutional? Why or why not? Perhaps consider the decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.