Ya es Hora, ¡Ve y Vota! (It's Time, Go Vote!)
« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »
Unless you are living under a rock and wearing super-sonic earplugs, you know there's an election coming up and you know how important it is that you need to vote on November 4th. Just as important as getting to the polls, is making sure that your rights are protected and that your vote gets counted.
Rebecca Blake Chaikin is a former Legislative Assistant at the Religious Action Center whose portfolio included Judicial Nominations.
Pop Quiz:
Can you name all 9 Supreme Court Justices?
Can you name even one judge who sits on the Circuit Court in your district?
What courts comprise the federal judiciary (hint, I've already mentioned two of them)?
If you couldn't answer all (or any) of these questions, you are not alone. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that few people who aren't actually paid to know such things have any inkling as to the answers. For the average American, the judiciary system remains an intangible--better known through Law & Order repeats and the occasional call for jury duty than through any substantial personal interaction or study. But why is that?
As many have said repeatedly throughout the media and in civics classes (and, notably, in this very blog's Focus on the Courts series), the Judiciary plays a vital role in determining our rights and liberties. So why aren't more people intimately and ferociously concerned about what goes on in the courts, and importantly, about who is appointed to make the decisions that define what the Constitution says and what it means for your life?
I think it may simply be a case of not comprehending the tangible and powerful impact the courts can have. I also think that there are some very real reasons for this, ones that champions of the Constitution and stewards of the American spirit have been grappling with and doggedly trying to overcome for years.
When I first started as a Legislative Assistant at the RAC last year, I was pleased to take on the issue of judicial nominations, mostly out of an ongoing curiosity about and polite interest in the courts. Like many, I had a general and abstract understanding of this third branch, born out of many U.S. History classes and an above-average fascination with government. However, most of my teachers and professors were enamored of the Legislative and Executive Branches--arguing with themselves over which was the most powerful, fastidiously dissecting the minute changes in structure and character of both those branches and the politicians that inhabited them. The Courts were often left behind, forgotten, turned to mere days before the upcoming standardized test; with a slightly embarrassed, apologetic smile, the teacher attempted to sum up the complex system of courts and the overwhelming influence they've borne on the political, cultural and social landscape of our nation in 30 minutes or less. Hardly enough time to truly impart on fidgety students the immense changes court opinions have wrought both on the philosophical definition of American democracy and the perceivable rights and liberties exercised by citizens on a daily basis.
But it wasn't long after my first judiciary-related assignment that an appreciation of these qualities of the oft-neglected branch began to take root. I soon became absorbed with, then devoted and passionate about the issue. The courts were no longer the keepers of esoteric, though imperative rights - such as habeas corpus, which to this day I still think is Latin for "you shall never in your life be able to remember what this means." They were the guardians of my right to not languish forever in prison subject to a prosecutor's whim, of my freedom to say whether I think this president has made a muck of things without fear I'll be spirited away by the Secret Service, as well as of my freedom to praise the President gleefully without fearing cronies of the Democratic Party will be awaiting me 'round the next corner. My rights went from abstract and assured to tangible and fragile.
And I realized our downfall is that we feel too secure in our liberties - even as we hear report after report of rights being denied:
--Apparently, we are not guaranteed fair pay, and our recourse in situations of wage discrimination is subject to our ability to develop ESP and miraculously discern that our paycheck isn't as hefty as others' within 180 days of our first compensation.
--Over 6 million women in America become pregnant each year, but as Gretchen Voss's wrenching story in the Boston Globe shows us all too starkly, pregnancy does not guarantee a healthy child, and sometimes worst fears are realized and excruciatingly difficult choices have to be made. But in 2007 the Supreme Court decided that the government, not the family who is responsible for creating, protecting and raising a child, is best equipped to make these determinations. That a one-size-fits-all law (which, according to Justice Ginsberg herself, fits hardly any situation that it might be applied to) is a better decision-maker than a woman, her family and her doctors. What is even scarier is that verdicts like these pave the way for women's rights to become subject to fetal rights, and for more and more health care concerns to be under the government's fickle prerogative.
--And, to be blunt, for Troy Davis "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is not a hypothetical, patriotic declaration, but rather a tragic reality; should the Courts decide that the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee an innocent person the right not to be executed, he will die.
It is so easy to dismiss the courts because one never thinks they will have to personally avail themselves of the system. But, with tens of thousands of cases pending every year, just on the federal level, odds are that you may, eventually, be relying on a judge for your livelihood, your health, your liberty or your very life.
It is out of personal preservation, as well as our ages-old call to ensure true justice for all, that we must actively commit to ensuring that rational, progressive and inclusive candidates are considered and appointed to preside over our courts on all levels.
It is time again to seek out righteous persons and ask them to shepherd this nation into a new era of inclusivity, pragmatism and compassion, that speaks to the better angels of our interpretive instincts and upholds the Constitution for what it is intended to be: the insurer that all people are created equal and the securer of "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
If you haven't seen this YouTube video yet, you've absolutely got to. Right now. Seriously, stop whatever you're doing & watch this video of the seventh graders at Atlanta's Ron Clark Academy performing "Vote However You Like," their election-inspired parody of rapper T.I.'s hit song, "Whatever You Like."
Earlier this month in New York, I visited a few of the city's renowned landmarks: Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, and Zabar's. It's true that as the old Sesame Street song
goes, one of these things is not like the others, though Zabar's is arguably a
living monument to the gastronomic inclinations of American Jews.
With special thanks to Legislative Assistant Micaela Hellman-Tincher for her contributions to this post.
Here in
In
In
Livni will meet with President Simon Peres Sunday to indicate whether she will form a government or head for elections.
Barring a reversal or other unlikely scenarios, early
elections are now deemed "almost inevitable"
by Ha'aretz. Livni appears to have been unable to come to an agreement with the
conditions presented by Shas, which included guarantees to not negotiate the
status of
Should
Last week, I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny the appeal of Troy Anthony Davis, a Georgia death row inmate. Death penalty abolition advocates, yours truly included, were left with little hope that Mr. Davis's life would be spared when an October 27th execution date was set. But in a shocking and exciting turn of events, I am thrilled to tell you now that Troy Anthony Davis will NOT be executed on Monday--"The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 25-day stay of execution."
I have an unblemished record with one of my political prognostications. Every four years I have predicted, usually with great certainty, that the future of the Supreme Court would be a critical issue in the Presidential campaign. And every four years, as long I have been predicting, I have been wrong. But, like a stuck clock, my prediction is being proven right this time out.
With less than two weeks until the Presidential election, the nation is buzzing with talk of the candidates and the potential change that they will bring to our country. In the past few weeks, pundits and voters have begun to talk more about the potential impact of the incoming President on Federal Bench and, in particular, the Supreme Court. This conversation is long overdue.
The current makeup of the Supreme Court is four (moderate) liberals (Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens), four conservatives (Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) and one swing vote in Justice Kennedy. Experts anticipate that the next President will have the opportunity to replace at least two (and perhaps three) Supreme Court Justices during his first term.
The New York Times describes the future of the court as a "last 30 days issue." During the third Presidential debate on October 15th--only 20 days before the election -- the candidates finally discussed how they would approach nominations to the bench and the criteria that they would use to evaluate potential nominees. Since then, we have seen an increase in the number of articles and editorials about judicial nominations. Last week, Alan Dershowitz wrote an intriguing article for The Forward, and just yesterday Deborah O'Malley of the Heritage Foundation wrote a piece for the Washington Times focusing on the Vice Presidential candidates and the USA Today featured thorough and informative a cover story on the topic.
Throughout the election cycle, conservative and liberal activists alike have communicated to their constituencies the need for a leader who will put appoint the "right" people to the Federal Bench. However, in the past few weeks, these groups have produced more pointed and direct messages. A conservative group called the "Judicial Confirmation Network" recently released an ad that questions Senator Obama's ability to evaluate character and suggests that he might put dubious, and even dangerous, people on the bench.
On the Left, People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch posted a video on its blog of right wing televangelist declaring that liberal Justices do not "fear God" and that they are therefore ill-equipped to determine what is righteous and just. PFAW identifies this video as part of an effort to push right wing 'values voters' to maintain solidarity with the Republican Party.
These left and right may disagree on many things, including the criteria by which nominated judges and Justices should be evaluated. But, they agree on one thing: The upcoming election is critical. The next President will have the opportunity/responsibility to reshape the Court and have an impact on jurisprudence and American society that will far exceed his four (or eight) years in office.
I am lucky enough to have grown up in a place where my neighbors and members of my community also stood up to ensure that people are safe and treated fairly. However, our gay and lesbian family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances in Arizona, California, and Florida need our help to make sure that their rights are protected.
If you're looking for a quick and easy dose of tikkun olam today, why not head over to this post at the PopJudaica.comblog? For every thoughtful comment left on the entry, PopJudaica
has pledged to donate $1 to Sharsheret, an organization geared specifically toward Jewish women who
have been affected by breast cancer.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was followed by the National
Voting Rights Act of 1965, ensuring that Americans of color were not prevented
from voting. Although the original ADA guaranteed voting rights to individuals
with disabilities, greater effort must be devoted to enforcement of the law.
In reality, many polling places are still inaccessible in
various ways. One of the most significant accessibility problems is
ill-informed poll workers who do not know how to use the accessible voting
machines or are unaware some people with disabilities are allowed to have an
aide of their choice accompany them into the booth. I encourage you to check
out the disabilities section of the RAC's "Get
Out the Vote 2008 Guide," which lists practical suggestions and vital information
in helping get out the vote:
Well,
consider me relieved. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a challenge to the voting
eligibility of nearly 200,000 Ohio voters - myself possibly included,
although there's no way of knowing for sure. Hoping to challenge the validity
of many newly registered voters' eligibility, the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) recently
filed suit demanding that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner hand over a
list of all those newly registered Buckeye State voters, many of whom are
Democrats.
A recent Washington Post article describes how in this time of economic uncertainty many families are turning to their spirituality and religious values for guidance. As they reprioritize family and community over material goods, the need to cut back on spending becomes less of a loss. As the article points out, however, "This concept is easier for those whose losses are few or more abstract -- say, in retirement accounts that might not be touched for a decade. It is tougher for those who feel immediately imperiled by the downturn, who have lost homes, jobs or money they need now."
The community of religious advocacy groups have also been looking to faith to guide us in action on the financial crisis. Bread for the World president Reverend David Beckmann issued a statement highlighting the importance of relieving the economic crises Americans face daily, saying that "As people of faith, we know that the Lord's Prayer petitions for daily bread and for the forgiveness of our debts and of debtors. In rescuing the U.S. economy, our leaders and Congress must ensure that both are done at the same time, too."
Faith groups realize that the ultimate test of any government policy is how it affects the most vulnerable, and so we have been working to make sure policies and programs for these people are strengthened and are not allowed to falter as purses are tightened. A recent Time article describes the increased vulnerability of those programs that are devoted to helping others get through times of need. The articles explains that "the crisis couldn't come at a worse time: many charities, such as City Harvest, which delivers leftover food from restaurants to the needy in New York City, collect the bulk of their donations during the holiday season."
But as people turn from material items to spiritual roots, however, there is a chance the most vulnerable in our community will not be abandoned. As the article explains, "the hopeful surprise is that in past recessions, donations to human services, like feeding the hungry, fell the least; in some downturns, they even rose. 'That says something good about us as human beings,' says Del Martin, who chairs Giving USA. We'll need a bull market in goodness."
This weekend, as Jews around the world meet, greet, and eat in a Sukkah built to honor our relationship with our earth, the environmental community will commemorate a different kind of annual event: the anniversary of the Clean Water Act, signed into law on October 18, 1972. Along with the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act is considered a cornerstone of our national environmental policy. Under the Act, more than one billion pounds per year of toxic pollutants have been removed from our nation's waters, moving us far along the path to make all rivers, lakes, and coastal waters in the United States 'fishable and swimmable,' the original goal of the Act.
Does it seem like it should be illegal for someone to be fired for participating in an internal sexual harassment investigation? Well, it's not illegal. At least, not yet.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, a case that asks whether the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act extends to employees who participate in sexual-harassment investigations in their workplaces but do not bring individual claims themselves. The case was filed by Vicky S. Crawford, who was fired from her job in the Nashville school district soon after revealing that she was sexually harassed by her superior, who was being investigated for alleged harassment of other female employees.
The URJ signed onto an amicus brief for this case, arguing that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act must protect workers who participate in internal sexual-harassment cases. The brief highlights pervasiveness of sexual harassment and its detrimental effect on women's abilities to participate fully in the workplace. (If you are interested in learning more about the details of this case, I recommend the podcast from Ohio State University with L. Camille Hébert, who effectively deconstructs the legal complexity of the case.)
According to an analysis by SCOTUSblog (a great Supreme Court resource), during the arguments, the Justices' comments and questions suggested that they would rule in favor of employee protection. However, it remains to be seen whether the Justices will rule only on the question presented or attempt to broaden the anti-retaliation statute and determine whether every internal investigation should be considered a Title VII investigation. Transcripts of the arguments and an argument analysis can provide more details.
Sexual harassment unfortunately remains an insidious and pernicious facet of workplace life for many individuals. We hope that the Supreme Court will seize this chance to make a statement against such degrading and destructive behavior so that no one will have to risk their jobs in order to allege harassment.
There is no hyperbole in the title of this blog-- I could not be more disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court right now. On Tuesday, the Court decided not to hear the appeal of Georgia inmate Troy Anthony Davis, only "three weeks after temporarily sparing [him] from the death penalty." The reprieve was indeed temporary as he will now almost certainly be executed on, or shortly after, October 27.
Were they to have taken the case, the question before the Court would not have been whether Mr. Davis is guilty or innocent, but instead more broadly, "whether the death penalty is barred for an individual with a strong claim of innocence." I certainly would have been interested to see what kind of arguments would have been made on the "no" side of this question.
Mr. Davis was accused of killing a police officer named Mark Allen MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia and was convicted despite the fact that "no DNA or other physical evidence was found." In fact, his conviction was based "solely on the testimony of nine witnesses...[and] seven of these witnesses have recanted" their testimony since, with "two claiming that the police had pressured them to testify against him."
I wish I could provide some glimmer of hope that Troy Davis's life will be spared, but unfortunately I cannot. Only the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles could grant him clemency, and they would have executed him three weeks ago had the Supreme Court not intervened; the odds are certainly against him.
Though there is little hope now that the fight to save the life Mr. Davis will end in victory, it does not mean that we can completely give up hope. Each individual case, each letter writing campaign, each statewide ban, brings us one step closer to nationwide abolition of capital punishment. In Mr. Davis's own words, "may God keep us all safe to do all we can to change the world, one state at a time."
The fight for marriage equality is heating up in California, Florida and Arizona, states that will see November ballot initiatives to amend their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Here's a quick update on each state's grassroots campaign to oppose these dangerous and discriminatory initiatives (including a little help from Ellen DeGeneres!) and some insight into how Reform rabbis are helping out:

It is official: the new Attorney General Guidelines for domestic FBI operations go into effect December 1, 2008, and become the rules that govern FBI investigations, not mere guidelines.