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 North America, it is election season. Canadians returned the Conservative party of Stephen Harper to lead a minority government last week, and Americans will finish the two-year journey of choosing a new President in just days.
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.
The Alliance for Justice recently issued a list of the top five questions to ask Presidential candidates in order gauge their stances and perspectives on judicial nominations and the Supreme Court:
For once, saying "There's good news from Guantanamo" is not an oxymoron. Yesterday saw two encouraging firsts in this bleak saga. For the first time , a U.S. court ordered Guantanamo detainees, 17 detainees in fact, be released, and furthermore it was the first time that "foreign national[s] held there [have] been...brought to the United States."
The 2008 term of the United States Supreme Court has begun. On Monday, the Justices heard oral arguments for three cases, but only one case received the media's attention: Altria Group v. Good.
Homes and offices that run on the sun's rays. Trucks and buses powered by used grease from the local McDonald's. Cars that plug in like kitchen appliances to a cell phone provider-like network. All of these ideas may sound as futuristic as the time traveling DeLorean but, in fact, all are possible with current technology. Innovators around the world are taking action to solve the climate change and energy crises one step at a time and, in the process, changing the way we live.
I may not know everything, but there are a few things I definitely know about tobacco:

Last week, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin stated that "a two-state solution is the solution... and that will be [a] top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration." Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden stated, for his part, that "no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden" and that Obama will bring "thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation, and stand with them."
If you are not registered to vote yet, for some of you - that clock is ticking! I'll let these kind folks do the convincing...
The prevalence of religion in political campaigns has become a hot topic over the past few election cycles. In the present race for the White House, there has been even more attention to the religious views and practices of the candidates than ever before. There are constantly articles in major newspapers on the candidates' religious beliefs, studies by organizations like the Pew Foundation on the political leanings of different religious groups, and I won't even start on the number of features from the talking heads on television.
Dear Mr. Tabacoff and Ms. Sohnen,
I write in response to commentator Bill O'Reilly's recent statement comparing Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's presentation style and body language to that of Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler's.
Although O'Reilly cynically claimed, "I'm not making any comparisons here," his decision to equate Speaker Pelosi's public speaking style with the very personification of evil in our time is, by definition, a comparison - a particularly preposterous and insulting one, at that. Nothing in her manner or substance - nothing - resembled the hate-filled rants Hitler was so known for. Such an inappropriate, ill-conceived analogy represents a smear campaign designed to further divide an already politically polarized American public.
This is not the first time Mr. O'Reilly has used his television show as an outlet for drawing supposed parallels between Nazi Germany and those current-day politicians and media outlets with whom he disagrees. In the past he has accused The Huffington Post of employing "the exact same tactics that the Nazis used ... to demonize certain groups of people" and later called former Vice President Al Gore an "evil enabler" for speaking at a convention that he inexplicably compared to gatherings held by both the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party.
Such repeated comparisons by Mr. O'Reilly display blatant insensitivity to the far-reaching effects of the evil perpetrated by Hitler and the Nazis. In repeatedly comparing respected political figures with Hitler and Nazis, he trivializes the distinctive evil that Hitler represents.
Mr. O'Reilly owes Speaker Pelosi an apology. I urge that you insist it be given as a requirement of the journalistic standards of the network and, should he refuse, that you act accordingly. I look forward to hearing from you.
The following article is cross-posted from the URJ's daily 10 Minutes of Torah publication.
Next week is the start of the 2008 term of the United States Supreme Court. On Monday, October 6th, the nine Justices will begin hearing arguments on the various cases that they have agreed to consider.
Every year, the Court considers cases related to issues of importance to our Movement, including, but not limited to, the separation of church and state, protection of civil rights and civil liberties, women's reproductive freedom, and protection of the environment. This year will be no exception.
The Justices will spend their time making judgments that establish legal precedents and dictate the freedoms and rights of the people of our nation. These judgments have the potential to advance or threaten the crucial gains that we have made and will continue to make in the legislative arena.
The start of the Supreme Court term appropriately coincides with the Days of Awe and Shabbat Shuva. This holy time, set aside for personal reflection and repentance, is in essence, a time for judgment--we judge ourselves and we open ourselves up to God's judgment. We take these ten days to evaluate our behavior and actions over the past year and to determine how we have transgressed or "missed the mark." And, taking our repentance into consideration, God makes the ultimate judgment--whether our names will be inscribed in the book of life or the book of death.
Earthly judgment is also part of our holy day liturgy. On Yom Kippur afternoon we will read the command, "you shall not render an unfair decision; do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your kinsman fairly" (Leviticus 19:15). This text reminds us to evaluate the ways that we have judged others when we are considering whether we have "missed the mark." And it reminds us of the incredible challenge of finding true justice that favors no individual or group, regardless of any characteristics, qualities, advantages or disadvantages they may possess.
While the Days of Awe are particularly focused on judgment, we are obligated to pursue justice and fairness throughout the year. In an often-quoted passage in Deuteronomy, God proclaims to the people of Israel, "you shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the just. Justice, justice, shall you pursue" (16:19-20).
The responsibility to pursue justice extends beyond ensuring that we, ourselves, are behaving justly and judging fairly. We also have a responsibility to create a legal system that strives for balance and that treats all people equitably. Unfortunately, in recent years, appointments of judges, and particularly Supreme Court nominations, have become highly politicized and subject to partisan interests. Our fight for a fair and independent judiciary has become more important than ever and the responsibility to speak out for justice bears heavily on our shoulders.
Despite an enduring and unequivocal commitment to social justice, many of us forget that speaking truth to power includes engaging with the Judicial Branch of our government. We forget that we have avenues for making our voices heard when we learn about judicial nominees whose records indicate that they may not uphold the values we espouse. In some states, there are opportunities to cast a vote for or against judges based on their qualifications and records. At the federal level, we can contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and our own senators to express our concerns about or outright opposition to the confirmation of these nominees.
Of course, this requires a commitment on our part to learning about nominees and taking the time to study their records and histories. By becoming actively engaged in the selection of judges, we truly fulfill the obligation to create a more just society.
During these Days of Awe, as we pray that God will judge us mercifully, let us also consider whether our own personal judgments are fair and balanced. And let us do our part to guarantee that our judges and courts will be true beacons of justice and fairness.
Next year, when we hear the words of Leviticus on Yom Kippur, may we be able to look back and conclude that we have, in fact, made progress in the pursuit of justice.
To learn more about judicial nominations and the federal court system, visit the%2