Jerry Brown, photo courtesy Thomas Hawke via flickr.

by Michael Joy, 2L

Although a year away, candidates and voters are preparing for the next California gubernatorial election. The Democratic primary could bring a lot of media attention and could be politically costly for the winner. The Republican primary is shaping up to be just as strenuous, except it may prove to be even more politically and financially costly than the Democratic primary.

The only Democratic candidate at the moment is current California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is expected to declare his candidacy soon. Although Brown has not declared his candidacy yet, he is ahead in all the polls, both against Democrats and Republicans. Brown brings a great deal of political experience to his campaign, having been governor from 1975-1983, a former Mayor of Oakland, and currently serving at California Attorney General. Brown’s reputation as an unconventional politician has won him supporters, but has also strengthened criticism against him.

The Democratic primary was going to be challenging for Brown, but his opponent, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, recently dropped out. Unless a new opponent mounts a campaign, it is likely that Brown will coast to the Democratic nomination. This heavily favors Brown because he will not have to spend much money in the primary and he will not be beaten up by his own party opponents. Nasty primary tactics between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides in the primary severely weakened Angelides in the last general election.

Republicans are offering three candidates for governor. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, former Congressman Tom Campbell, and current California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner are all vying for the Republican nomination. The three Republican candidates will be campaigning against the backdrop of an intensely unpopular Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Schwarzenegger problem might be a non-issue because the Republican base widely perceives the current governor to be a moderate rather than a true Republican.

Meg Whitman brings very strong business credentials, immense personal wealth, and popularity among Republicans to the race. She will be running during a still weak California economy, and her successful record as CEO of eBay will be a very strong point for her. Alternatively, Whitman brings no political experience to the race and has faced minor criticism for her lack of voting participation.

The second candidate for the Republicans, Tom Campbell, is competing with Whitman in early polling. Campbell brings experience as a former Congressman and experience representing the people of California. Although Campbell brings voter recognition, he is going to have to fight against Whitman and Poizner’s spending abilities in order to be competitive in the primary.

The third Republican candidate, Steve Poizner, brings his success as a business figure and current position in California politics to the race. Poizner also brings wealth to the campaign, which will allow him to go head-to-head against Whitman. He will have to overcome his low early polling numbers and will have to introduce himself to voters in order to be competitive.

The Republican primary, with three leading candidates, will be a difficult race. Two of the candidates, Whitman and Campbell, are polling closely. If the race heats up, it may become an endurance contest, which could be financially and politically expensive for the winner. Whitman holds the financial advantage compared to Campbell, but will have to fight against his experience to be successful.

Jerry Brown leads the polls against all current and potential candidates, Democratic and Republican. Brown will be campaigning in a state that is highly disapproving of the Democratic controlled state legislature, but just as disapproving of the Republican governor. If Brown runs unopposed in the Democratic primary, he will hold a large advantage in the general election because he can start his campaign for governor early, focusing on his Republican opponents. To keep the general election close, Republicans need to choose their candidate quickly, conserving financial and political resources.

by Alex Hoffman, 3L

In mid-September, both houses of the U.S. Congress voted to block any further federal funding to the community organization group, ACORN, after recent incriminating hidden-camera videos were released. ACORN, which is an acronym for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has claimed that the events in the videos are isolated incidents and do not represent the work of the community organization group as a whole.

The videos show two conservative activists, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, posing as a prostitute and a pimp, asking various ACORN representatives at several locations across the country for home loans and advice on starting a brothel for underage Salvadoran girls. In the first video, ACORN representatives at their Baltimore, Md., branch are shown telling Giles and O’Keefe how to obtain housing loans, hide the illegality of their prostitution ring and lie to the IRS by disguising the brothel as a reputable business. One ACORN member told them they could claim the underage girls as dependents and another told them to train the girls to “keep their mouth shut” to avoid exposing the prostitution ring.

The CEO and Chief Organizer of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, initially questioned the validity of the tapes, claiming they were “doctored” and even accused the filmmakers that it was a race-based attempt to bring down the organization. She also initially played down the video as an example of an isolated incident, until more videos were released showing the same tactics used at other ACORN branches with similar results. Employees featured in the videos have since been fired.

Republicans in Congress have been the main force behind the push to investigate ACORN after some members of the group were found to have submitted false voter registration forms with names like “Mickey Mouse,” “Mary Poppins” and “Dick Tracy” during the 2008 president election. Rep. Steve King, (state), stated, “Taxpayers should be outraged that their money has gone to an organization that, in addition to facing charges of voter fraud and tax violations, is willing to facilitate prostitution.”

The second-highest-ranking Republican in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor, (state), stated, “ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization.”

The House of Representatives vote of 345 to 75 to prohibit federal funding to ACORN was largely bipartisan, although the 75 members who voted against it were Democrats. One opponent, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, NY, stated the bill was “in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder.” The Senate’s bill to deny funding for ACORN was also largely bipartisan with 83 to 7 voting to deny further housing and community grant funding to the organization.

Pres. Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy, stating that what the video purported to show “was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated,” but also stated that “this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something [he’s] paying a lot of attention to.” ACORN has received approximately $53 million in tax dollars since 1994.

By Sally Derohanessian, 1L

The horrific image of the World Trade Center collapsing is an image that is engraved in the hearts and minds of every American. No one can forget the morning of September 11 as it shocked the country and changed the dynamics of the world forever. On its eighth anniversary, September 11 was a rainy day in our nation’s capital. President Obama and the First Lady stood in silence on the White House South Lawn to commemorate the victims of this tragic event. Approximately 3,000 Americans lost their lives to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

As President Obama and his administration partook in the first official National Day of Service and Remembrance, he described the aftermath as “a legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness and that calls on all of us to be strong and firm and united.” Indeed, our nation has stood strong through the outcomes of September 11, a day when the spirit of Americans was shaken but not weakened.

It is evident that the tragic events of September 11 have not ceased to affect the lives of Americans in the continuous toll it has taken on our nation’s welfare. For those who lost loved ones, family, and friends, the anguish following the national tragedy is a personal one as well. President Obama, in his speech to the families of the victims said “We honor the dead and speak to the survivors and loved ones whose lives were irrevocably changed on that terrible day”. For Elaine Dejesus of Clifton, New Jersey, the pain and shock of losing her sister Nereida Dejesus is “just the same as it was the first day.”

September 11 has not only become an anniversary to remember the horrific attack on the United States but it has become a historic bookmark, a reminder of when terror found its way into the consciousness of Americans. In the past eight years since the disaster, there has been an increasing trend towards a shared sense of grief and fear across the nation. Before September 11, foreign policy and national security were the lowest of priorities for voters. Today, as more Americans have shifted towards a more interventionist view on national security, foreign policy has gained widespread attention and has become a major factor in gearing the decision of voters. Despite varying political views, Americans have adopted a common ground in their political thinking that is supported by their mutual feelings on global terror.

Americans have not only shifted towards conservatism in their political views, but, as Lynn Reaser, chief economist for Bank of America Capital Management states “Individuals are adopting a more conservative approach to spending and living”. In the years following September 11, Americans have been re-evaluating their spending habits more closely and are less willing to spend their money.

New York City faced a direct impact on its economy when the World Trade Center came crashing down at a time when a recession was beginning to take effect. The terrorist attacks resulted in billions of dollars in damage, causing the blooming recession to pick up momentum. With more Americans afraid to fly commercial airplanes the American Airline industry experienced its own economic downturn when it lost billions of dollars in revenue. The increasing number of flight cancellations due to security reasons caused unemployment rates to rise as airline industries were forced to layoff significant numbers of employees. According to the Air Transport Association (ATA), “the airlines lost approximately 1.4 billion USD in revenue” in the first four days following 9/11 alone.

At 8:46am, the exact time when the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, the President and First lady stood in a moment of silence to remind all Americans of how “we came together as one nation, as one people, as Americans united.” In his speech, the President focused on the theme of “renewing our common purpose” by encouraging “a spirit of volunteerism” under the Serve America Act sponsored by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

The goal of this act is to bring organizations and volunteers together on a National Day of Service and Remembrance to sign up for community service. Many high-ranking members of the Obama Administration signed up to perform community service on that day in an effort to set an example to the people. Since the declaration of National Day of Service and Remembrance, thousands of people are getting involved in volunteer organizations to help rebuild communities in New York City that were affected by the attacks. Teresa Mathai planned to install drywall at low-income homes in south Boston in remembrance of her late husband Joseph Mathai, who died at the World Trade Center. The Obamas helped paint the living room in a Habitat for Humanity housing project. Members of the Obama administration served across the nation in helping prepare meals for the homeless, decorating elementary schools in D.C. and participating in mass vaccination exercises at a high school in Virginia. Such examples are to encourage more and more communities to build a stronger sense of volunteerism in order to help unite the country.

Eight years ago on September 11, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center came crumbling down before the nation’s eyes to what became known as ‘ground zero.” Since then we have started to pick up the pieces and reconstruct not only the infrastructures and areas affected by the disaster but restore our faith in building a stronger and united nation. Ground zero is a reminder to Americans that our soil was violated with a heinous crime, but the basic principles of liberty, justice, equality and democracy that this soil was founded on is the true ‘ground zero’ that can only be built upon and never destroyed.

Michael Joy, 2L

The Fourth Amendment offers little protection against searches and seizures by law enforcement when a person is out in public. Since society does not recognize a personal reasonable expectation of privacy – the longstanding test of when a search or seizure is “reasonable” – when one is out in public, the government is free to conduct surveillance. The rationale behind public surveillance involves safety and deterrence, but the monitoring also poses serious privacy concerns.

Red-light cameras have been installed in high-traffic intersections. Some areas are even experimenting with speed cameras. Densely populated cities, such as Chicago and New York, are rolling out CCTV – closed circuit television – where the public is monitored in real-time. The United Kingdom is already heavily monitoring the public through CCTV. Although, for most, red-light cameras probably invoke fear and anger over traffic tickets rather than privacy concerns, society is undeniably being monitored closer than ever before.

Red-light cameras, speed cameras and CCTV can all promote safety and deter crime. Drivers approaching an intersection with a red-light camera would likely slow down and be more cautious than usual to avoid a ticket. The presence of speed cameras on highways could induce motorists to slow down. Instead of stationing a patrol car on an embankment, motorists would know they are subject to a permanent camera placement and would drive according to speed limits. Finally, CCTV would make individuals think twice before committing a crime and can provide instant detective work. Immediately after the July 7, 2005, bombings in London, the bombers’ identities were discovered and their methods were observed, and it was due to CCTV observation.

However, the often-forgotten side of the monitoring argument involves important privacy concerns. The old adage goes: “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” Even though the statement makes sense on some levels, and the law is not on the side of privacy regarding public surveillance, it ignores important realities about human nature and behavior. Say a public square or commons was monitored by CCTV for safety purposes. This monitored area is frequently used for public protests, mostly against current government policies. The agency in charge of the CCTV system now has access to real-time footage of the protest. This information could be used to intimidate participants, discourage public discourse and ultimately drown out unfavorable points of view. There is a very real risk of the same safety infrastructure being used with bad intent.

Even further, there is a point of no return. Implementing a camera network across a city would be expensive and would take a great deal of time. Once the network was in place, it would be very hard to dismantle it or question its use. Again, human nature being what it is, once society gets accustomed to being constantly monitored, it would be very difficult to have a reasoned discussion opposing the monitoring. Finally, the temptation for an organization or person to improperly use such a network could pose a dangerous threat to society.

Although the Fourth Amendment may not provide a shield from government surveillance via cameras and CCTV, privacy rights should not be ignored. History has demonstrated that governments have an interest in keeping their people safe, but also that people have an interest in being free from government intrusion. A massive network of surveillance equipment does not get installed overnight and could potentially provide too great of a temptation for a group or person to improperly use. Any debate regarding a public surveillance scheme should be deliberate, reasoned and take into account privacy concerns before there is no more privacy to be concerned about.

by Alex Hoffman, 3L Day

Since President Obama announced his pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the Supreme Court, her confirmation has been entangled with controversy. While many Senators have expressed their confidence in Sotomayor’s judicial experience and knowledge of the law, the milestone that is the appointment of the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice has been bogged down by comments Sotomayor previously made in 2001.

Sotomayor’s controversial statement at issue was that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Race was further injected into the confirmation process, as one of the cases she ruled on as a federal appeals judge, Ricci v. DeStefano, which dealt with the racial discrimination of white firefighters was overturned by the Supreme Court.

This resulted in Sotomayor being asked tough questions during confirmation hearings before the Senate Judicial Committee. When explaining her questionable remarks regarding her gender and race, Sotomayor stated that her comments were made in order to inspire Hispanic students to achieve what she has accomplished and maintained that she could rule objectively. While all Democratic Senators on the Committee have thrown their support behind her, Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was the sole Republican to vote in favor of her. Other Republicans on the panel have opposed her due to her more evasive answers regarding the gun rights, abortion and affirmative action. This contrasted with comments made by Democratic Senators, such as newly minted Al Franken who claimed Sotomayor was “the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years.”

Despite the controversies and lack of bipartisan support, Judge Sotomayor appears to be heading towards Senate confirmation. No Democratic Senator has stated he or she will vote against her and several Republican Senators have made it public that they will confirm her, such as Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine, Richard Lugar from Indiana, and Mel Martinez from Florida. Even without Republican support, Sotomayor’s confirmation is reasonably safe, with the addition of comedian Al Franken to the Senate, which ensures a filibuster proof majority of 58 Democratic Senators and two independents who caucus with them. Further, Senator Lindsay Graham was quoted as saying to Sotomayor, “Unless you have a complete meltdown you will get confirmed.”

Senate Republicans who fought with Senate Democrats over voting on President Bush’s judicial appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito may also be pressured by accusations of hypocrisy if they attempt to delay Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation. This does not appear to be the case, as many Senate Republicans have promised a speedy confirmation. The top Republican on the Senate Judicial Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions has announced that he will not support judge Sotomayor, but that he would not support any attempt to block a final vote on her confirmation.

If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the third woman appointed to the court.

On February 2, 2009, Eric Holder, Jr. was confirmed by a 75-21 Senate vote to become the 82nd United States Attorney General.  The Senate received the nomination after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it in a 17-2 vote, with most Republicans voting in favor and only two voting against it.  Although Holder is new to this position, Holder is not new to the Department of Justice having served previously as the number two person, Deputy Attorney General, during Bill Clinton’s second term in office.  He was a senior legal advisor to President Barack Obama’s election campaign. Read the full story

The presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, on January 20, is one that will go down in history. The election of a black man to the highest public office in the United States is an event that few of those present – and likely many Americans in general – ever thought they would see in their lifetimes. Read the full story

The economy is bad.  We have heard that plenty already.  The housing crisis was the first sign that the economy was in trouble.  Then came the financial sector, followed by the auto industry desperate need of money. Read the full story

The current economic correction period is more than a simple business cycle downturn. We are experiencing the painful burst of an economic bubble. An economic “bubble” is “trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values.” Read the full story

In 2008, there was a political transformation in this country.  Four years ago, congress was made up of Republicans and George W. Bush was comfortably reelected to a second term.  In 2009, Congress is now made up of a Democratic majority, which has increased in size in this last election, and Democrat Barack Obama was sworn yesterday as the 44th President of the United States, after winning the 2008 election by a wide margin.  Read the full story