By Alex Hoffman, 3L

On Friday, October 9, the Nobel Prize Committee announced President Barack Obama as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. This announcement has stirred controversy as to its validity, due to President Obama’s mere nine month tenure in office. It also appears that the prestigious award may be more of a burden to the president than a benefit, as the announcement comes on the heels of a Saturday Night Live skit highlighting Obama’s failed attempt to bring Chicago the 2016 Olympics. The skit also portrayed President Obama as a do nothing president, lacking accomplishments, as well breaking many of the promises he made to his supporters during the campaign.

President Obama stated he was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the award and that he did not “view it as a recognition of [his] own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.” Obama asserted that he would accept the award on December 10, “as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21^st century.”

Critics on the right view the award as premature and purely political. The Republican National Committee released a statement, which remarked, “it is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain, President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”

Conservatives are not the only ones crying foul. Many on the left who supported Obama’s candidacy did so under the premise that he would work to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the nation is still embroiled in two wars and there is now a possible troop surge in Afghanistan, for liberal supporters of Obama’s award, the celebration is bittersweet.

The Nobel Prize Committee defended their choice, stating their decision was unanimous, and pressed that Obama had made efforts towards nuclear disarmament as well as stressing diplomacy between nations. World leaders welcomed the award and emphasized the symbolism of it over its substance. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the award represented “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples.” Similarly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel emphasized the “new tone” Obama has set and proclaimed the Nobel Prize was an “incentive to the president and to us all.” The 2008 recipient, former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari viewed the award as prospective, remarking that “the world expects that he will also achieve something.”

While many question the committee’s choice to receive the award, the Nobel Committee has been known for giving out controversial awards that appear more political than substantive. Some critics view the 2002 and 2007 awards to Former President Jimmy Carter and Former Vice President Al Gore as examples of prizes that were repudiations of Bush administration policies. Yasser Arafat’s 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was also considered controversial due to his involvement with terrorism.

President Obama is the third sitting United States President to win the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.

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

Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama made commitments to engage in a careful, methodic withdrawal of military forces from Iraq.  But as President Obama takes the reigns of American foreign policy, will his promise for withdrawal include the legions of private contractors working at the government’s behest? Read the full story

With summer coming to a close and the fall season fast approaching, the outdoor climate is exhibiting noticeable changes. Unlike cooling temperatures, however, the political climate this season is heating things up. That’s right…Election 2008 is just around the corner! In case there are some out there, as unlikely as it is at this point, who have not heard the details, the Democrats have nominated Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, while Senator John McCain of Arizona is on the top of the Republican ticket. The candidates for vice president are Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Despite the historic and unique elements of this election, the same ugly tactics that characterized previous elections have managed to emerge once again. Lies, half-truths, and over-exaggerations continue to be plastered onto television screens around the country. In some instances, members of the media often seem as though they should be in the land of Oz, chanting, “Race, and age, and unwed teenage mothers…oh my!” One issue that should be incredibly important to Americans everywhere is the current balance on the United States Supreme Court. Yet somehow, this issue has received very little attention from the candidates and mainstream media. It is not surprising, however, that it would be put on the back burner with other issues like the economy, the War in Iraq and lipstick on pigs.

Before addressing the current make up of the Court, it is important to identify what role it plays in our system and why politics has a bigger role in the process than most would like to admit. Going back to the ratification of the Constitution, it was established in Article III that, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court…” The Court in Marbury v. Madison established the authority of judicial review, allowing the Court to strike down those statutes, both state and federal, that a majority of the justices believe to be in conflict with the Constitution. Some important decisions emanating from the authority of judicial review include recognizing the reproductive rights of women, striking down early attempts to set a minimum wage, and establishing the frequently cited Miranda Warnings.
Read the full story

While California’s Presidential Primary is not until Feb. 5, many SW students already have a candidate in mind.

In December 2007, The Commentator asked SW students whom they would vote for if the Presidential primary elections were held that day. Read the full story