Deep Docket

When first reading my article I had began to like the ideas of what the new term was willing to focus on. It states that the new term will focus more on consequential constitutional issues such as, campaign contributions, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer and presidential power. For example the case with abortion and usage of medication has taken a detour due to the fact that the court needs some clarification. So the whole idea is that this new term of justices should shape our governmental system.

Texas University’s Race Admissions Policy Is Debated Before a Federal Court

This article was actually very interesting to me, because it talked about a process that I have just recently finished: the application to college process. I certainly think that affirmative action, or admitting more people from racially minority groups, can be a good thing. However, because of affirmative action, colleges tend to accept minority students over students in the majority race simply because of their race, and not because of their grades, test scores, or extracurriculars. I believe that this way of trying to end racism, is actually, racist itself. Admitting a student into college because of his or her race is racist. Diversity is very important in colleges and universities and one thing I am looking forward to in college is meeting all different kinds of people from all over the world. However, I personally think that school's policies on affirmative action should be reformed.

Court Stuff

This article was a tad bit concerning to read. Reading about the fact that there are vacant seats in the courts is crazy to think about. We need all the seats to be filled to make sure that justice is served. One part that stuck out to me the most was “The prestigious and important United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism. The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.” To read that a court that deals with national security has four vacancies is scary. National security is one of the most important issues in our nation. There is no reason to have vacancies on an issue like this. Honestly there is no reason for this, everyone should want to help. This is just too important to have vacancies. 

Justices Weigh Constitutionality of New York Town’s Prayers

This article was about a current supreme court case deciding whether or not a town in New York's prayers before town meeting are unconstitutional. I believe that the town's prayer is unconstitutional, because they are being said at a government event to a public audience, and they are openly advocating christianity, which is against the establishment clause. However, I see why this could be a difficult case for the Supreme Court because, as the article mentioned, the supreme court has an invocation to God before their meetings and they have made decisions before about similar issues that could be conflicting. For instance, the article mentioned a case where a town in Nebraska's prayers were upheld, but at the same time in US History I had to study a case where public prayers before high school football games were deemed unconstitutional, so this will be a difficult case for the Supreme Court.

Recent issues with Health Care Law

One big issue that is raised right away when reading and listening to the news on the Health Care Law is the fact that some Democrats are hesitant to vote for the Health Care Law. The democrats reasoning for opposing the law isn't because they think it's a bad idea. The certain Democrats that are against the Law now are just afraid of losing their seat. Those democrats are particularly the ones that won in areas where Obama isn't really popular. Another issue that is raised when talking about the bill is that its affecting those who have been buying the health care from the individual market. With the fixes it wants the those people who have plans that expiring this year to buy from policy holders. My prediction on the issue is that this Law will be denied mainly because it is losing interest from the people and also the democrats who once supported it.

Health Care

            In the future I think that Obama will have to come back on this bill and reformat it. President Obama promised people that their plans will be grandfathered into the new policy when in fact, it will not be. I think that in the future, the bill will be re written. I believe that when it is re written, President Obama will not have as  much say as he once did based on his performance in this most recent draft. I think that both sides will come together to figure out a way to make sure that people already covered are still safe and those who are not finally get the insurance they are seeking. I do believe that the original bill that President Obama proposed will be thrown away. President Obama has done too much damage with his false promise that the only thing they should be looking to do is starting over. I think that President Obama will lose credibility because of this bill that even caused a government shut down. 

Healthcare Post

After reading my article, I got the sense that the author thought that Obama's "keep your healthcare if you like it" promise came as a result of misinformation and miscommunication. On the one hand, he meant to say that the 95% of people with insurance from their employers/medicare/medicaid could keep their coverage, and that he thought a grandfather clause would cover the other 5% who wanted to keep their coverage. However unlikely I think it is that he was not 100% informed on this law, I also realize that he wasn't actually the one writing the law, because it was probably different congressmen and their staffers writing the law, which could explain any misinformation on his part. I don't think he was flat out lying; however, the way that this is being portrayed to the public is making it seem like he flat out lied.

Even though politically the Obama Administration would need to do something to appease people who are angry about having their coverage taken, I ultimately think this is just various congressmen using this to criticize Obama for their own political gains. When you look at the big picture, the people who couldn't keep their coverage would actually be getting better coverage, and in the long run wouldn't have to pay more for emergency medical expenses. Ultimately I believe that if the Obama Administration can keep any significant legislation from being passed to change the law it will be effective and will eventually work out. Granted, the website issues didn't cast Obamacare in a good light, and then all of the current issues with politics surrounding the law are not working out, but in the end it will be beneficial for everyone and hopefully people would look favorably on the law in the 2016 election. At the same time, health care is going to be a big issue in the next elections (presidential or otherwise) so whatever stance politicians take will have to be very clear cut because of how divisive this law has become.