I've very purposely kept my opinions about the verdict off of Facebook. Awhile back I made a deliberate decision to make my facebook mostly apolitical, as a personal preference, I just didn't want to engage in controversial debates there anymore, I don't have the interest in it like I used to.
This week may have been an exception, but I've had such a hard time figuring out what I think and how I feel, that I knew it wasn't ready for facebook consumption. But today I've read two things that really touched me, that really articulated what I think:
One is from a United Methodist Blog: http://umcconnections.org/2013/07/19/white-privilege-and-the-trayvon-martin-case/?utm_content=buffer07005&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
The other was from President Obama. I disagree with him more these days than before, but I could tell he had this case on his mind and in his heart all week and finally figured out what he wanted to say, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it. Here is a link to the transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-trayvon-martin-full-transcript/2013/07/19/5e33ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_print.html
The truth is, the experience as a black person is different. The experience for a black man is even more different, and difficult. And agree or disagree with the verdict, Trayvon Martin was a victim of that. These laws that justify deadly force in these situations are applied unequally to the detriment of African Americans. And what makes is so sad, is that meaningful change on these issues moves so slowly, too slowly for many.
So many of my black peers have stories of being profiled, from Stanford students, to law professors, even I have my own story and experience with police officers. What's sad about Trayvon Martin's death is that it's just another example of that, with a horrible consequence.
And while I understand the verdict, I can't help but feel sad that a life was taken at the hands of another, without any meaningful consequence (yet) for the man who, admittedly made the choice to engage him with a gun, when he should have just stayed in his car.
I could go into more issues related to the case but I'd like to leave it at that.
Oh, and on a related issue, read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/questions-haunt-family-of-man-with-down-syndrome-who-died-in-police-custody/2013/07/18/693d4c2a-eef6-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html
I can't even begin to articulate how angry and upset this continues to make me - I really have no words.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Friday, July 19, 2013
Friday, March 23, 2012
Obamacare and the Supreme Court
Update: if you're looking for good (nerdy) info - SCOTUS Blog is a good place to start: http://www.scotusblog.com/
They have audio and transcript from oral argument, which began today.
A big news story today is the second anniversary of the signing of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act. Obviously there was vigorous debate, and many people disagree with the individual mandate. And what do people in our country do when we don't like something? Sue!
Regardless of your (or my) opinion, as a lawyer, I'm really excited for oral argument to take place, but my reasons actually have almost nothing to do with the law itself, but rather a certain constitutional law question that the Supreme Court justices seem determined to not give us a straight answer to.
According to the Constitution (and not the one that says that Obama is not a citizen, or any "constitution" that a tea party fanatic likes to cite, because they are almost always wrong), Congress is allowed to pass laws that regulate "interstate commerce." And after all this time, we still do not know what the heck that means. On the one hand, medical marijuana sold only in California affects interstate commerce, on the other hand, the presence of guns near schools, or physical violence against women, doesn't. And the basis for the healthcare law is this commerce clause. So it will give the justices another opportunity to set forth clear rules about what exactly Congress can and cannot regulate. Historically the courts have struggled with the question of how much can Congress regulate, and how much it should save for the states to decide. As much as that is a political question, it is also very much a constitutional, interpretive and scholarly question that many of us law types get excited about.
You should also keep in mind that whenever the Supreme Court hears a case, they have the right and the opportunity to create new law. Of course that is discouraged politically, but justices on both sides of the aisle do it, and sometimes it is simply necessary, because the older rules simply don't work in today's society. So as much as people can make informed predictions, and as much as the parties can cite precedent, 5 people can agree to do what they want.
The irony is, after all of this hype, the court might not even get to the constitutional question because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which, if applied to this case, would mean that the insurance mandate would have to take effect before anyone can sue under it, and it would delay the ultimate question until 2014. Stay tuned!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
They have audio and transcript from oral argument, which began today.
A big news story today is the second anniversary of the signing of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act. Obviously there was vigorous debate, and many people disagree with the individual mandate. And what do people in our country do when we don't like something? Sue!
Regardless of your (or my) opinion, as a lawyer, I'm really excited for oral argument to take place, but my reasons actually have almost nothing to do with the law itself, but rather a certain constitutional law question that the Supreme Court justices seem determined to not give us a straight answer to.
According to the Constitution (and not the one that says that Obama is not a citizen, or any "constitution" that a tea party fanatic likes to cite, because they are almost always wrong), Congress is allowed to pass laws that regulate "interstate commerce." And after all this time, we still do not know what the heck that means. On the one hand, medical marijuana sold only in California affects interstate commerce, on the other hand, the presence of guns near schools, or physical violence against women, doesn't. And the basis for the healthcare law is this commerce clause. So it will give the justices another opportunity to set forth clear rules about what exactly Congress can and cannot regulate. Historically the courts have struggled with the question of how much can Congress regulate, and how much it should save for the states to decide. As much as that is a political question, it is also very much a constitutional, interpretive and scholarly question that many of us law types get excited about.
You should also keep in mind that whenever the Supreme Court hears a case, they have the right and the opportunity to create new law. Of course that is discouraged politically, but justices on both sides of the aisle do it, and sometimes it is simply necessary, because the older rules simply don't work in today's society. So as much as people can make informed predictions, and as much as the parties can cite precedent, 5 people can agree to do what they want.
The irony is, after all of this hype, the court might not even get to the constitutional question because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which, if applied to this case, would mean that the insurance mandate would have to take effect before anyone can sue under it, and it would delay the ultimate question until 2014. Stay tuned!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Since I'm not on Facebook...
This is where you get to hear me rant about the Second Amendment.
I don't hate it. In fact, I think, given the atmosphere in which we ratified the Bill of Rights, it was necessary. And, it's so ingrained in our culture that, like the First Amendment, it will never go away, and probably should not go away.
But as I often tell my friends and family, I'm not a fan of the Second Amendment. I'm a fan of the 14th amendment, that gives equal protection of the law to everyone. I'm a fan of the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and religion), and it's strange to me that in Western Europe, you can be arrested for something you say. I LOVE the fourth and fifth amendment, which prevent unreasonable searches and seizures by the police, and give you a fair(er) trial. I just think that the Second Amendment, of all the Amendments, is completely overemphasized (by the NRA, I'm not afraid to say), and people spend way too much time defending it, as compared to other rights that we have in this country.
And stories like the Treyvon Martinkilling murder always leave me preoccupied with this issue. If you're not aware, Treyvon Martin was a 17 year old, who was staying at his dad's house in a nice neighborhood in Florida, when he walked to the store to get some snacks, and as he was walking back the captain of the neighborhood watch shot him dead. Treyvon was unarmed (unless you want to count the skittles he was carrying), and being followed by this watch captain, who called 911 to report a "suspicious kid" (as he had done several times before). The 911 dispatcher told this guy not to follow the kid, and he did it anyway (how do we know? the kid was talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone for part of this, saying "this guy is following me"). I haven't heard the 911 call, because I know that it will disturb me even more than this case already does.
In Florida (and Alabama and several other states), you do not have an obligation to retreat when you feel under threat. And you even have the right to respond disproportionally to the threat, so if someone is coming at you with a fist, you can legally shoot him. That is why there is speculation that this shooter will not be convicted of murder, if he can convince a jury that he was reasonably threatened (hey, Casey Anthony got off, he could too).
But setting that aside, as well as the obvious racial element here (a black kid in a hoodie in a nice neighborhood is OBVIOUSLY a threat), can we talk about guns?
Why is this dude allowed to walk around a family neighborhood carrying a handgun? We care about the right to have a gun so much that in some states you can have them anywhere. That is absurd to me. Gang members can carry guns, drug dealers can carry guns, people with mental illness can carry guns, and the neighborhood vigilante who thinks he knows how to protect the neighborhood and ends up killing an innocent kid, can carry a gun. I don't understand how we tolerate this as a society, how our values are so twisted that we want to protect our "FREEDOM" before we protect the safety of our kids and our community.
I once had a discussion with a friend from law school about the 2nd amendment. He said that perhaps people are so passionate about it because they feel it is the most under attack. I see cases like this and I beg to disagree. The additional irony is how many 2nd amendment folks also feel so strongly about the "sanctity of life," and yet fight so hard to be able to carry a gun, which I am willing to bet kills more people every year than abortion. It just feels so upside down to me.
There is such a thing as responsible gun ownership, but walking around your neighborhood with a gun ready to shoot anyone is not that. This is why we need regulation and why the right to "bear arms" should not be unrestricted.
I don't hate it. In fact, I think, given the atmosphere in which we ratified the Bill of Rights, it was necessary. And, it's so ingrained in our culture that, like the First Amendment, it will never go away, and probably should not go away.
But as I often tell my friends and family, I'm not a fan of the Second Amendment. I'm a fan of the 14th amendment, that gives equal protection of the law to everyone. I'm a fan of the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and religion), and it's strange to me that in Western Europe, you can be arrested for something you say. I LOVE the fourth and fifth amendment, which prevent unreasonable searches and seizures by the police, and give you a fair(er) trial. I just think that the Second Amendment, of all the Amendments, is completely overemphasized (by the NRA, I'm not afraid to say), and people spend way too much time defending it, as compared to other rights that we have in this country.
And stories like the Treyvon Martin
In Florida (and Alabama and several other states), you do not have an obligation to retreat when you feel under threat. And you even have the right to respond disproportionally to the threat, so if someone is coming at you with a fist, you can legally shoot him. That is why there is speculation that this shooter will not be convicted of murder, if he can convince a jury that he was reasonably threatened (hey, Casey Anthony got off, he could too).
But setting that aside, as well as the obvious racial element here (a black kid in a hoodie in a nice neighborhood is OBVIOUSLY a threat), can we talk about guns?
Why is this dude allowed to walk around a family neighborhood carrying a handgun? We care about the right to have a gun so much that in some states you can have them anywhere. That is absurd to me. Gang members can carry guns, drug dealers can carry guns, people with mental illness can carry guns, and the neighborhood vigilante who thinks he knows how to protect the neighborhood and ends up killing an innocent kid, can carry a gun. I don't understand how we tolerate this as a society, how our values are so twisted that we want to protect our "FREEDOM" before we protect the safety of our kids and our community.
I once had a discussion with a friend from law school about the 2nd amendment. He said that perhaps people are so passionate about it because they feel it is the most under attack. I see cases like this and I beg to disagree. The additional irony is how many 2nd amendment folks also feel so strongly about the "sanctity of life," and yet fight so hard to be able to carry a gun, which I am willing to bet kills more people every year than abortion. It just feels so upside down to me.
There is such a thing as responsible gun ownership, but walking around your neighborhood with a gun ready to shoot anyone is not that. This is why we need regulation and why the right to "bear arms" should not be unrestricted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)