What the Supreme Court Stands For

When signing up for JOU 1450, I was told, "know the First Amendment before you walk into the class." Now I understand why. At least once a week Dean Smith asks, "What are your rights?" or more often, "What are the first five words of the First Amendment?"

I was unaware of the difference between Supreme Court and Congress. Now I understand that Congress's role is to pass laws (none that infringe on a fundamental personal right from religion, of religion; speech, press; assembly, or petition.) while the Supreme Court's role is to interpret them. 

Interpretation is built upon years and years of set precedents. Arguably one of the most (for lack of a better term) respected qualities of the Supreme Court is their reliability to set a precedent and strive for continuity through stare decisis. Understandably, not every decision should be kept. 

In fact, the same level of admiration can be given to the Court's ability to maintain stare decisis, while also recognizing that the option to overturn previous decisions reflects the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding fairness, especially as society evolves over time.

This gives me a sense of theoretical comfort: the Court always has the opportunity to make the right decision. However, any decision the Court chooses is the "right" one in terms of upholding The Constitution in its entirety case to case. More specifically, it is ensuring each plaintiff and defendant have the same playing field. 

But I also recognize that decisions can be influenced by who has the better legal argument—or, in many cases, who has more financial resources to back up their case.

For all the apparent absolutes in the law, there is a considerable amount of flexibility. For example, while the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973) was seen as a setback by many feminists, cases protecting abortion rights might still succeed under the precedent of Eisenstadt v. Baer (1972).

Bref, I have faith in the Supreme Court to continue making the most logical decisions to uphold the values of our country.

The Five: My News Sources

The Daily, categorized by Spotify as a daily Political/News podcast is hosted by The New York Times' Michael Barbaro and Sabrina Tavernise released their first episode on Febuary 1, 2017. Typically my day begins with one episode as it gets me out of bed and lets me know when about 30 minutes has passed. While the end of the episode will typically include a breif recap of other important events, the majority of the 30ish minutes is dedicated to one story, elaborated about extensively by hosts and a source. This is an easy way for me to stay up to date with current affairs. Occasionally, the daily episode is replaced with an episode by a sister podcast The Interview, also by NYT, hosted by David Marchese and Lulu Garcia-Navarro. I find both podcasts provide stimulating and thought provoking content, typically left leaning. The Daily or the Interview, are my top recomendations to my friends who want to expand their current affairs knowledge. 

To balance out the more liberal leaning news, my second source comes from my Sunday phone calls with my father in which he spends at least 20 minutes telling me what he watched on FOX News that day. Occasionally the information contradicts what I had listened to on The Daily earlier, further empasising the need to obtain new information from majoratively unbiased sources. Much of what my father mentions is from FOX's Gutfeld! which is not news. If someone is looking for satire and is comfortable knowing that they will have to cross-reference to confirm the information, this is an okay source... However, if you are easily offended and prefer no-nonsense news, do not use this source.

In contrast to both previous sources, when a particular article or topic catches my eye, I will read through Newsweek or Forbes. Both news companies deliver credible news in a relatively unbiased manner. In addition, I find Forbes and Newsweek easier to digest as a young adult. While I more often find bigger issue coverage on NYT or CNN, I am able to find smaller topics more easily on Newsweek. Forbes is where I look first when the topic has any relation to pop-culture. To those like me, a young adult who does not always find time to digest a full article, Forbes and Newsweek are the go tos. 

As a college student, I would be lying if I said Instagram is not on my list. I look towards one account, Impact, on my feed for trustworthy information. I imagine I should barely consider it a part of my news intake, however, much of what I see prompts me to ask my fellow peers, and even consult the internet for its accuracy. Typically they are not lying.  

Lastly, many of my classes require curent event awarness as participation points. Therefore, my peers make a great news source in the opposite way google news or apple news works. Numerous classmates are sports media majors. Instead of listening to whats new with Broadway, entertainment, or the environment, I learn spesifically about sports. Then, the connotation in which the classmate speaks lets me know if they are a fan of the news or not, helping me to form opinions about spesific sports teams. A win as far as I am concerned. 

While not the most academic answers, my five news sources are honest and convienent for college students wanting to learn more about the world in which they live.