The Politics of Space Exploration

     

        Throughout the course of history, there has always been an uncharted frontier for Americans to explore–whether the New World, the West, or the depths of the oceans. Now, thanks to the effects of industrialization, the frontiers of this world are beginning to dwindle. There will, though, always be one unexplored frontier–one which cannot possibly be explored in entirety, never ceases to drive our curiosity as a nation, and inspires people around the world to dream big–space.
        Ever since the Space Race of the 1960s, the United States has been at the forefront of space exploration. While other nations have accomplished similar feats as those of the United States, no nation's space agency is as well-known as NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Since Armstrong first walked on the moon, NASA has inspired young minds to dream big, and even become astronauts. This ability to accomplish such great technological feats has been, for decades, a result of major bipartisan support for space exploration. For years, it has been an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can, for the most part, unite and agree.
        Space exploration drives us forward as a nation, unites us under the cause of curiosity, and pushes us "where no man has gone before." Not only is there an ever-present desire in the American public for space exploration, but politicians, as well, seek to continue to explore our own solar system and beyond. Many view it as essential to the national agenda, as well as to our nation's scientific advancements. No matter how imperative the future of space exploration to this great nation, though, it is often undermined by a Congress unable to either agree or compromise.

        Recently, NASA requested its 2017 budget from various branches of the U.S. Government–the House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama. The budget was received rather differently from each respondent. Both the Senate and the President did not give NASA significant advances in funding; both of their budget proposals placed far more emphasis on space travel than on earth science, as well. The House committee that decides upon NASA's annual budget, however, was rather generous in its allotting of funds. Seeing that NASA needs a certain amount of funding for its ambitious space travel programs, the House provided NASA with a hefty $19.5 billion budget for 2017. This was $200 million more than the Senate's proposal and $500 million more than that of the President.
        This budget, which will have to pass through both the House and the Senate in order to become effective, could potentially grant NASA the ability to expand its programs and bring seemingly distant exploratory missions to the near future. However, the House and the Senate have not agreed upon a budget for the NASA since 2010–the Senate often being reluctant to endorse space spending in all fields. NASA's budget has historically been lowballed, which has resulted in NASA being limited in its capabilities. Should Congress be able to agree upon a substantial budget for NASA this year, the United States will be able to maintain its position of global leadership atop the ladder of space exploration. As stated in a Huffington Post article by Eileen Collins and Nick Lampson, "As a nation, we must put politics aside to ensure that expanding the space frontier occupies a prominent place on our national agenda."

        In the past several years, some have criticized the government's waning support for space exploration, as it has given rise to the growth of privatized space corporations, such as Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. SpaceX, in particular, has publicized its intentions to launch missions to Mars in the next several years and has given a new hope to those wishing to see more space missions in the near future. The sort of fascinating research tests and propositions made by SpaceX have demonstrated that space exploration is not a lost cause. SpaceX, as well, has proven that, if NASA were to receive more substantial funding from the government, it would be able to accomplish more notable feats–as opposed to those it has focused on recently, the majority of which do not excite the public as much as the thought of a mission to Mars. 
        In addition, the House has demonstrated a great deal of interest in the rise of America's commercial space sector. In May, it passed the SPACE Act, which is helping to promote growth for companies like SpaceX, which possess similar objectives to NASA, yet far more capabilities. In recent news, SpaceX failed to successfully land its Falcon 9 rocket on a cargo ship, only to successfully land it on the ship during a second test. For companies like SpaceX, which have far more budgetary flexibility than NASA, it is okay to fail once in a while. Nonetheless, NASA has shown interest in cooperating with SpaceX's proposed missions to Mars in the future, giving hope to a potential merge of public and private spaceflight organizations.
        Moreover, although space exploration seems to be an issue with a great deal of bipartisan support, there is, nonetheless, a certain level of partisan division regarding the placement of funds for NASA. While Republican politicians tend to favor more funding for deep-space-exploration missions, such as NASA's planned Orion Exploration Mission, Democrats typically support more tangible space projects–such as those regarding NASA's earth science division, which often deals with research on climate change and has, for years, received inadequate government funding thanks to an incompetent Congress.
        As Lamar Smith, Republican Representative and chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told The Atlantic in an interview, "The future is bright for discovery, but failure to invest in innovation and space exploration could leave America in the dark." It is clear that members of both major parties see the need to invest in the future of space exploration, yet it is often the result of partisan quarreling that NASA's budget remains too low for it to strive for anything truly revolutionary. If Congress can simply agree upon a substantial budget for NASA, it will allow the United States to remain a global leader in space exploration and to continue to push further into the infinite universe. 

HB2: The Bill that Reinvigorated the Transgender Debate

       

        The transgender debate, which has been under the radar for some time, was recently reenergized due to the heated controversy surrounding House Bill 2, North Carolina's so-called "bathroom bill." This bill, which was passed in the NC state legislature on March 23, requires all people, when in public facilities or universities, to use the bathroom which corresponds to their birth sex. 

        This new requirement, though, is only one point in an extensive bill limiting the rights of transgender people. Katie Zezima, in a May 14th Washington Post article, wrote, "the law not only reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended similar rights to gay and transgender people. HB2 also prevents cities and counties from establishing a minimum-wage standard for private employers and limits how people can sue for discrimination. And it contains a provision allowing the remaining parts of the law to stand if others are struck down in Court." 

        To sum, as the true motives of HB2 are beginning to surface, the North Carolina government has sought to deprive transgender people of certain civil rights which are guaranteed by law under the guise of a "bathroom bill."

        Since the passing of HB2 in late March, nationwide criticism of the bill has begun to surface; this discontent has, in particular, come from the transgender community and a number of civil rights groups. Many of these activist groups, one of the most prominent being the NAACP, claim that the bill discriminates against transgender people and violates federal civil rights laws. 

        "This is not about bathrooms. It's about whether or not you can codify hate and discrimination into the laws of the state," Rev. William Barber II, the leader of the North Carolina NAACP, told the Washington Post. For some time, groups like the NAACP have sought to reveal the unjust nature of the bill. In fact, there has been a growing national dislike of HB2, which is, in part, thanks to the growing opposition of the bill by civil rights groups. Recent NC polls show that the majority of people in the state oppose the bill; one poll demonstrated that around 45 percent of North Carolinians opposed the bill, while only 36 percent support it. Similar national polls have been conducted, the majority of which have conveyed similar sentiments toward the controversial bill.

        Additionally, there is clear evidence that the passing of HB2 may have simply been a political move made by NC Republicans, such as North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. Some elected officials in NC have struggled to maintain support from the state's substantial evangelical population, the majority of whom reside in rural areas. This bill provides a favorable image for these Republican politicians, many of whom are expected to experience contentious races in November. The law, while alienating many of the state's more liberal voters, appeals greatly to the state's conservative, evangelical base. Likewise, the claims of state officials as to the necessity of the bill strongly appeals to conservatives who, supposedly claim to, hold high family values. Many believe that HB2 will help to prevent instances of sexual assault in bathrooms, thus implying that sexual assaults are likely to be perpetrated by transgender people. In reality, there has been virtually no proof that transgender people are likely to commit sexual assault.

        In the past several weeks, a battle has ensued over HB2 between the Justice Department and the state of North Carolina. First, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claimed that the bill, which limited the rights of transgender people, violated basic civil rights and could be seen as a form of state-sponsored discrimination. In response, Gov. McCrory filed a law suit to oppose the Justice Department and support the bill's lawfulness. To add, the Justice Department has stated that it possesses the authority to cut federal funding to both the NC Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina, citing a 1972 law banning sex discrimination in federally-funded schools. Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch, during her statement about the suit, noted, "It's about the founding ideals that have led this country haltingly but inexorably in the direction of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all Americans."

        In truth, the passing of HB2 has renewed a continuous debate over the extent of rights which many believe should be granted to all Americans, including transgender people. Much disagreement has arisen over this topic, a great deal of it existing across party lines. Yet, many members of both parties agree that all people, no matter their sexual identification, deserve certain rights. HB2 is a means by which one state government is depriving a large body of people a plurality of well-deserved civil rights. Furthermore, its passing will likely spark a renewed debate over the rights and privileges of transgender people in today's society, which seems to be becoming ever more accepting of LGBT people.

Bernie's Backup: How He Can Still Shape the Democratic Party

        After losing his home state of New York to rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders seemed to shift his plan in regard to winning the Democratic nomination for president. This transition was further put into play after Sanders' losses this Tuesday in states including Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. To add, Sanders, this week, decided to lay off hundreds of staffers, explaining, "We have a very large staff, which was designated to deal with fifty states in this country; forty of the states are now behind us." 

        Although it may seem as if Sanders is beginning to admit defeat, there is no reason for him to end his campaign before the convention this July. While he has suffered substantial losses to Clinton, the most recent of which has pushed her delegate count even closer to the 2,383 necessary in order to secure the Democratic nomination, he still has valid motives to stay in the race until the convention. Once the convention arrives, Clinton should not merely be handed the nomination, only to decide upon her own platform for the election. Rather, Sanders, as well as his progressive ideals, should be able to play a role in this process. I do think that Sanders, once Clinton secures the nomination, will back her; however, I do not see him doing so without having his own hand in the forming of the party platform for this election. This platform, which will be created during the convention, is a chance for Sanders to leave a lasting impact on the future of the party and thus, on Hillary Clinton. Sanders may have held a disadvantage running in a party whose electoral system favors "establishment candidates" over outsiders, yet this convention is an opportunity for him to impart his beliefs on the process which has, inevitably, left him in the dust.

        For some time, it seemed as though Sanders had a chance at winning the nomination, his campaign having been victorious in a number of Western states. At that time, Clinton's support appeared to be stagnant. Her significant victory in New York, though, reinvigorated her campaign, as well as her prospects for the nomination. While Sanders' campaign has maintained the majority of its nationwide support in recent weeks, many of his supporters have begun to possess doubts as to whether he will be able to acquire the hundreds of delegates he needs to win the nomination. Sanders' followers, although still buying into his "political revolution," have started to admit that his prospects for the nomination are dwindling. Sanders' losses in four out of the five states which held primaries this Tuesday did not help his campaign. Clinton has garnered substantial support in more densely populated states, such as Maryland and Delaware, and urban areas with large populations of minority voters. Sanders, while typically gaining votes in rural and less affluent areas, continues to have trouble in urban areas, as well as more wealthy regions of the country. It is evident from this primary cycle that the Democratic electoral process favors more moderate candidates, as well as those who gain support from within the party (thanks to superdelegates). The party's platform, too, has remained fairly similar in recent years. Sanders, though, has the ability to change this. 

        At this point in the race, his chances for receiving the nomination are slim, yet, despite this, he will still have a chance to put forth his beliefs and shape the party's platform for 2016, granted that he does not choose to run as an independent. Until now, Sanders has forced Clinton, as well as others in the party, to face issues that, otherwise, probably would not have been discussed. This is a truly positive thing for the Democratic Party–one historically known as a "big tent party." Sanders has clearly gained immense popularity among young voters, and his progressive messages that these millennials love have begun to rub off on Clinton's more moderate agenda. Many claim that Sanders' left-wing approach to the political system has, in fact, forced Clinton to change her stances substantially in order to appeal an the ever-changing voter demographic–one which has become more and more liberal. For example, Clinton has taken stances favoring increased regulation of Wall Street, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and a new look at campaign finance reform, all of which were initially brought to the debate stage by none other than Bernie Sanders. He has, likewise, challenged the typical Democratic way of thinking, which, in your average election, would view Hillary Clinton as the clear choice for the nominee. All of these things have allowed for a diversifying of the Democratic Party and its ideology.

        No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, it is essential that the party, as well as its voters, unite behind that person because the alternative will be someone far worse. This means that supporters of Bernie Sanders should vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee, as well as the opposite, should Sanders miraculously pull through and win the nomination. There have been some doubts about whether or not Sanders supporters would be willing to back the more moderate Clinton in the general election, yet in order for a Democrat to win the White House he or she will need the entire party's support. In addition, there have been speculations regarding possibility of Sanders running as an independent in the race; this, though, would be completely irrational on Sanders' part and would likely give the election to the Republican Party due to the the split that would occur between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders, while not necessarily right for president, has had a profound impact on the Democratic Party and has opened it up to a plurality of new, more progressive ideas. Some, despite his probable loss to Hillary Clinton, argue that his ideology is more in tune with the party's progressive roots. It is true that Clinton and Sanders do not agree on all issues, but it is also clear they should not solely focus on defeating one another; this is due to the fact that their true enemies are, in truth, members of the increasingly conservative Republican Party, which has come to represent a part of America so far to the right that it has alienated much of the public, in particular moderate Republicans. Lastly, Clinton and Sanders have exhibited that, even in this chaotic political world, there is still room for civil, intelligent debate (at least on one side of the aisle).

The EU-Turkey Deal: One Step Toward Resolving of the Migrant Crisis

        Recently, the European Union passed a controversial deal in early April mandating that Greece begin to deport migrants who have not applied for asylum. This process of deportation began last week, when three boats carrying 202 people in total departed the Greek Islands of Lesbos and Chios for the Turkish coast. The migrants on these three boats, the majority of whom were originally from Pakistan, had never applied for asylum and were, thus, being forced to leave the country. This deal included an agreement that Turkey will resettle one pre-vetted refugee into the EU for every refugee it accepts from Greece. In addition, the EU has agreed to give both Turkey and Greece millions of Euros in funding for their help in resolving the migrant crisis and relocating refugees. 

        In 2015, more than one million refugees migrated to Europe as a result of the ongoing refugee crisis, which has displaced an immense number of people from the Middle East and other regions. These refugees, most of whom travel to Europe by either sea or land, are fleeing their home countries due to an increasing presence of terror and violence. While the majority of these refugees are traveling from Syria, a great number are also emigrating from nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Eritrea, Albania, and Pakistan. 

  For some time, the European Union, as well as the citizens of European nations, have struggled to deal with this continuous stream of migrants looking for asylum. While a number of countries, such as Germany and France, have been highly accepting of refugees, others, like Hungary, have opted to turn migrants away and even prosecute those entering the country illegally. Since the beginning of the refugee crisis, politicians and world leaders both at home and abroad, have attempted to resolve the issue, yet it seems as if the stream of refugees will never cease.

       

        This recent plan represents a course of action being taken by the EU in order to curb the mass migration of refugees to Europe that has taken place over the past few years. It has proven to be difficult for European nations to regulate this mass migration of refugees, yet they have, in recent months, begun an effort to ease the stream of migrants. In order to accomplish this, the EU has begun to strengthen border security between certain European nations and implement the deportation of refugees without applications for asylum. This action is, in part, an attempt to resolve this crisis, but it is also a decision which is encouraging migrants to travel to the EU through legal means, such as the asylum process. 
        These new actions passed by the EU have proven to be successful recently. In the first few months of 2016, the number of migrants crossing between Turkey and Bulgaria decreased by twenty percent from that of last year. Many leaders and migration analysts, though, have expressed doubts regarding this new plan, believing that it may even increase migration across European borders. This, as well as a number of other factors, have contributed to the controversial nature of this deal. 
        Two aspects of its controversiality lay in the methods Greece is using in order to deport refugees and the ways in which Turkey is deciding to accept them. The refugees leaving Greece, most of whom live in filthy conditions, have traveled great distances in order to reach the safety of the EU; these people are then sent back across the Aegean Sea to the place they risked their lives to get away from. In a broader sense, some claim that this deal violates principles of International Law which dictate the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers; this argument asserts that these refugees who are living in Greece have the right of protection from being pushed back across a border (or a sea). Lastly, some claim that this deal will force migrants wishing to travel to Europe to take even more dangerous routes in order to get there. In total, the recent EU-Turkey deal may not be a perfect solution, yet it is, nonetheless, one step toward a resolution of one of the largest mass migrations the world has ever witnessed. 

After Brussels: Solidarity in a World of Fear

    

        Just under three years ago, I travelled to the beautiful city of Brussels. In the eyes of an American tourist, it seemed as if there could never be this type of tragedy in such a serene city. When visiting Brussels, the only aspects of the city I witnessed were the stunning architecture, positive vibe, and delicious food. What I did not see at the time was the sharp division present in the city. In European cities, such as Brussels and Paris, Muslims are often marginalized and tend to live in close-knit communities. 
        Throughout the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis, there has been a large influx of Muslims in Europe. While a number of countries have been very accepting of these refugees fleeing violence and terror, others have not greeted them with such open arms. The alienation and lack of assimilation felt by many Muslims in Europe, I believe, is one of the central reasons why such violence as was seen this week.
        On Tuesday, the terrorist organization, ISIS, carried out two deadly attacks at two separate locations in Brussels, the capital of Belgium. The first attack occurred at 8:00 a.m local time in the departure hall of the Brussels International Airport, killing 10 people and injuring many more. The second took place around an hour later in the Maelbeek subway station, not far from the headquarters of the European Union, in which 20 more were killed. Both attacks were carried out in highly populated locations, with at least 30 people killed and more than 230 wounded. Eight hours after the attacks, ISIS claimed responsibility for these acts of terror.

        Since the Brussels Attacks, our nation's politicians have responded in a number of ways. First, there are politicians, like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who continue to call for action to be taken against ISIS. Cruz, in an attempt to further his presidential candidacy, stated that President Obama has been far too lenient in regard to the threat ISIS and that this country needs to take action in order to combat radical terrorists. Similarly, Trump condemned the government's current strategy for combating ISIS, and he continues to call for limited immigration into the United States. On the other hand, candidates John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders' responses were more centered around mourning for those who died in Brussels and solidarity with European nations.

        How politicians react to tragedies such as the Brussels Attacks can often define our attitude as a nation toward these events. How we respond can also guide the ways in which we take action to combat terrorist groups like ISIS. The first approach, taken by both Cruz and Trump, seeks to incite fear in the public. This approach attempts to provoke the public's emotions so that the government will be forced to take action in order to combat terror threats. This approach, though, was notoriously taken after the horrible attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. 
        After this tragedy took place, the United States made a rash decision to go to war in the Middle East, and many political leaders now acknowledge how much of a mistake this was. The more appropriate way to respond to terror attacks is to, first, mourn and to, then, take action. Because of the growing prevalence of fear-inducing responses to terror attacks, the nation as a whole is more fearful of terrorist organizations. This should not be the case. The actions of radical terrorists should not define who we are as a country, and they should not make us fear because that is, in truth, the goal of terror groups, such as ISIS. In this case, we must acknowledge ISIS' presence and take appropriate action without giving them unnecessary power through fear.
        Finally, the only way that the world will defeat ISIS is if we unite behind a common cause and work together to extinguish this hateful ideology. While the United States' current strategy against ISIS has proved to be working, to some extent, there is still more we can do to put down the threat of this terror group. One of the reasons why ISIS has spread so much is its message which appeals to Muslims living in a world of people who fear and express hatred toward their religion. Islam is often utilized as a scapegoat when dealing with terror, and this has been a prevalent problem here in the United States. When Muslims, most of whom are very peaceful, witness people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz say that their religion is one of violence and one that hates America, they are inspired to join ISIS. Politicians calling for bans of all Muslims from the United States, surveillance systems in Muslim neighborhoods, and national Muslim databases do not give our nation a positive image in the face of the Islamic world. 

        Therefore, how we, as a nation and as a global community, treat Muslims directly impacts the spread of radical terrorist organizations like ISIS. If we are able to unite as a nation and not incriminate the entire Muslim population for the actions of a small minority, then we may be able to drive ISIS back and rid the world of their violence and hatred. There will always be mourning after a tragedy as that which took place in Brussels, yet we cannot allow this sadness to translate into fear, because that, in truth, only enforces the goals of ISIS. As President Obama stated the day of the attacks, "This is another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together, regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism."

Why Hillary Clinton Will Likely Be Our Next President

     

        Eight years ago, it seemed as if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had solidified her bid as the Democratic Party's nominee for president. This opportunity, though, was taken from her by a lesser known, African-American senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. Now, it is truly her time, and there does not seem to be anyone who is going to stop her. 
        Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign is a non-stop political machine whose only goal is to reach the White House. Clinton, hailed for her decades of political experience, is the front-runner for the Democrats, most of whom have accepted the fact that she will be the party's nominee. Clinton has carried a steady lead for some time over her Democratic opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who holds waning support from the party's base. Sanders, a progressive looking to take on big business, while exhibiting more strength than expected, does not have the support to beat powerhouse candidate Clinton. For many Democratic voters, Clinton provides a reliable choice, exhibiting her ability to lead through a strong record as Secretary of State. While some argue that Clinton has made too many missteps and others that she is not trustworthy, she has demonstrated time and time again her capability of accomplishing change, as was seen when she successfully restored America's role as a global leader after the Bush years. 
        Additionally, Clinton is a genuinely strong candidate. Her polls have continued to rise throughout the primary cycle, pushing her opponent, Sanders, further and further behind. She has won 1,630 delegates over the course of this race, while Sanders only has 870, roughly half of those Clinton possesses. Likewise, Clinton has consistently carried a lead over Sanders in polls, recently beating him by nearly ten points in a CBS News/NY Times poll. There are many reasons as to why, at this point, Democratic voters have favored her over Sanders.
        First of all, while Sanders pledges to drastically change the way the government is run, Clinton looks to continue the legacy of President Obama, which makes for a convincing argument in the eyes of many Obama supporters. In addition, Clinton appeals to more moderate Democrats, as opposed to Sanders who, for the most part, garners support from the far-left of the spectrum. Her moderate stances and ability to work across party lines will allow her to carry on the slow but steady progress of the Democratic Party in a government with a great deal of Republican control. Sanders' plans for America are simply to one-sided to actually constitute progress, which makes Clinton's moderate views all the more appealing. 

        Besides this, Clinton would be fairly likely to beat a Republican candidate, such as Donald Trump, in the general election. Trump, an outspoken, anti-establishment candidate, holds stances which are simply too radical to maintain in contact with the views of the American people. His campaign relies on those who are not satisfied with the current state of the nation and possesses a desire for the government to return to the way it used to be. Clinton, instead, conveys a message of hope for the future of the country. If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president, she will provide opportunities for future generations of Americans and sustain the role of the United States as a global leader. This positive message is one of the many factors pushing moderate Republicans away from the bigotry and anger of Trump. 
        Unlike Trump, Clinton will have the whole Democratic Party backing her candidacy. She has obtained a great number of endorsements from those within the party, as opposed to Trump, for whom the Republican Party has illustrated clear disdain. Certain members of the party, including Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, have gone so far as to publicly condemn Trump's hateful speech. As well as this, Clinton's campaign contains many top-notch staffers who have worked for past Democratic presidential administrations, such as those of Presidents Clinton and Obama. Not only is Clinton's campaign more likely to triumph over that of Trump in a general election, but Clinton also possesses a far more diverse group of voters, in contrast to Trump, who relies on a more homogeneous body of voters for his support. 
        Trump's mere 30-40 percent of support amongst Republican voters may, in fact, result in a brokered convention taking place this summer in the Republican Party. If Trump were to not gain enough delegates to be guaranteed the nomination, the Republicans may decide to hold a brokered convention, during which the party would choose its nominee. In this case, Trump would probably not win; the party would, instead, presumably choose a party favorite such as Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or the establishment candidate with little support, John Kasich. In the event of a brokered convention, after which Trump would likely be robbed of the nomination, there is a considerable chance that Trump would run as a third-party candidate or, if not, simply take away a great number of votes from whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the Republican Party is likely going to lose this election, whether it chooses to install Trump as its nominee or replace him with a candidate more in tune with the party's values. 
        Hillary Clinton is truly the best candidate in the 2016 race, and she is, out of those currently running for president, the most likely to win. She possesses undeniable experience, having been Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator from New York, and the First Lady for eight years. She has, as well, proven her capability to achieve change and lead through her strong record in politics. Clinton will presumably defeat any candidate who goes up against her due to the circumstances of this election, and her election will guarantee a better future for the American people.

President Obama's Supreme Court Short List

        Following the sudden passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama announced his plan to nominate a new justice to fill Scalia's seat as soon as possible. Numerous Democrats have noted the essentiality of having nine justices on the Supreme Court and have cited the U.S. Constitution to justify the need for an appointment. Obama, though, has received a great deal of opposition from the Republican Senate, which would have to confirm his nominee in order for he or she to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Many Senate Republicans have commented that they will vote against any nominee the President puts forward, instead desiring that a new justice not be appointed until a new president is elected this November. 
        While many do not support the President's choice to nominate someone for the position, Obama is, nonetheless, compiling a list of possible appointees. According to Reuters, Obama has recently narrowed his shortlist down to three people: Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Paul Watford, a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

        First on the list, Sri Srinivasan, is a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He was born in India and is 49 years old. He attended Stanford Law School and, if appointed, would become the first Asian-American justice and the first Hindu justice. After graduating from law school, Srinivasan worked as a clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He then worked for the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General for several years, later becoming Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 2011.
        In 2013, he was confirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals by a 97-0 vote. As is evident by this, Srinivasan is popular among both Democrats and Republicans, which would make him a prime choice for the nominee. Likewise, he is widely viewed as a moderate. These elements and the fact that he is widely liked in Washington would make it difficult for the Senate to reject his nomination. However, he is also fairly young, which would be a deterrent from his nomination due to how long he would be able to serve as a justice.

       Second, Paul Watford is a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (California). He is originally from Orange County, California and attended UCLA Law School. He is only 48 years old, even younger than Srinivasan, and he would become the third African-American Supreme Court Justice if appointed. Early in his career, Watford served as a clerk for both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski. He later served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and worked for Munger, Tolles & Olson, a California-based firm. In 2011, he was nominated to the 9th Circuit Court by President Obama.
His nomination witnessed significant opposition from Senate Republicans, as he was only confirmed by a 61-34 vote.
        While Watford is considered a moderate by most, his nomination would likely receive more resistance in the Senate than those of Srinivasan and Garland. Besides this, some criticize his eligibility due to his lack of judicial rulings. Nonetheless, it is clear that Watford would be a solid choice for President Obama due to his respected stature and reasonable nature. 

        Finally, Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, was born in Chicago and attended Harvard Law School. He is 63 years old, making him older than the average Supreme Court appointee. Garland served in the Justice Department for a number of years under President Bill Clinton and as a clerk to Justice William Brennan. In 1997, he was appointed by President Clinton to the D.C. Appeals Court, later becoming the Chief Judge of this court.
        Most consider him a judicial moderate; therefore, he could possess a greater chance of being affirmed by the Senate. He also possesses bipartisan popularity, an often key aspect in a nominee for the Supreme Court. Garland is also significantly older than Srinivasan and Watford, which makes him more appealing to Republicans, who do not wish to see a Democratic-leaning justice maintain a position for too long. In total, Garland appears to be a safer nominee for President Obama, yet he is neither as young nor as unique as the other possible nominees.


        This nomination could potentially impose a major partisan shift in Washington, which conveys the critical nature of who President Obama chooses as his nominee. Although he is receiving a great amount of resistance, Obama continues to push for the nomination of a ninth Supreme Court justice. Some sources say that his decision may come as early as next week.

Sizing Up a Super Week

        This week was a turbulent one for the 2016 presidential election due to the great number of primaries and caucuses that took place on both Super Tuesday and Super Saturday. For the Republican Party, primaries occurred in states such as: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine. In the Democratic race, the only states other than those already listed that held primaries were Colorado and Nebraska. This week witnessed solid leads for both parties' front-runners, and it also raised doubts about some other candidates' campaigns. In total, both parties' front-runners took home pivotal wins this past Tuesday and Saturday, yet there is still much more to come in this year's primary season.

        To begin, in the Democratic Party, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to hold a considerable lead in delegates over Senator Bernie Sanders, despite her losses to Sanders in a number of states. On Tuesday, Clinton won the majority of primaries which took place. Sanders slipped by with wins in a few liberal states; he won in Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont on Tuesday, Kansas and Nebraska on Saturday, and Maine today). Sanders, however, is struggling to keep up with Clinton's high delegate count, especially that which includes her plurality of Democratic superdelegates (unpledged delegates who can support any candidate they want). At this time, Clinton has received the votes of 1,129 delegates, while Sanders possesses those of only 498. Evidently, Clinton has been dominating the race thus far; therefore, if Sanders is to have a real chance of beating the powerhouse candidate that is Hillary Clinton, he is going to have to seriously consider a new strategy in order to widen his appeal to more moderate voters.
        Moreover, the states that Sanders has won so far have been those which are more liberal; he has had a great deal of trouble, though, receiving votes in more moderate states, in particular those in the South. In a number of Southern states, such as South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, Clinton has won 70 percent or more of the vote. These strong wins indicate the fact that Sanders does not carry a wide appeal among African-American voters, which, as history proves, is a key factor in winning Southern states. While Sanders appeals to a great number of young voters, Clinton's base is much more diverse. Furthermore, Sanders' narrow appeal and far-left stances will eventually bring about his downfall as a serious presidential candidate. Many of his positions are highly idealistic and focused on changing the way the government is run, as opposed to Clinton, who is much more pragmatic and centered on receiving support from the Democratic establishment. The primaries will continue for Clinton and Sanders in Michigan and Mississippi in Tuesday, and the two candidates will be debating tonight in Flint, Michigan.

        In the Republican field, Donald Trump has continued to dominate throughout the nation. On Super Tuesday, Trump was victorious in all but four states, typically winning in between 35 and 45 percent of the vote in those states which he won. His significant lead over the other Republican candidates in most states has recently sparked a serious dilemma within the Republican Party. For some time, many Republicans have assumed that Trump's lead in the polls would not persist into primary season, yet he continues to lead over the other candidates and has even gained more support in some states. The Republican Party now understands that its future may be in considerable jeopardy if Donald Trump continues to lead by such a substantial margin. While there are still three other candidates in the race, none of them have proved to be serious threats to Trump's campaign. Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have been battling for second place for weeks now, but neither of them have exhibited any significant shift in popularity until this week, when Cruz pulled ahead to win five states, leaving Rubio in the dust (he only won Minnesota). The fourth candidate in the running, John Kasich, has not exhibited any rise in support, and he has not yet won any states in this presidential election.
        It seems as though the only way that another candidate will be able to beat Trump is if the race is narrowed down to two candidates. If all four Republican candidates remain in the race, it is not likely that Cruz will take a solid position in second place. In this week's primaries, though, Cruz has proved to be a concrete choice for those who do not favor Trump as the GOP nominee. He has accumulated the votes of 300 delegates, and Trump, while still ahead, has only 84 more. Although Cruz is known to be one of the most disliked members of the Senate, most elected members of the Republican Party have said that they would favor him over Trump, who, if nominated, could completely tear apart the Republican Party as it is currently operated. In addition, Marco Rubio, after a disappointing debate performance on Thursday, is beginning to fall behind his competitor, Ted Cruz. The two were very close for several weeks, but it now seems that Rubio's wide support among establishment Republicans may not give him the wins he desperately needs to receive the nomination.
        To sum, this week's primaries have shown that what was once seen as a joke has evolved into the true possibility of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee, with his overwhelming number of victories being undeniable evidence of his viability as a candidate. Many of the opportunities that the Republican Party has had to stop his momentum have passed, and its only hope may now lie in the hands of one of its other potential nominees. Next on the Republican election trail are Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi on Tuesday, March 8th.

A Shift in Power: The Death of Antonin Scalia and What It Means for Washington

        This past Saturday, long-time U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, passed away in Texas. Many consider him one of the most influential justices of modern times, and his death has truly shocked the American people. For many years, Scalia was known for his true conservative ideology and objective views of the Constitution. He was also recognized for his firm positions on various issues, typically being unwilling to compromise. On this matter, Time Magazine commented, “By planting his flag in one spot and refusing to budge, Scalia showed modern presidents and political parties that is possible to pick a Supreme Court justice who shines brightly without shifting shape.”

        Scalia, after graduating from Georgetown University and receiving a law degree from Harvard University, served in both the Nixon and Ford administrations. In addition to this, for many years, he taught at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago. In 1982, President Reagan appointed him to the position of judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Four years later, he was chosen by Reagan for the Supreme Court, becoming the first Italian-American justice. 

        Now, as President Obama is set to nominate someone to replace Scalia, tensions are boiling in Washington throughout both major parties. Who President Obama chooses to replace Scalia could have a immense impact on a broad spectrum of future Supreme Court Cases. When Scalia was still a member of the Supreme Court, the nine justices typically leaned 5-4 in favor of the Republican Party. If a new justice is appointed by Obama, though, it would give the Democratic Party a key 5-4 advantage in the judiciary branch. 

        This nomination, however, is already receiving a great deal of resistance from Republican members of the Senate, who would have to approve the President’s nomination in order for the new justice to be appointed. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” This statement has received a great amount of criticism, especially from Democrats. Many, including both presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, have spoken out against the unconstitutional nature of this plan. In the Constitution, it is stated as the duty of a sitting President to appoint Supreme Court justices. It would be absolutely ludicrous for the nation to wait roughly an entire year to appoint a new justice. If this were to occur, it would create an unprecedented problem in the judiciary branch: that of a 4-4 tie between the nine justices. If the government is to continue to function properly, it is crucial that a ninth justice is chosen as soon as possible.

        Furthermore, the unexpected death of Justice Scalia has thrown the Republican Party into a frantic state. Scalia was a key member of the court for the Republicans, being highly outspoken on his conservative stances and constantly holding onto that which he strongly believed in. His death, although, may have a monumental impact on the 2016 election and the current presidential candidates. Some speculate that Scalia’s death will push Republican voters toward Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) due to his true conservative values and strong religious ideals. Republican candidates, in particular Cruz, have made it a point to demonstrate the importance of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, in general. Conversely, many believe that this could be an opportunity for Hillary Clinton, as well. Clinton, during her campaign, has stressed the importance of the Supreme Court, and she has spoken out against strict, one-sided interpretations of the Constitution similar to that held by Scalia. 

        In total, if President Obama chooses to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia anytime soon, it is unlikely that Republican Senators will back it. Even if the majority of more conservative senators rebut this nomination, though, there is a chance that the more moderate senators, those who favor a functioning government over a ceaseless bipartisan struggle, may support it. The Republican Party, at this time, has fully realized the issues that will come about due to Scalia’s death. However, if the Republicans truly insist on waiting to appoint a new justice until a new president is inaugurated, then it may bring the entire judiciary branch to a standstill until early 2017. 

Power to the People: The Changing Role of the Media in Elections

   

        After winning the Iowa Caucus on Monday night, Republican senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz exclaimed that "the next president of the United States will not be chosen by the media, will not by chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists, but will be chosen by the most incredible, powerful force where all sovereignty resides in our nation — by we the people, the American people." After all the polling is over, it is not the media which guides our nation's future, but the people. Over the past several decades, how politicians interact with the media has changed drastically. Previously, the media have played key roles in politics, educating the public about the issues facing our nation, politicians’ stances on them, and how they affect the American people. The media are meant to be institutions that cooperate with our nation’s leaders in order to spread political awareness, especially in regard to the government's impact on the lives of the people. While this is the way it truly should be, the modern media have been warped to emphasize a sense of entertainment, often resorting to highlighting the faults and missteps of politicians to please supporters. This negativity, which has spread throughout the world of media, is not entirely due to a change in how the media cover news; rather, it, to a great extent, stems from how the American people wish to have their news delivered to them.

        More and more in the news, we witness the media aiming to point out the faults of our nation’s leaders and make a spectacle of them. A prime example of this is exhibited through the media's endless criticism of Donald Trump. This issue is, to some extent, caused by today’s partisan news networks, which have a need to please their supporters of one party or another. These partisan-leaning news outlets feel the need to constantly criticize the opposing party of their supporters so that they can provide somewhat informative entertainment. For example, it is commonly acknowledged that networks like CNN and MSNBC lean toward the left of the political spectrum, while ones such as Fox News tend to advocate more right-wing stances. Because of these partisan biases within news networks, politicians often wish to search the media for the negative publicity they receive. Nowadays, it seems as if the enmity between the political world and the media only continues to be exacerbated, being especially prevalent since the beginning of the 2016 Presidential Election cycle. 

        During this presidential race, a number of candidates have criticized the media for how it has covered the election thus far. Republican candidates, in particular, have accused the “liberal media” of unfairly targeting their party. Presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have openly criticized the unfair questions asked to the candidates during the debates. While some of these candidates’ claims are ludicrous, there is an underlying problem which is constantly occurring throughout the debates. At many of the seven Republican and five Democratic debates which have occurred so far in the race, there has been a similar theme of candidates pointing out an underhanded or unwarranted question asked. This trend illustrates the issue of the debate moderators wishing to pit the candidates against one another for the purpose of good entertainment. 

        Besides this, one of the candidates, Trump, has, on numerous occasions, requested apologies from media outlets or journalists on account of their “rude behavior” towards him. For months, he and his campaign have received perpetual coverage on virtually all major news networks. Many, in fact, believe that Trump’s significant popularity is somewhat due to the media’s constant coverage of him. This popularity, though, was squandered shortly before Trump arrived at the Iowa Caucus. Just days before the caucus, Trump decided not to attend a debate in Iowa hosted by Fox News because of the ongoing feud between the candidate and the news outlet. Politicos speculate that the candidate's absence during the final debate may have cost him a win in Iowa. Moreover, this highlights how the American people are still the driving force that decide the outcomes of elections, no matter how the media cover them.

        There is no doubt that the adversity between political candidates and the media has heightened in recent years; this is largely due to how the media have changed in order to influence the outcomes of elections instead of simply reporting them. In the past, the media have not had nearly the capabilities to sway voters toward one candidate or another which they possess today. This fact reveals that the modern media are flawed in how they go about bringing change to the political world. In addition, the relationship between politicians and the media is meant to be a symbiotic one, benefitting both parties for the greater good of the American people. This mutual relationship was well exhibited in President Obama's 2008 campaign, during which he utilized the media to his advantage and was referred to by the New York Times as "a king of social media." In total, how the media cover elections has changed immensely in the past several years, focusing less than ever before on the voices of the public. The only way that we can amend this problem is to place the power in politics back in the hands of the people, as it rightfully should be in a democracy.