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.