BBB

Trump Tweeted:
1.Shoplifting is a very big deal in China, as it should be (5-10 years in jail), but not to father LaVar. Should have gotten his son out during my next trip to China instead. China told them why they were released. Very ungrateful!
2.Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail!

LiAngelo Ball, along with two other players, Cody Riley and Jalen Hill, were arrested last week on suspicion of stealing sunglasses from a Louis Vuitton store while their team was in the Chinese city of Hangzhou. Trump had said he personally asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to intervene in the case.

On Wednesday, Trump issued a call for gratitude from the players. 

"Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!" he tweeted.

The President received the thanks of the players at a news conference later that day, where they also apologized for their behavior.

"To President Trump and the United States government, thank you for taking the time to intervene on our behalf. Thank you for helping us out," Riley said. LiAngelo Ball echoed his teammate's statement.

Athletic Director Dan Guerrero confirmed the trio shoplifted from three stores near their hotel Monday night. The three were identified the next morning after police searched their bags and found the stolen items.

Trump issued a follow-up message to the students on Thursday, wishing them a "great life."

UCLA players arrested in China apologize and are suspended 

"To the three UCLA basketball players I say: You're welcome, go out and give a big Thank You to President Xi Jinping of China who made your release possible and, HAVE A GREAT LIFE! Be careful, there are many pitfalls on the long and winding road of life!" he wrote on Twitter. 

LaVar Ball told ESPN he was happy to have his son back, and also seemed to downplay his alleged crime.

"As long as my boy's back here, I'm fine," he said. "I'm happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, 'They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.' I'm from L.A. I've seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses."

All three players have been suspended from the UCLA basketball team indefinitely.

1. Should the family be obligated to recognize Trump?
2. Is it appropriate for the President to comment on this topic and directly mention citizens?
3.Why do you think Trump went out of his way to get these kids out of China? Do you think there were any other reasons other than the obvious?

White House, GOP celebrate passing sweeping tax bill

White House, GOP celebrate passing sweeping tax bill

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/house-senate-trump-tax-bill/index.html

Washington (CNN)Republican lawmakers joined President Donald Trump on Wednesday afternoon to celebrate their largest legislative achievement of 2017, in a public ceremony spotlighting the most sweeping overhaul of the US tax system in more than 30 years.

"It's always a lot of fun when you win," Trump said at the ceremony on the White House lawn, after thanking congressional leaders including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

A fractured GOP unified to pass a landmark tax plan: Here's how it came together

Hailing passage of the GOP's tax plan and surrounded by dozens of prominent Republicans in Congress, Trump said the package would fulfill his core campaign promise.

"It's really — it's simple. When you think you haven't heard this expression -- we are making America great again," he said, also ticking through a long list of congressional Republicans who helped guide the bill through Congress, adhering to an ambitious timeline that many considered laughable when it was unveiled just a few months ago.

Among those Republicans not at the White House on Wednesday: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for the Senate tax bill on Wednesday morning, but also acknowledged publicly that health care subsidies she wanted as part of a government spending deal will not be included before Congress leaves for its holiday break.

close dialog

Receive Fareed Zakaria's Global Analysis

including insights and must-reads of world news

By subscribing you agree to our

privacy policy.

The bill passed the House a second time earlier Wednesday 224-201, with no Democrats backing it and a dozen House GOP members voting no. The measure now heads to the Trump's desk for his signature.

The President will not actually sign the bill Wednesday, however. The bill will not be "enrolled" yet -- the formal term for when a final copy of a bill passed by both houses of Congress is sent to the White House.

A fractured GOP unified to pass a landmark tax plan: Here's how it came together

In a vote in the early Wednesday morning hours, the Senate approved the final version of the first overhaul of the US tax code in more than 30 years. The bill passed along party lines, 51-48, with the final result announced by Vice President Mike Pence, who presided over the vote. The House passed the bill earlier Tuesday, but technical changes were made to it in the Senate.

Questions:

1: Is the tax bill actually going to help the economy?

2. What do you predict will be the fallout from the tax bill for trumps administration?

3. Are you surprised that there were not more Republicans that flipped on the bill?

A Single Vote Keeps Virginia's 94th House Race Going

Article from CNN

One vote keeps the Virginia House election between Democrat Shelly A. Simonds and Republican David E. Yancey going. At first Simonds appeared to have defeated her Republican opponent by one vote. However, after a recount it was discovered that a ballot that had initially been marked for Democrat Shelly Simonds had been crossed out and marked for Republican David Yancey. The panel ruled that this vote should go to the Republican. After this decision the race has been left as a tie with both candidates having 11,608 votes. According to the law, the winner will now be decided through a random draw. However, the attorney for the Virginia House Democrats, Marc Elias, is criticizing the panel's decision. He states that, "Today's decision by the court was wrong, and Delegate-elect Shelly Simonds should have been certified the winner, we are currently assessing all legal options before us as we fight for a just result." This election is essential because it could lead to either an equal amount of seats for Democrats or allow the Republicans to gain control of the House. Finally, D
emocrats gained on Republicans after unseating more than a dozen and putting the control of the House in play.

1. Do you think that Republicans will continue to lose more seats in the House?

2. How will it change the House if Simonds wins and their is equal seats between Democrats and Republicans?

3. What are your thoughts on the election winner being chosen randomly by draw?

Once a Long Shot, Democrat Doug Jones Wins Alabama Senate Race

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/alabama-senate-race-winner.html

After a long and tumultuous race that involved multiple sex scandals, Democrat Doug Jones has won the Senate seat in Alabama.

This win by Democrats shortens the Republican Senate majority to only one seat and gives reason to believe that the Democrats have an actual shot at taking over the Senate next year.

Opponent Roy Moore's campaign had been notorious across the U.S. after The Washington Post uncovered that when he was a prosecutor in his 30s, he had made sexual advances towards four teenage girls, one of whom was 14 at the time. Despite these claims, President Trump feverish campaigned for Roy Moore to win, and because of this, he was projected to win.

However, Doug Jones was able to win the majority vote. He did so by targeting African-Americans and educated white voters who were becoming increasingly wary of the Republican Party and Roy Moore. Doug Jones' past is also seen in a far more positive light than Roy Moore's past since Jones is best known for prosecuting two KKK members who were responsible for the bombing of an Alabama Baptist Church. His traditional Democratic views also helped him, since he was seen as more of a Centrist than Roy Moore.

Moore's loss will have a serious impact on many Washington Republican's who are already having trouble garnering support to enact new legislation by Congress. Moore's large and expensive campaign that resulted in defeat may deter new Republicans from running for Congress, and it appears that no matter how hard they may try, they'd still lose. However, some Republican party members were relieved to have Moore lose due to the fact that he would have possibly had a court hearing and become indicted on his charges, which would have ultimately been a massive blow to Republicans.

Jones' win is a victory for all Democrats and suggests a possibly bright future for the Democratic Party as a whole.


1) Now that Doug Jones is in office, do you think the Democrats have an opportunity to take over the Senate? Why or why not?

2) Did Doug Jones' past influence more voters than Roy Moore's past? Why or why not?

3) Should Roy Moore be prosecuted for the multiple sexual assault cases against him? If he was elected, do you think he would have been prosecuted? Why?

Rising U.S. Protectionism May Hurt China's Economy And Begin A Trade War

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/09/12/rising-u-s-protectionism-may-hurt-chinas-economy-and-begin-a-trade-war/#30172801a326 

Even though Trump campaigned on a 45% protectionist tariff against China, this has not come to fruition yet. The idea of protectionism would have a very negative affect on China's exports and possibly the United States. According to experts, tariffs on Chinese imports will almost double. Exports, which account for 20% of China's gross domestic product, would be negatively impacted if the U.S. were to impose these protectionist tariffs against items such as steel, aluminum, solar cells, and other goods. 

Trump has requested to look into the national security implications of China expanding their steel and aluminum trade with the U.S. The implications of China supplying the majority of the steel and aluminum used in the U.S. would weaken America's ability to engage in a military conflict if we were unable to quickly manufacture our own on a domestic basis.Trump is also concerned about the impact of China's trade policies on intellectual property. If it is determined that this is harming U.S. interests, Trump can implement a trade sanction to solve this through section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Obviously, the President of China, Xi Jinping expressed his dislike for the protectionist policies being discussed. He stated “any attempt to cut off the flow of capital, technologies, products, industries and people between economies, and channel the waters in the ocean back into isolated lakes and creeks is simply not possible... Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air." If this comes to actualization, many are predicting a trade war between the two countries.

China has been opening up some industries as free trade zones (FTZ's). Not only will this hurt China, but if China decided to institute retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports, this could also have a major negative impact on the U.S.'s exporting industry.

1. What do you think about the national security implications of the steel industry and tariffs?

2. Do you feel Trump is acting in the best interest of the U.S. in threatening to impose tariffs?

3. Can trade wars be avoided?

History of Abortion Debate

'Roe v. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/22/169637288/roe-v-wade-turns-40-but-abortion-debate-is-even-older

Supreme Court weighs challenge to California's abortion disclosure law: Does it violate free speech?

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-abortion-california-201710-story.html

Although abortion became a major divisive issue in modern politics by Roe v. Wade in 1973, the beginning of the issue dates back to the last 50's. At first, some non-religious groups fought for overturning the laws that banned abortion.

While other political issues are distant from religion of the voters, the abortion issue is deeply associated with some divisions within Christianity. However, before the 70's, there were relatively insignificant participation of religious groups in this issue compared to several years later in the history of the debate. The beginning of the participation of Catholic groups might not seem as their authentic decision, but rather it was a strategy of Patrick Buchanan, one of the aides of Richard Nixon, to "lure Northern Catholic voters, who had traditionally voted Democratic" to re-elect Nixon for his second term. His strategy worked; pro-life campaign of Nixon successfully attracted Northern Catholic votes and defeated his opponent, McGovern.

Regardless of Nixon's campaign, what made the issue of abortion nationwide is the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, which set up the precedent for future abortion cases and grassroots movements in both sides of the debate. The Supreme Court decision upheld the right of privacy under Due Process Clause, that women have their own right to abort; however, the effect of the result was limited to federal scope as usual. States held their own discretion on regulation only after the first trimester due to the decision.

The decision made in Roe v. Wade was challenged in 1992 with another landmark case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Supreme Court then altered the criteria of states' discretion with the mention of "undue burden" of women; states could regulate abortion after the point of viability, regardless of the time spent in pregnancy.

Specifically, California is seeking for less strict regulation and improved social services to reduce the abortion rate, establishing "public programs that provide immediate free or low cost access to comprehensive family planning services ... for eligible women".

1. What are your thoughts on general religious involvement in  the issue of abortion?

2.  What do you think is the most efficient way to reduce the nationwide abortion rate, including legal regulation?

3. Do you think using religious sentiments in politics a justified strategy in political campaign?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Begins Arguments

Background-http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-s-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-winds-toward-a-decision-with-scotus-arguments

Main sources- http://prospect.org/article/baking-chaos-masterpiece-cakeshop-argument-misses-mark

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05/masterpiece-cake-supreme-court-justices/

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop V Colorado. Back in 2012, a gay couple came into the shop and tried to order a wedding cake. Baker Jack Phillips told the couple that they could buy anything else premade in his store, but he was not going to use his artistic ability to design something he did not believe in. The couple complained to the CCRV (Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and after a couple rulings that the baker was in violation of the Colorado Civil Rights Laws, the case has been appealed to the supreme court.

Within the hearing, Colorado’s laws on Freedom of expression comes face to face with it’s anti discriminatory laws as the big question is posed, is he discriminating based on sexual-orientation or is he trying to invoke his own first amendment rights entailing freedom of religion. As it is currently a grey area, many of the Justices are cautious about how to rule in this case. As observed by the questions being asked by the Justices, a key concern is as to what precedent the outcome would create. Would siding with the Baker open the door to more severe discriminatory violations? Would ruling against the baker highlight the idea of forcing one to go against their fundamental beliefs?

In the middle of all this, the expected key vote is Anthony Kennedy. Many are curious as to how he will rule as well as he has been a general supporter of gay rights yet also a protector of freedom of speech. In the courtroom however, he revealed potential support for Phillips when questioning whether the bakers beliefs were being respected by the CCRV. The court is expected to split 4 and 4 with Kennedy serving as the swing vote. A decision however will likely take months.

1. In the article it states that Baker Jack Phillips claimed, “his cakes are expressive works of art, and that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would force him to send a message of approval of same-sex marriage, which he rejects for religious reasons. He’s willing to sell premade cakes to same-sex couples, but not wedding cakes made to order.” - Do you feel that this is a case of discrimination or of protecting first amendment freedoms?
2. Based on his comments, which way do you think Kennedy will swing?
3. No matter what precedent the outcome establishes, how much of an impact do you think this case overall will have had?
   
   

No More, Roy Moore!

On Thursday, Minnesota Democratic senator Al Franken announced his resignation from Congress. His resignation comes amidst a wave of sexual misconduct allegations against him, as well as an Ethics Committee investigation. Franken said that he would no longer be able to serve as an effective senator for the people of Minnesota.

Just two days before, John Conyers also left his seat in the House just two days before Franken.

Allegations of sexual misconduct are not isolated to these instances on Capitol Hill. When it comes to this topic, the spotlight shines on Donald Trump. Trump has a history of unwarranted sexual advances on women. An entire blog could be written on that, but for now, let us return to Congress and focus on somebody who is not yet in office: Roy Moore.

Roy Moore is currently running against Democrat Doug Jones in a special election for Congress. Moore has been met with countless allegations of sexual misconduct. These allegations are surfacing now, but are about his behavior decades ago as a thirty year old, when he allegedly sexually assaulted minors and tried to go on dates with teenagers. Although many different women have similar stories, and there is evidence from local newspapers that confirm such allegations, Moore still vehemently denies sexual misconduct. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and other members of the Republican Party (Democrats too, of course!) have already spoken out against Moore, demanding that he drop out of the race. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that he does not want Roy Moore in Congress.

Some Republicans see this as a dilemma. Keep Roy Moore in the race he is very likely to win, while essentially condoning his strong allegations of sexual misconduct, or risk losing the seat entirely to Democrats.

1. Should all politicians verily accused of sexual misconduct step down? Why or why not?

2. Should Trump be held accountable for allegations against him? Is it in the nation's best interest to conduct investigations for all politicians? Would this interfere with lawmaking?

3. What should be the appropriate response to sexual misconduct allegations. Might it be an Ethics Committee investigation? Immediate resignation? Is there a better solution?

Is the President Above the Law?

Every day it becomes more difficult for conservatives and Republicans to defend Trump's innocence in the investigation into whether Trump campaign officials had contacts with the Russians during the presidential campaign.  Recent tweets about his firing of former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, have raised suspicion of possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.  The President said that he had to fire Flynn because he lied to the FBI.  Critics of Trump were quick to point out that if the President knew about Flynn lying to the FBI, then why did he ask FBI director James Comey to drop the case against Flynn a few months ago.  Supporters of the President are now falling back on the idea that the president is above the law because he is the top law enforcement officer in the nation.  Top lawyers defending Trump, such as Alan Dershowitz, also claim that the President was just exercising his constitutional right to fire a member of his cabinet. 

Presidents have obstructed justice in the past making the claim that the Trump, being the chief law enforcement officer, is above the law hard to believe.  Both Nixon and Clinton were impeached for obstruction of justice but spared from criminal prosecution.  The best defense Trump supporters have in this case is the claim that the President was just doing what the Constitution said was allowed by dismissing a member of the cabinet.  Presidents have fired cabinet members many times in the past for incompetence, disloyalty, or other reasons and both the courts and Congress have made several rulings upholding this.  In the end the president can remove public official, especially cabinet member.  The Constitution also states that it would be a violation of separation of powers if the president was impeached for preforming his duties as outlined by the Constitution.  This argument for Trump's innocence is much more convincing as the President was firing a person he has the right to fire, but the fact that Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI is clearly proof that he obstructed justice when he told the FBI to drop the case.  It is up to our Congressmen to decide on whether to bring these charges of obstruction of justice to the table when it comes to the possibility of impeachment. 


1-  Do you think President Trump obstructed justice?

2-  It seems that no matter what Trump does, his supporters will always be there to defend him.  How far do you think Trump supporters will go before realizing they are defending a possible criminal? 

3-  What are your thoughts on whether or not the Russians interfered with the election and how far up the Trump chain of command do you think the collusion goes?

How a cake triggered a supreme court case

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/us/supreme-court-baker-same-sex-marriage.html

Jack pillips, a baker from Colorado refused to bake cake for a same sex couple. Philips states he does not have to bake the cake because it “would violate his Christian faith and hijak his right to express himself.” The couple he refused to serve, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, filed civil rights charges. They feel that they have been discriminated based on who they are and love. Phillips decision not serve the gay couple has led to the supreme court case which will be heard in the fall, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  

The Trump administration commented on the case last week and sided with Phillips and argued that, “Decorating a wedding cake is a type of ‘expressive conduct,’ similar to burning a flag or marching in a parade.” They say, “the Constitution’s free-speech protection gives the baker, a devout Christian, the right to refuse to participate in the marriage celebration of two men.” Colorado, however, has barred Phillips from making any more cakes because he refuses to abide by it Civil rights law. This case has taken a financial toll on Phillips since he has entirely stopped making cakes after a judge ordered him to also make cakes for same sex couples.

It only took Phillips 30 seconds to refuse the cake order from the couple. Phillips stated, “It's more than a cake, it's a piece of art in so many ways.” The couple he refused to serve replied by saying, “We didn't ask him for piece of art. He turned us away because of who we are.” After being rejected by Phillips, the couple comments on the threats and harassments they endured over phone calls, text messages and other social media sites.

The Colorado law says no “place of public accommodations” may deny people “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods [or] services … because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry.” This argument has met with little success in lower courts, but the Supreme court has been receptive to free speech arguments. In January, the high court was due to act on the appeal from Phillips. At the time, the eight justices were waiting for President Trump to announce his nominee to fill the ninth seat. His choice, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, is a Coloradan, a conservative and a champion of religious liberty. Gorsuch arrived in April, and on the last day of the term, the justices announced they would hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado.

1. Do business owners have a religious privilege to refuse to serve individuals who violate their religious beliefs/norms?
2. What precedent could Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission set for future supreme court cases regarding the rights of same-sex couples?
3. What are your thoughts about the Trump administrations comments on the case (siding with Phillips). Could their support towards Phillips evoke other businesses to discriminate against same sex couples in the future?

Bypassing of the ABA prior to Making Nominations raises Concerns with Substantial Increase in "Not Qualified" Nominees

Business Insider

After a little less than a year as president, Donald Trump has already began to solidify a widespread belief that the “single most important legacy” of his administration is to reshape the federal bench. Since his inauguration on January 20, 2017, President Trump has made a total of 58 federal judiciary nominations as of October 2nd, two of which were unanimously considered “not qualified” by the ABA. Only two out of about 1,800 nominees had been unanimously voted “not qualified by the panel from 1989 to 2016 (27 years).

This is, however, not without reason. While all but one president utilized the American Bar Association’s (ABA) screening prior to the nominations of federal judges, Trump has bypassed the screening process in his judicial nomination and completed the screening after the nominations have been publicly announced. As a result, “nearly 8% of the Trump’s screened nominees were voted as ‘not qualified’ by a majority of the panel,” whereas only “0.7% of judicial nominees were rated ‘not qualified’ by at least a majority of the ABA panel.” Previous presidents have made nominees deemed “not qualified” by the ABA, however, because they were screened prior to being publicly nominated, past president often opted to dropping these candidates.

This spike in nominees rated “not qualified” is quite concerning. The ABA’s evaluation guidelines “focuses strictly on professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament,” and are made in order to assist the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision of whether or not individuals should be confirmed by the Senate, but the sudden spike in “not qualified” nominees is “very worrisome” as Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein tells Business Insider. The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee relays her series of concerns as: (1) it raises questions on the quality of nominees, (2) hearings are scheduled before the completion of ABA evaluations which are important tools for a senator’s evaluation, and (3) the Trump administration is rushing controversial circuit court nominees to minimize scrutiny.

Though there are doubts casted by Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, about the importance of the ABA rating and the ABA’s bias against conservative candidates, it is important to cite that Republicans have praised the ABA’s rating for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Ultimately, Trump’s bypassing of the ABA evaluation prior to public announcement is the result of his attempts to reshape the federal bench, which, as a result, has raised concerns of quality of these judicial nominees.

1. Do you think the ABA’s evaluation is important to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation of judicial nominees? Why or why not?
2. What are your thoughts on the nomination of Gorsuch and do you think presidents should be allowed to bypass judicial ratings agencies before making his nominations?
3. Is the ABA biased?

Justices Consider How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy

When the constitution was written in 1787 no one expected that the world would change so drastically. With the development of technology and the constitution not adapting, there comes an issue of how to apply the old laws to the new world. Since the government started tracking information people have raised concern about how it violates their personal rights. Currently the Supreme Court “require[s] a warrant to search the cellphones of people placed under arrest” but you don’t need a court-ordered warrant to access data collection through phones. There is a precedent set by a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, that people have no right to expect that their privacy extends to a third party. There is a federal law that requires prosecutors to basically get a warrant to get tracking data. In Timothy Ivory Carpenter's case he was convicted of a series of robberies that were partially tracked via his cellphone GPS over the course of months. Carpenters lawyer argued that this violates the "fourth amendment, which bars unreasonable searches, by failing to get a warrant for the information". Although there are laws about cell phone tracking, they are very loose.


Justice Considers How to Apply 18th Century Law to Digital Privacy

Should lawmakers adapt the fourth amendment to reflect current times?

How should the Supreme Court set guidelines to control the collection of people's private data?

Why is it important for amendments to be reevaluated every so often?

What Does the Future of Net Neutrality Hold?

NYT article: Net Neutrality Hits a Nerve, Eliciting Intense Reactions

Recent decisions made by the Federal Communications Commission, headed by Trump appointee and former Verizon employee Ajit Pai, have ruffled numerous feathers especially in the tech sector. As Pai work arduously to justify his decisions to repeal net neutrality regulations, it's important to reflect on the history of the subject. In recent years content on the internet has exploded to the point of being nearly essential to all. The internet is host to a wide variety of content, and as users we expect to access anything the same as any other piece of content. The basic idea of net neutrality preserves that ideal, that all content is treated fairly by internet providers and one service or type of content isn't favored. In the past tampering by ISPs has occurred. One instance, in 2007, saw Verizon blocking a text alert service by the pro-choice group Naral due it being "controversial". This seems to be in clear contradiction to net neutrality as well as the basis of political freedom so vital in a democracy. A decision made in 2015 by the then Democrat led FCC, classified broadband internet as a public utility which entailed strict enforcement of net neutrality. Despite the issue of net neutrality being proven be non partisan and widely supported, Republicans across the board criticize it for stifling investment and growth. These claims have proven hard to confirm but the FCC, now led by Pai, plans to vote to repeal the regulation on December 14th. Public comments have come in hordes to decry the vote, and numerous dead citizens have been tied to accounts supporting the lack of regulation.  Additionally, dozens of internet companies, including the likes of Netflix, Google, and Reddit, have spoken out in support of the regulations protecting net neutrality. Things are heating up as the vote approaches, with Pai's family even receiving death threats. The fate of the open internet as we know it may be decided on December 14th.
1) Do you feel like people are aware of the importance of net neutrality and the problems facing it?
2) Why might Republican representatives stray from their base and make net neutrality a partisan issue?
3) What are any possible positives to come of repealed regulation of net neutrality?

Trump Temporarily Continues With Elephant Trophy Importation Ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/us/politics/trump-elephants-trophy-hunting.html

Recently Trump put a stop to the importation of Elephant trophies hunted in the African country of Zimbabwe. However, the permanence of this decision remains to be seen. The reason for his decision to temporarily reinstate the ban on importing big game trophies, which was put into place mid-way through Obama’s presidency as an attempt to stabilize the elephant population, is claimed to be that the choice to allow these trophies to once again be brought into the US was made without his knowledge or consent. Trump addressed his decision, writing, “Big-game trophy decision will be announced next week but will be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any way helps conservation of Elephants or any other animal”. Despite these claims that hunting is a “horror show”, Trump’s sons have been known to hunt and have been photographed doing so. They claim, however that, while he let them hunt, he “really doesn’t understand why Eric and [Donald Jr.] hunt”.

Trump’s delayed involvement in the decision as well as his true rationale are being questioned.  He may simply be exercising his role as the Chief of State attempting to uphold a good moral precedent set during the Obama administration. He may also be attempting to exercise his role as the Chief Executive who has influence over the implementation of policies and laws, but his final ruling on the matter is not yet known.

1. What do you think Trump’s main motive is for temporarily (at least) banning the importation of these trophies?
2. Do you think he will make this ban permanent? Why or why not?

Sexual Harassment Continues to Trouble Capitol Hill

Article From Politico

NBC Sexual Harassment Change Article

On Sunday, November 26, leading Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers announced that he would be stepping down following sexual harassment accusations. Conyers has served as Michigan’s representative since 1965. He has confirmed the issue of a $27,000 settlement to a former employee who claimed she was fired because of her refusal to give into sexual advances, but he has denied the reasoning behind it. According to Conyers, “‘many of [the allegations] were raised by documents reportedly paid for by a partisan alt-right blogger’” and despite his decision to step down, he has no intention of leaving Congress altogether. Rather, he feels as though remaining on the committee during the investigation would undermine the work of fellow Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi has become actively involved in the event as well. The surfaced accusations have put party leaders in a troubled position and Pelosi has made sure to remain neutral or relatively distant from the event. After some backlash from her initial comment holding Conyers as an “icon”, she has since taken a firmer stance, stating “‘no matter how great an individual’s legacy, it is not a license for harassment’”. Although she is far from buying into the accusations against Conyers, Pelosi has been put in a unique position and must remain cognizant of the other side’s argument.

Not only do these allegations present a publicity problem for the party and Capitol Hill as a whole, but the turn of events poses the question of replacement and protocol in a peculiar situation such as this. A replacement has not been confirmed yet and standard protocol of next senior member doesn’t necessarily stand because Conyers stepped down mid-term.

These allegations come at a very troubling time for all of Capitol Hill. Recently, there has been a long line of victims coming forward and accusing members of Congress. These events have seemingly revived old cases as well, with former accusers such as Anita Hill being approached and asked for their opinion on the matter. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate and House have made moves to change how sexual harassment complaints are handled, largely as a result of the #metoocongress campaign by a number of Congress members. A directive was even issued requiring all Senate members and staffers to watch a training video on sexual harassment. Pushes to further address the issue of how sexual harassment allegations are handled were gaining steam, and will certainly gain even more momentum following the recent decision of Conyers and future House Ethics Committee investigation.

1. Considering how much momentum sexual harassment allegations have gained recently, do you think the accusations against Conyers will finally push for actual changes? Why or why not.
2. What is Capitol Hill’s next move following the stepping down of Conyers?
3. Pelosi commented that all these events are unfolding nearly 100 years after women gained the right to vote and this unfolding is a “wonderful thing”. Do you agree that something very transformative is in the midst of happening? Why or why not.

Trump's New Tax Plan, Who Loses?

Article From CNN

With the introduction of President Trump’s proposed tax reform, controversy has arisen over how the plan will affect the United States population. According to Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, "For the highest earners -- those in the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent -- nearly all would see lower taxes." While earners in the top 1% may see tax cuts of near $200,000, middle class households would see tax breaks “on average of “$660, or 1.2% of their after-tax income.” Not only is this tax cut for middle income households relatively minute in absolute terms when compared to the tax breaks received by the upper 1%, but it is reported that "By 2027, more than one of every four middle-income families would pay more in taxes." Essentially, while the upper class sees large tax breaks, as well as corporations with the tax rate changing from 35% to 20%, the middle class receives virtually insignificant tax breaks, which will be replaced by even higher taxes within 10 years. Lastly, the lower class loses when it comes to Trump’s new tax plan, as significant cuts to funding for medicaid would be made to accommodate. If approved by congress, Trump’s tax plan would primarily benefit the highest earners, while the rest of the population loses.

1) How do you think Trump's tax plan will be perceived by congress?

2) To what extent do you think the plan will affect funding for social programs?

3) How will the plan affect the national debt?

Should Roy Moore Be Allowed To Run For Senate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-calls-on-roy-moore-to-end-senate-campaign-following-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct/2017/11/13/1ca48d56-c890-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.3f7198415313

Alabama GOP nominee Roy Moore is being urged to drop out of the Senate race due to numerous allegations of sexual harassment of minors throughout his career. While the Republican Party believes Roy Moore's actions are unacceptable, they also worry that he will damage the party's reputation and standing with voters for the 2018 mid-term elections. Moore has denied the allegations and is refusing to step down from the race despite strong opposing forces. Many believe that putting Jeff Sessions in as a write-in candidate is the best option to prevent Moore from joining the Senate, however he would have to leave his job in the Trump Administration to do so. The National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Cory Gardner stated that if Moore wins, the Senate should vote to expel him. However, expelling a senator is extremely rare and would require approval from 2/3 of the chamber. Many are looking to Donald Trump for answers as the Alabama Republican Party would withdraw Moore's name from the running if there were a White House order to do so, however Donald Trump has kept quiet on the situation and stated that if the allegations against Moore are true, he is confident he will step aside.



Questions:
1. Is it reasonable to require a candidate to step down if allegations have yet to be proven in the court?

2. Do you think the ideals that one is "innocent until proven guilty" and that a crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law are stopping people from taking this measure against Moore?

3. If Moore were convicted, he still would not be expelled without 2/3 approval. Is it moral to allow Senators to serve despite criminal charges? Do you think the type of charge should be taken into question?