Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
Back to Blog
Thomas Pyle
This season, the Atlanta Braves pulled off a number of phenomenal feats, they won the NL East despite losing their best player, they upset the Brewers and Dodgers to earn a trip to the World Series, but perhaps most importantly they are now hosting three World Series games at Truist Park in Atlanta. All the way back before the COVID-19 pandemic, MLB selected Atlanta to host the 2021 All-Star game in order to show off their new stadium, Truist Park (then SunTrust Park). Despite the cancellation of the 2020 All Star Game in Los Angeles, commissioner Manfred stuck with the choice to play the All Star Game in Atlanta. However, he wouldn’t stick with Atlanta for long. In response to the rumors of voter fraud in the 2020 election and the need for election reform, Georgia passed a series of voting laws. These laws were extremely controversial on social media and in the mainstream media despite numerous states having similar provisions in their own elections. As a result, the city of Atlanta was ‘cancelled’. Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLB owners quickly sought to move the All Star Game out of Atlanta to a less controversial venue. Despite the death of longtime Atlanta Brave and former career home run leader Hank Aaron, MLB stole the All Star Game from the city. Baseball fans and Braves fans were enraged. The mayor of Atlanta was enraged. Even Stacey Abrams tried to convince MLB to keep the All Star Game in Atlanta. But, the owners chose to move the game to Colorado. Notably, Colorado has a number of similar voting provisions in their own election regulations. One of the main differences between Denver and Atlanta election results lies in their demographics. According to the most recent census, Denver’s population is over 75% white while African Americans represent over 50% of Atlanta’s population. The question must be asked: what made Denver a better host city than Atlanta in the eyes of MLB owners? The MLB All Star Game in Denver had 8.3 million viewers, a small increase from the 2019 game and against the trend of increased viewership in major MLB games including the 2020 World Series and the Field of Dreams game. The Braves wouldn’t forget what the owners and commissioner did to them. Despite a rough first half and the season ending injury of one of the best players in the game, Ronald Acuña Jr, the Braves fought their way to a World Series berth. Led by veterans Freddie Freeman, Jon Pederson, Charlie Morton, and the incredible NLCS performance by Eddie Rosario, the Braves were back in the World Series for the first time since 1999. Through the first two games of the World Series, ratings are already on the rise. Game two had over ten million viewers for the Astros victory as they tied the series at one game a piece. Atlanta is now expected to receive even more national attention than the All Star Game would provide, a fact that would not be lost on players, teams, and especially the owners. Atlanta reigns triumphant over MLB yet again, now a World Series victory would only be icing on the cake. Atlanta’s victory over Commissioner Manfred and MLB could prove very important as MLB faces the daunting challenge of agreeing on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement this offseason. Perhaps owners have experienced a loss of faith in the wildly unpopular commissioner and will vote to remove him or perhaps the players, fans, and executives are tired of seeing their favorite sports teams play politics and just want the plain and simple version of America’s pastime. All these issues are likely to be addressed this offseason, but, nonetheless, Atlanta’s victory looms large in both the baseball and political worlds. Expect to see Atlanta and the state of Georgia as a central theme in baseball and political discussions over the next few months.
Back to Blog
Thomas K. Sarrouf, JR.
In the midst of Congressional gridlock surrounding the Build Back Better Act, a now 1.75 trillion dollar spending bill that is being negotiated in Congress, the issues of reconciliation and the Senate filibuster itself have come to the forefront of Congressional politics. Reconciliation is a process that gets around the filibuster, thus making it easier for President Biden and the Democrats, whose majority in both houses of Congress is razor thin, to pass legislation without requiring 60 votes that they certainly lack. The 60-vote requirement in the Senate is a function of the filibuster, which is a rule that requires 60 votes in order to invoke cloture, which is a vote to end debate and come to a vote on a piece of legislation. The filibuster has thus been the tool of prolonging debate ad infinitum and preventing legislation from being passed. The logic of the filibuster is thus: if the party wants to end a filibuster, they will have to make changes that satisfy their opposition so that something gets passed. The filibuster has drawn the ire of Senate Democrats, most recently as they have ascended to the majority in Congress after the 2020 elections. Now that they are in power, the filibuster represents a serious challenge to their legislative agenda, which has led many Democratic leaders to call for it to be scrapped. The filibuster rule, though a part of Senate tradition, and used by both parties throughout American history, is not a passed law, but is only a Senate rule, one which could easily be discarded by the vote of a simple majority. And yet, it remains. In particular, Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV) has opposed repealing the filibuster, as he considers it to be a dangerous shift towards partisanship. Manchin, a Democrat, is considered to be part of the party’s “moderate” wing, and thinks it is important to have minority participation in lawmaking. When pressed by Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, Manchin said, “Just by assuming that, hey, they will never work with us, that’s the other side. This is tribal. The Republicans will never agree on anything, or the Democrats will never agree….I don’t buy into that.” Moderates like Joe Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and someone like John Kasich (R-OH) or Liz Cheney (R-WY) on the Republican side, typically do not have much political clout or national influence. Likewise, “moderacy” is not a political ideology, nor is it a policy agenda; rather, it is more of a persuasion or disposition that exists to temper both the liberal-progressive and conservative ideological camps that characterize the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Some argue that moderate politicians like Sinema are trying to navigate the political winds of their respective states to come out on top. That could very well be true; ambition and a desire for power are strong motivating forces, and after all, who likes to lose? But the political considerations are complicated and debatable, and we cannot truly know the complicated set of motives and forces that weigh on a politician at any given time, though some arguments are better than others. In his exchange with Chuck Todd, Manchin offered a substantive argument in favor of the filibuster, and I think it’s one that should appeal to moderates. I would argue that the filibuster is not only a tool for moderates to organize its own political constituency, but it is probably their best last hope for saving America. As polarization becomes a larger concern for the unity of the country, the moderate is likely to find himself/herself alienated from both political parties. Both sides have shifted further apart. I remember a time in high school when my history teacher put a Left-Right political line on the board, and then put the Democrats slightly to the left-of-center and the Republicans just to the right-of-center; they were very close to each other. That was just a few years ago, but the data shows that both sides have shifted further from the center, and both sides also have a strong distaste for the other. That being said, there is still a large constituency of moderates in America. Moderates might skew to one side of the aisle or the other; they might be people who haven’t found either party to represent them in past years, though both sides try to court independent voters who don’t stick to one party in any given election cycle. They could be the average person who self-describes as “not political.” It could just mean people who, for various reasons, are not well-informed about politics. The point is less about where the moderate comes from and more about why the filibuster acts in their interests—and in the interests of preserving a unified country. As Sen. Manchin points out, the filibuster requires minority input on a bill before it is passed. It fosters reasoned debate, and requires a ruling majority to respect and listen to their opponents so that they cannot just ram through a piece of controversial legislation. Bear in mind that “opponents” on the other side have the support of many of the majority’s own constituents. The filibuster is thus a mechanism that fosters debate and negotiation, and protects the rights and voice of a ruling minority within the legislative process. It would not be possible for a slim and transient majority to pass a controversial agenda that doesn’t represent the values of much of the country. It also would prevent a flip-flop of policy and legislation every two-to-four years when the other party regains control. Rather, the moderates would hold onto the balance of power and maintain it over the long-term, imposing a boring moderacy on the country at large. Given that the filibuster requires 60 votes, various constituencies would have to listen to each other, negotiate, and come to a compromise, otherwise achieving nothing. It’s been said that when there is compromise, no one is truly happy with the result, but when there is compromise, prudence rules the day, and things get done. The Founding Fathers recognized and envisioned a system that moved slowly, and where change would be difficult, but would ensure lasting change. Gridlock is a feature, not a flaw. With each presidential candidate threatening to undo the legacy of his (and soon to be her) predecessor, America gets caught up into a partisan whirlwind. The filibuster would slow things down, temper the extremes of both sides, and make sure that any changes made in the country can command the assent of a true, or as John C. Calhoun put it, a concurrent majority, one that aggregates not the mere number of voters, but the varied and oftentimes opposing interests in the country. There are tens of millions of American voters who are moderates or centrists. There are also many partisans who like to identify as moderate because it sounds nice or because it offers the pretense of common ground. For all those who don such a label, or who simply see the polarization and partisan divide to be not only exhausting, but genuinely dangerous to the existence of a unified country, the filibuster is the powerful tool to seeing a return to bipartisanship. The filibuster is not a Jim Crow relic, as many race-obsessed Democrats falsely claim. Avoid the temptation to seek after a politics that offers instant gratification, and instead settle for a more workable, sensible, and calmer politics that allows us to move past the fraught tensions that characterize our current moment. The filibuster is thus a safeguard against the pervasive radicalism of both sides. Guard it jealously.
Back to Blog
COVID is Over. Leave me Alone.11/1/2021 Ethan Folkman
The COVID-19 pandemic has been around for almost 20 months. Vaccines are readily available to any adult who wants them and will soon be open to children. Yet for some reason, 54% of Americans still believe that the pandemic is getting worse, according to recent Gallup polling. In a similar vein, 60% of Americans believe that the vaccine should be mandated by employers. This is an insane conjecture and one that runs in direct contrast to the fundamental values of liberty in the United States. It’s time to stop the mandates, stop the division, and return to the founding principle of individual rights that helped to make our country the greatest in the world. Before getting into the argument over individual rights, it’s worthwhile to state the facts on COVID. By polling data, concerns surrounding the delta variant are the most commonly cited reasons for supporting the mandates. People see the spike in case numbers and instantly want to return to masks, along with forcing everyone else to get vaccinated. But there’s a problem with that. Yes, case rates are higher. But death rates aren’t matching the infection rates. For example in Florida, a state that has remained largely open throughout the pandemic, the 7-day rolling average for deaths as of October 26th is 5. In Massachusetts, which has been far more strict, that number is 13. The science is clear. COVID simply isn’t the deadly pandemic that it was before. And yet, a sizable portion of the country is still holding on to the belief that there is a real danger, and that we need to sacrifice freedom in favor of safety. Americans also need to begin taking responsibility for their own safety. If someone is worried about catching the virus, there are multiple options available. Get the vaccine. Continue to wear a face mask or distance. That decision is yours. It’s a free country after all. But don’t go forcing that same decision on everybody else. This country was born on a system of individualism. Every adult in the country has the capacity to make a personal risk assessment and decide what is best for them. If someone chooses not to wear a mask anymore, then that is their decision. The problem arises when civility is thrown out the window. People who refused the shot have been treated horribly. These people are viciously attacked. Anybody who supports personal choice is castigated as a murderer and is viewed as subhuman. As one example, President Biden himself has called those who don’t support mask mandates Neanderthals. This behavior needs to change. If the government wants vaccine-hesitant people to get the shot, calling them stupid is not the way to do it. In contrast to this, President Trump has also been very outspoken about his support for the vaccine. But he takes a different approach to promote it. In his own words, “I believe totally in your freedoms. I do, you’re free, you got to do what you have to do. But I recommend taking the vaccines. I did it, it’s good, take the vaccines.” In my opinion, this is the right way to go about it. Acknowledge freedom of choice, then recommend that people take it. This makes people feel like their choices matter, and that they have a level of informed choice in what happens to them. It’s not just a small subset of the population that is in favor of these mandates. The federal government itself continues to force down vaccine mandates, citing safety concerns. For a group of people that ruthlessly criticized the Trump administration’s messaging during the pandemic, this administration continuously misleads and misdirects the public, falsely telling the American people that their unvaccinated neighbors are presenting a serious threat to them. Dr. Fauci continues to go on the news and tell people that they need to mask up, even after vaccination. This is just not true. If you are vaccinated, your chances of getting the virus are minuscule. Your chances of hospitalization and death are even lower. All this messaging does is deepen the political divide in our country, and it needs to stop. It’s time for the Biden administration and the media to follow the science and acknowledge the fact that this virus isn’t as dangerous as it was a year ago. At this point, the pandemic is nothing but a power grab for an administration that refuses to let a good crisis go to waste. We’ve been at this pandemic for a year and a half. We’ve had to sacrifice a lot, and now it’s time to move on and get back to our lives. The media preaches that we’ve entered a “new normal”, but I don’t think we have. COVID was a temporary setback, and now with the vaccine available, we can go back to normal. The government has fulfilled its role and should now take the back seat as states open up again. The stigma surrounding unvaccinated people needs to be broken. Most importantly, we need to make individual rights respected again.
Back to Blog
Sean Kelly
On May 17, the Supreme Court voted to consider the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case regarding the Gestational Age Act (GAA) passed in Mississippi in 2018. This legislation required physicians to determine the age of the fetus before performing an abortion, and prohibited abortion after the fetus had reached 15 weeks in gestation with exceptions for cases where the mother’s life is in danger or a severe fetal abnormality. Previously called a “right to privacy” under Roe vs. Wade (1973), the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992) decision framed abortion as an intrinsic liberty, without stating exactly how restrictions on abortion violated individual rights. The Casey decision also established the “undue burden” which declares that any law regulating abortion cannot impose “A substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability” according to the opinion written by Justices O’Conner, Kennedy, and Souter. In the Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt case, the Supreme Court clarified that a law prohibiting abortion must 1. Further a valid state interest, 2. Confer benefits that outweigh burdens, and 3. Be based on credible evidence. The decision to consider Dobbs combined with the decision to let the Texas Heartbeat Act play out in lower courts, signified a shift in the court, one that may have major consequences. In both the District and Circuit courts, the GAA was deemed unconstitutional under Casey, which established that it was unconstitutional to prohibit abortions before the fetus was “viable”, generally agreed upon at about 24 weeks. The Attorney General of Mississippi, Lynn Fitch, claims that unborn babies are protected under the 14th amendment, and there is “Nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition [that] supports a right to abortion”. In the petition to the Supreme Court, the State of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to consider 3 questions. 1. Are all pre-viability prohibitions on abortion unconstitutional? 2. Should pre-viability prohibitions on abortion be evaluated under the “under burden test” under Casey, or the Hellerstedt benefits vs. burdens structure? 3. Do abortion providers have a third-party ability to challenge abortion regulations? Now, the Supreme Court only agreed to consider the first question, which is a positive sign for conservatives. Had the Supreme Court agreed to consider the second or third question, this would have given the Court a chance to clarify what states are and aren’t allowed to regulate when it comes to abortion, but only the first question poses a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. Similarly, out of three abortion-related cases petitioning to be heard by the Court, Dobbs gives the Court the chance to revisit Roe vs. Wade. Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services, a case concerning the legality to get an abortion because the unborn child has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome, and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Box, a case challenging if and when minors are allowed to receive abortions without the consent of guardians, would likely be wins for the Pro-Life movement; they would not plainly contradict Roe vs. Wade. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the judiciary has a chance to make an unprecedented change, though Chief Justice Roberts does prefer to decide cases narrowly which could limit the win for conservatives. Since Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the court, conservatives have held high hopes for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe vs. Wade. Though no justices have confirmed which way they will vote on Dobbs, it is likely that the Mississippi law will be upheld, which would do serious damage to the precedents set by Roe and Casey, if not prompt the Court to overturn them altogether. In the case that the Court does not overturn Roe or Casey outright, states would likely try to pass legislation in direct contradiction with Roe vs. Wade in an attempt to bring it to the Supreme Court. Should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, the issue would be sent back to the states for them to determine legislation. This case presents one of the first opportunities for perhaps President Trump’s greatest achievement to foreshadow just how far this conservative judiciary is willing to go. If the Chief Justice is the only conservative to vote against the GAA, the opinion would fall to the most senior member of the conservative bloc. Here’s to the Clarence Thomas Court. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/opinions/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-power-toobin/index.h tml |