I just watched the 6:30 CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. There were seven main stories presented in the 30 minute broadcast and they are as follows:
1. Supreme Court Justice Souter announced that he is stepping down. The coverage included a portion about Justice Souter's appointment and background on the Court, why he was leaving and speculation of who President Obama will/should nominate. There was a clip of President Obama saying that he would only nominate someone who supports abortion rights and empathizes with minorities and the disadvantaged. There was also a clip of a Senate Republican stating that President Obama will receive a tough fight from the Senate Republicans if that is part of his criteria. Then Katie Couric spoke with Correspondent Jeff Greenfield who talked about different possible candidates to fill the slot on the Supreme Court. I would say that this segment took between ten and fifteen of the thirty minutes in the show.
2. Swine Flu: Katie Couric said the swine flu outbreak is "looking a bit less ominous tonight". There was a clip from a press conference with the CDC in which they stated that the strain does not carry the genes necessary to turn into a mass killer. Then there was a related story about a plane making an emergency landing because a passenger on board felt ill and they were worried about the swine flu. CBS continued the coverage with a story about American Farmers who are worried about the virus. Harvest is in three weeks, and since no Mexican workers are able to get work visas to come to America for the harvest season, they are worried that they will not have the manpower necessary to harvest all of their crops. Not only will this be a huge problem for the farmers, but it will also effect prices for consumers. They concluded the swine flu coverage with a piece about the perils of the pork industry. Several countries including Russia and China have banned North American Pork products, thinking that the swine flu could infect pork (which it cannot). The total amount of money at stake for American and Mexican industries as a result of the swine flu is $350 billion.
3. Hydroxycut recall: The popular weight loss supplement Hydroxycut has been linked to severe liver damage and at least one death. The FDA is urging Americans not to use Hydroxycut anymore. The manufacturer is recalling fourteen Hydroxycut products, but 9 million packages were sold last year alone.
4. Chrysler files for bankruptcy: All the sales in the auto industry are down. Chrysler is idling all North American plants for sixty days and closing five plants all together. They are leaving the dealerships open to try and sell the already manufactured cars with big incentives to buy. The American government is backing all of Chrysler's warrantees.
5. John Demjanjuk: A retired auto worker from Cleveland is closer to being deported to Germany to face charges that he was a guard at a Nazi Concentration camp during the Holocaust. He claimed he was too weak to travel, but the Prosecutor released a video of him walking on his own.
6. Danny Gans, a star impersonator from the Vegas strip, passed away. The segment included a feature of his acts in Vegas and a history of his career.
7. Assignment America Segment: Seventy year old Andy Mackee was told that he would die without his medication a long time ago, but stopped taking it anyway. He uses the money he would have spent on prescriptions to buy musical instruments for children and travels to different schools to give lessons. He has already given children over 13,000 harmonicas and has made thousands of string instruments. He gives free lessons and occasionally buys other instruments for children who seem really interested.
Overall, I felt that the stories were ordered from the most important to the least important. I do not know if I would have put the Hydroxycut recall before the Chrysler bankruptcy, but otherwise the stories seemed to be ordered properly. Since there were only seven stories, it is hard to tell what there would have been with more stories or a longer broadcast, but from what I saw tonight, it appears that CBS Evening News chose to put the most important stories first, leaving the feel good story for last. I also thought that the length of the segments varied from beginning to end, with the most important getting the most time, and the least important getting less time. I have to say good job to CBS for properly presenting the stories in order of importance.
Friday, May 1, 2009
First Supreme Court Justice Appointment for Obama
Today the New York Times announced that Supreme Court Justice Souter will be retiring at the end of the term in June. The Times article notes that this will be the first Supreme Court appointee for President Obama and the first appointee under a Democratic President in fifteen years. The two most recent appointments, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, were both under President George W. Bush. The confirmation process for these two slots on the Court were long and drawn out, and as the Times states, "intensely partisan and divisive moments in Washington". However, since the Democrats have such a large majority in the Senate, it does not seem as if President Obama will have as much trouble getting his nominee confirmed.
Justice Souter has expressed his disdain for Washington quite clearly and has apparently been telling friends since before the election that if President Obama won, he would be leaving the court. He was appointed by President George Bush, Sr. in 1990. Obviously, he was expected to be a conservative, but surprised many by becoming one of the most reliable members of the liberal side of the court. The Times article points out that replacing him with a liberal will not make any big impression on the overall ideology of the court. I have to disagree with that idea. Right now, there are five conservatives and four liberals on the court. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, tends to be the swing vote in most circumstances. If Souter, who the Martin-Quinn Supreme Court Ideology Project scores as having about the same level of liberal leaning as Breyer and Ginsberg (which is less than the most extreme liberal on the Court: Stevens), is replaced by someone who does not have near that same level of liberal leaning, there can be many different outcomes. I am not saying to appoint an extreme liberal because I do not think that would have any type of positive effect on the court, in fact, I think it would make it more divisive. However, if President Obama appoints a Justice that is more moderate than Breyer and Ginsberg, the new Justice may be apt to side with the conservatives on more issues than the others would. This would definitely give the conservatives on the Court a clear advantage. Ideology is something that President Obama should carefully consider in the appointment of the new Justice, especaially when there are so many more extreme conservatives on the Court than there are extreme liberals.
Additionally, Mary L. Dudziak of the blog, Balkinization, wrote a post entitled: "What should Obama look for in a Supreme Court Justice?" defining what she thinks the most important issues the President should take into consideration are. Beyond mere ideology, I agree with Ms. Dudziak that the life experience of the appointee are invaluable in helping them to form their legal opinions. Justice Ginsberg has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of women, not only because she is a woman, but because she experienced the discrimination women all over America have faced (and some are still facing). Her ideas of possible experience that would bring the necessary kind of diversity to the court are stated by her as follows:
She also states that the appointee should be someone who can bring the opposite ends of the Court together, a mediator of sorts. I could not agree with Ms. Dudziak more. I want a Justice who has seen the real problems of the country and actually experienced them, and I can not think of another President who I would legitimately expect to use that as criteria. However, I have faith that President Obama will pick someone who will bring real world experience to the bench as well build some bridges between the conservatives and liberals of the Court.
Justice Souter has expressed his disdain for Washington quite clearly and has apparently been telling friends since before the election that if President Obama won, he would be leaving the court. He was appointed by President George Bush, Sr. in 1990. Obviously, he was expected to be a conservative, but surprised many by becoming one of the most reliable members of the liberal side of the court. The Times article points out that replacing him with a liberal will not make any big impression on the overall ideology of the court. I have to disagree with that idea. Right now, there are five conservatives and four liberals on the court. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, tends to be the swing vote in most circumstances. If Souter, who the Martin-Quinn Supreme Court Ideology Project scores as having about the same level of liberal leaning as Breyer and Ginsberg (which is less than the most extreme liberal on the Court: Stevens), is replaced by someone who does not have near that same level of liberal leaning, there can be many different outcomes. I am not saying to appoint an extreme liberal because I do not think that would have any type of positive effect on the court, in fact, I think it would make it more divisive. However, if President Obama appoints a Justice that is more moderate than Breyer and Ginsberg, the new Justice may be apt to side with the conservatives on more issues than the others would. This would definitely give the conservatives on the Court a clear advantage. Ideology is something that President Obama should carefully consider in the appointment of the new Justice, especaially when there are so many more extreme conservatives on the Court than there are extreme liberals.
Additionally, Mary L. Dudziak of the blog, Balkinization, wrote a post entitled: "What should Obama look for in a Supreme Court Justice?" defining what she thinks the most important issues the President should take into consideration are. Beyond mere ideology, I agree with Ms. Dudziak that the life experience of the appointee are invaluable in helping them to form their legal opinions. Justice Ginsberg has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of women, not only because she is a woman, but because she experienced the discrimination women all over America have faced (and some are still facing). Her ideas of possible experience that would bring the necessary kind of diversity to the court are stated by her as follows:
"The next justice must understand that legal principles are not simply abstractions but have immediate and long-term consequences in the lives of individuals and communities. Perhaps Obama's nominee will have represented clients in deportation hearings, served low-income families in a legal aid office, or advised gay and lesbian members of the armed services. At this moment in American history, a nominee who has represented detainees at Guantanamo could bring important insights into the court's deliberations and further signal a change in the nation's posture toward human rights."
She also states that the appointee should be someone who can bring the opposite ends of the Court together, a mediator of sorts. I could not agree with Ms. Dudziak more. I want a Justice who has seen the real problems of the country and actually experienced them, and I can not think of another President who I would legitimately expect to use that as criteria. However, I have faith that President Obama will pick someone who will bring real world experience to the bench as well build some bridges between the conservatives and liberals of the Court.
Daily Show Versus Network News
After our discussions in class, I found myself wondering why people opt to be entertained by people like Jon Stewart rather than finding out about the actual issues going on in society. I personally do not have a lot of extra time to watch television, and have never really watched the Daily Show (besides the clips we have watched in class). After having watched both the network news and the Daily Show yesterday, I am beginning to understand why people, especially people in my age group, prefer Jon Stewart's take on the news.
Since yesterday was the day after the 100 days mark for President Obama, a lot of attention was given to Obama's progress thus far in office. After watching the network news coverage of that and other issues (like the ever intensifying swine flu panic) it was actually very fun to watch Jon Stewart's interpretation of the recent events. While I did not feel The Daily Show gave me any substantive information, (other than a few really good jokes) I have to agree with our in class discussion and reading, that the network news did not provide much substance either. Given that I read the New York Times online in the morning on most days, I feel fairly informed as to the daily news. Watching the network news is usually not very informative and is very repetitive at that point. Jon Stewart takes the stories that the media is focusing on and points out the comical aspects of each one.
During last night's show, Jon Stewart remarked on the "Snoutbreak '09" and joked about the various requests for main stream media to stop referring to the outbreak as "swine flu". He addressed many other issues, in a very funny manner. I honestly found myself laughing through a good portion of the program. However my favorite segment was the following:
In this segment, Jon Stewart makes a great point about the main stream media. He compares Fox, MSNBC and CNN and the different ways they presented the 100th day in office coverage. His observations were hysterical, yet somewhat unsettling due to their level of accuracy. I loved that he criticized all three networks and pointed out how absurd all three were. If there was anything educational about the show, I would say it would serve to help make people better consumers of main stream media, helping them to realize that everything has a slant to it.
I can understand why shows like Daily Show can be helpful in our society. Other people in my age group are usually not as interested in the news as say, the average Political Science nerd, and shows like this can help gain the attention of otherwise disinterested twenty-somethings. While I do not credit its educational value, The Daily Show is entertaining, and may just result in a viewer doing their own research on a topic they see presented there. In my opinion these types of programs are not harming society in any way, and just might result in some good.
Since yesterday was the day after the 100 days mark for President Obama, a lot of attention was given to Obama's progress thus far in office. After watching the network news coverage of that and other issues (like the ever intensifying swine flu panic) it was actually very fun to watch Jon Stewart's interpretation of the recent events. While I did not feel The Daily Show gave me any substantive information, (other than a few really good jokes) I have to agree with our in class discussion and reading, that the network news did not provide much substance either. Given that I read the New York Times online in the morning on most days, I feel fairly informed as to the daily news. Watching the network news is usually not very informative and is very repetitive at that point. Jon Stewart takes the stories that the media is focusing on and points out the comical aspects of each one.
During last night's show, Jon Stewart remarked on the "Snoutbreak '09" and joked about the various requests for main stream media to stop referring to the outbreak as "swine flu". He addressed many other issues, in a very funny manner. I honestly found myself laughing through a good portion of the program. However my favorite segment was the following:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Obama 101 | ||||
| ||||
In this segment, Jon Stewart makes a great point about the main stream media. He compares Fox, MSNBC and CNN and the different ways they presented the 100th day in office coverage. His observations were hysterical, yet somewhat unsettling due to their level of accuracy. I loved that he criticized all three networks and pointed out how absurd all three were. If there was anything educational about the show, I would say it would serve to help make people better consumers of main stream media, helping them to realize that everything has a slant to it.
I can understand why shows like Daily Show can be helpful in our society. Other people in my age group are usually not as interested in the news as say, the average Political Science nerd, and shows like this can help gain the attention of otherwise disinterested twenty-somethings. While I do not credit its educational value, The Daily Show is entertaining, and may just result in a viewer doing their own research on a topic they see presented there. In my opinion these types of programs are not harming society in any way, and just might result in some good.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Watching the Local News: A Painful Experience
I just watched the 11:00 news on News Channel 12, New Jersey. First and foremost I must say that it was extremely frustrating to watch. With weather every ten minutes and commercials at about the same rate, actual news air time within the hour was severely limited. Of the remaining news time, a good chunk of it was spent on sports segments. In fact, the same sports report ran twice within the hour, and both times it took up a whole period of time from one commercial break to another. I would say that of the hour I watched News 12 New Jersey, there was about 30 minutes of actual "news".
During this time, News 12 covered 27 other stories. Some of them included: a local woman giving away prom dresses to girls who cannot afford them, a dog getting rescued from a well it fell down, a brush fire in North Bergen, children in the Head Start program planting a garden, a string of robberies at local Dunkin' Donuts chains, kittens left in a hot car in Newark which were then taken away by the Humane Society, along with many other fairly inconsequential stories. This would not have bothered me so much if it were not for the way in which they covered the few stories of consequence that they aired.
Of all the stories in the hour, I would classify only eight of them as being at least somewhat political in nature. Of those, one was a blatant photo-op for Governor Corzine, in which he read a Dr. Seuss book to children at Parkway Elementary School for Read Across America. The second was about the child welfare system in New Jersey, which in recent years has come under criticism for failing to adequately protect children. However, the story consisted of a brief mention by one anchor that a recent report says that the child welfare system in New Jersey is making progress. Another story had to address the swine flu, because what would a news segment be this week if it did not mention it? News 12 made sure to report that Governor Corzine says that we have plenty of medications stocked from the avian flu scare (which also turned out to be a lot of hype over nothing) and that New Jerseyians can rest assured that there is enough medication to go around. Here, they also reported that 60% of their viewers were concerned about the swine flu, while 40% thought the media was blowing it out of proportion. In another segment, they quickly addressed the Specter party switch. They also quickly noted that President Barack Obama chose a secretary of Health and Human Services. News 12 spent a little bit longer showing President Obama's apology for the low flying plane in Manhattan earlier this week, showing that both Governor Corzine and President Obama claim they were not informed about this photo-op. I would have linked to these stories as well, but none of them made the website as far as I can tell. News 12 reported that Governor Corzine and the Supreme Court of New Jersey were re-evaluating school funding in urban districts but did not explain what was happening at all. However, on the website, there is a link to a story which I assume explains what is happening. Unfortunately, the link does not work, so I may never know. The only politically oriented story they seemed to spend more than a minute on involved the school board elections in a "Kane In Your Corner" segment, which is a special feature of the show. The story on school board elections focused on the cost of these elections and how many citizens feel they are unnecessary and ineffective.
Overall, I did not feel any more informed after having watched the local news. I was frustrated by the lack of content, and frustrated even more by the way important stories were briefly mentioned and not explained. I was further disappointed by News 12 after viewing their website, but at this point I am not surprised. I think it is safe to say that if you want to hear about significant events and have them explained in at least some detail, you should avoid watching News 12.
During this time, News 12 covered 27 other stories. Some of them included: a local woman giving away prom dresses to girls who cannot afford them, a dog getting rescued from a well it fell down, a brush fire in North Bergen, children in the Head Start program planting a garden, a string of robberies at local Dunkin' Donuts chains, kittens left in a hot car in Newark which were then taken away by the Humane Society, along with many other fairly inconsequential stories. This would not have bothered me so much if it were not for the way in which they covered the few stories of consequence that they aired.
Of all the stories in the hour, I would classify only eight of them as being at least somewhat political in nature. Of those, one was a blatant photo-op for Governor Corzine, in which he read a Dr. Seuss book to children at Parkway Elementary School for Read Across America. The second was about the child welfare system in New Jersey, which in recent years has come under criticism for failing to adequately protect children. However, the story consisted of a brief mention by one anchor that a recent report says that the child welfare system in New Jersey is making progress. Another story had to address the swine flu, because what would a news segment be this week if it did not mention it? News 12 made sure to report that Governor Corzine says that we have plenty of medications stocked from the avian flu scare (which also turned out to be a lot of hype over nothing) and that New Jerseyians can rest assured that there is enough medication to go around. Here, they also reported that 60% of their viewers were concerned about the swine flu, while 40% thought the media was blowing it out of proportion. In another segment, they quickly addressed the Specter party switch. They also quickly noted that President Barack Obama chose a secretary of Health and Human Services. News 12 spent a little bit longer showing President Obama's apology for the low flying plane in Manhattan earlier this week, showing that both Governor Corzine and President Obama claim they were not informed about this photo-op. I would have linked to these stories as well, but none of them made the website as far as I can tell. News 12 reported that Governor Corzine and the Supreme Court of New Jersey were re-evaluating school funding in urban districts but did not explain what was happening at all. However, on the website, there is a link to a story which I assume explains what is happening. Unfortunately, the link does not work, so I may never know. The only politically oriented story they seemed to spend more than a minute on involved the school board elections in a "Kane In Your Corner" segment, which is a special feature of the show. The story on school board elections focused on the cost of these elections and how many citizens feel they are unnecessary and ineffective.
Overall, I did not feel any more informed after having watched the local news. I was frustrated by the lack of content, and frustrated even more by the way important stories were briefly mentioned and not explained. I was further disappointed by News 12 after viewing their website, but at this point I am not surprised. I think it is safe to say that if you want to hear about significant events and have them explained in at least some detail, you should avoid watching News 12.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Chevy Volt: Real Solution or Just Another Flashy Toy?
Yesterday, Environmental Capital, an environmental business blog by The Wall Street Journal featured "GM’s New Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Chevy Volt". The post describes GM's plan to cut down on expenses and to enhance the technology present in its new car model, the Chevrolet Volt. Advertised in the following video, the Volt seems very promising.
Unfortunately, seeming like an impressive new option and actually being that are two very different things. In the Wall Street Journal blog, Keith Johnson emphasizes the main criticism of GM's latest endeavor: it is more expensive than cars that use gasoline. While some might argue that there will be savings in the long run due to the money owners would save spending on gas, I have to disagree. Have you looked at your electricity bill lately? Owners will substantially reduce their gas bills, (especially if they travel less than 40 miles between charges) but electricity is not overwhelmingly less expensive.
I must admit that when I first heard about the Volt I was immediately intrigued. I thought it would be a great trade in when my lease is up on the Chevy Cobalt(ironically enough in 2010, the Volt's scheduled release year). When I got the Chevy Cobalt in 2006, the sticker price was about $15,000.00. According to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger.com, the Chevy Volt will cost closer to $35,000.00. That price is clearly out of the range of most Americans, and during the economic crisis people are even less likely to be able to spend the extra money.
Bottom Line: GM will have to find a way to make the Volt less costly if they intend to see it succeed. There's really no need for the extra features prominently displayed in the above video. If GM eliminates some of the bells and whistles that in my opinion are unnecessary in a car intended for mass production and sale, they might actually have a shot at survival.
Unfortunately, seeming like an impressive new option and actually being that are two very different things. In the Wall Street Journal blog, Keith Johnson emphasizes the main criticism of GM's latest endeavor: it is more expensive than cars that use gasoline. While some might argue that there will be savings in the long run due to the money owners would save spending on gas, I have to disagree. Have you looked at your electricity bill lately? Owners will substantially reduce their gas bills, (especially if they travel less than 40 miles between charges) but electricity is not overwhelmingly less expensive.
I must admit that when I first heard about the Volt I was immediately intrigued. I thought it would be a great trade in when my lease is up on the Chevy Cobalt(ironically enough in 2010, the Volt's scheduled release year). When I got the Chevy Cobalt in 2006, the sticker price was about $15,000.00. According to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger.com, the Chevy Volt will cost closer to $35,000.00. That price is clearly out of the range of most Americans, and during the economic crisis people are even less likely to be able to spend the extra money.
Bottom Line: GM will have to find a way to make the Volt less costly if they intend to see it succeed. There's really no need for the extra features prominently displayed in the above video. If GM eliminates some of the bells and whistles that in my opinion are unnecessary in a car intended for mass production and sale, they might actually have a shot at survival.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Taking Colbert Too Seriously?
Today, a post was made by Jason Linkins on the Huffington Post blog entitled "Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking". This post talks about a study conducted by Heather L. LaMarre at Ohio State University that finds "that lots of conservatives seem to not understand the intrinsic, underlying joke of The Colbert Report". The study found that conservatives were more likely to think that Colbert genuinely means what he says, even though he says it in a joking manner. They were also more likely to think that Colbert dislikes liberalism. Since I have not seen much if any of the Colbert Report, I decided to look up a recent video clip to get a better idea about what the study is testing. The following video was posted on the Colbert Report website today:
After watching this clip I find it hard to believe that anyone does not realize Mr. Colbert is not being serious. The show is aired on a network called Comedy Central. It is obvious that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and that he does not sincerely believe everything that he is saying. With that being said, I can understand how people taking a survey who only watch the show could think that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative, just joking about his own ideology. However, Jason Linkins makes a great point in bringing up the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, during which Mr. Colbert made jokes criticizing President Bush and the main stream media. Since I really don't know anything about Mr. Colbert, I did a little research of my own and I found this article from the Washington Post which states that: "Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, 'I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy.'"
It is somewhat frightening to think that anyone would believe that Mr. Colbert means the outlandish and extreme things he says. I do not think that the extreme point of view is ever a good one, and it often leads to people taking equally extreme actions. However, I hope that a Comedy Central does not have the power to greatly influence the beliefs and actions of masses of people. There will always be people who are extremists, whether it be liberal or conservative, and in my opinion they will be that way regardless of what shows they watch on television. Perhaps The Colbert Report should take more initiative to make it clear that Stephen Colbert is simply mocking the extreme point of view, not supporting it. Personally though, I believe that if someone is unsophisticated enough to believe that a show on Comedy Central is serious, they probably will not have any major impact on society.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Days of Swine and Doses | ||||
| ||||
After watching this clip I find it hard to believe that anyone does not realize Mr. Colbert is not being serious. The show is aired on a network called Comedy Central. It is obvious that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and that he does not sincerely believe everything that he is saying. With that being said, I can understand how people taking a survey who only watch the show could think that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative, just joking about his own ideology. However, Jason Linkins makes a great point in bringing up the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, during which Mr. Colbert made jokes criticizing President Bush and the main stream media. Since I really don't know anything about Mr. Colbert, I did a little research of my own and I found this article from the Washington Post which states that: "Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, 'I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy.'"
It is somewhat frightening to think that anyone would believe that Mr. Colbert means the outlandish and extreme things he says. I do not think that the extreme point of view is ever a good one, and it often leads to people taking equally extreme actions. However, I hope that a Comedy Central does not have the power to greatly influence the beliefs and actions of masses of people. There will always be people who are extremists, whether it be liberal or conservative, and in my opinion they will be that way regardless of what shows they watch on television. Perhaps The Colbert Report should take more initiative to make it clear that Stephen Colbert is simply mocking the extreme point of view, not supporting it. Personally though, I believe that if someone is unsophisticated enough to believe that a show on Comedy Central is serious, they probably will not have any major impact on society.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Supreme Court Rules on Warantless Car Searches
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog posted an article today regarding the case of Arizona v. Gant which was decided yesterday by the Supreme Court. This case was about defining when the police are allowed to search someone's car. Mr. Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and already sitting in the back of a police car when an officer searching his car found a gun and cocaine. Mr. Gant was sentenced to three years, but appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, where the conviction was thrown out. When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, they decided that the police did not have the right to search Mr. Gant's vehicle and to uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. This case created unlikely alliances; the 5-4 decision had liberals and conservatives on both sides.
The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:
As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.
I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:
I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?
The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:
Vehicle searches should be allowed only in two situations, he wrote: when the person being arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the very crime that prompted the arrest.
As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.
I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:
I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
