As we slide our way into April I have officially fallen behind. So, here I am, sitting in an airport, waiting to b meoard my flight to the Midwest Political Science Association’s annual conference, and I’m frantically grading the posts for last week, knowing that I’ll be grading this week’s at some point in Chicago. The posts are great (and my paper for the conference is done), so how about we take a quick look at these great posts? Come fly with me…through posts? Or something? That one got away from me a bit…
For this round of posts Efrain writes about United States v. Nosal (Nosal II), which is a 9th Circuit case hinging on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The law makes it a crime to access certain computer systems without authorization. Efrain explains the specific details of the case, the judges’ interpretation of “authorization” and what this means moving forward.
Dan touches on what the revised travel ban means for us in the Mohawk Valley, without history of welcoming refugees. This history means we have a significant number of refugees, and tensions and fears are high. Having discussed Trump’s first travel ban, Kaitlyn now takes the opportunity to also discuss its second incarnation. She discusses both the content of the new ban, and the recent rulings against the new version of the ban.
Elise and Adrian both touch on developments pertaining to LGBT rights. Elise writes about further developments in Gavin Grimm’s case. With the Court deciding to remand rather than hear Grimm’s case, the fight is not over, although potentially stalled. The remand for reconsideration does not end the case or the chance of greater protections for transgender rights, but as Elise points out, it is a missed opportunity for the Court to acknowledge and protect basic human rights. Adrian writes about Trump’s recent appointment of Roger Severino as Director of the Office of Civil Rights. This appointment was made without announcement of fanfare, but has many members of the LGBT community and their allies worried. Adrian explains some of Severino’s track record of being anti-LGBT rights, and why this is concerning in his new position.
Grace and Selma take a broader look at speech and the First Amendment in their respective post. Grace writes about the importance of the First Amendment for many of the victories, and general activism, of the Civil Rights Movement. She explains the important of speech, assembly, and association for arguing for civil rights. She touches on a few specific cases that were victories for the Civil Rights Movement in this regard as well. Selma looks at student speech, and some of the ways in which it is more restricted than speech generally. She primarily looks at Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in outlining the contours of student speech, while also comparing Hazelwood School District with Tinker v. Des Moines.
Erin reflects on our relatively “new” right to privacy as it relates to constitutional interpretation. She discusses different approaches to interpreting the Constitution, and what this means for the right to privacy, which itself emerges largely as a response to shifting social practices and understandings of the Constitution and America.
This time around Paul writes about the Supreme Court’s 2004 case Locke v. Davey. The case involved a challenge to a Washington State scholarship program where the funds could not be used for certain degrees in theology. Paul explains the state’s rationale, the Court’s ruling, and what this means for colleges and college student who might want to pursue theology degrees.
In keeping with the health care theme of her blog, Laura examines why the Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act failed. She walks through the various challenges and problems the Republicans faced in trying to deliver on a promise they have been making for eight years, but apparently have not been working on for all that long.
Taylor is in prime form with her post this week. It turns out a lot of male politicians have recently (and just in general) said a lot of incredibly … problematic … things, and Taylor is here to take them all to task. Go. Read. Her. Post. Just go. It seems at least 52% of men certainly need to, but I’d argue we’d all be better off for reading her post.
…and it looks like I am just going to squeak out getting this post uploaded before I have to board my flight. Until next time, go check out the original posts!