I have always been and will always be a big advocate for gender equality, specifically women’s rights believing that the court should be gender-blind. I also have strong opinions about the rights of workers and the separation of church and state. From the moment I became a justice in 1993, I have brought these ideas forth in the court room and because of it my opinion has influenced the court on many different occasions.

My biggest influence on the court that I have had so far was in the United States v. Virginia. In this case I wrote the landmark decision in this case which the Virginia Military Institute that they would not admit women. We reversed this order and I was a landmark decision in this court case.

I also gathered a lot of attention for my dissenting opinion in the Bush v. Gore case which effectively decided the 2000 Presidential election. I objected the courts majority opinion in favoring Bush with the famous use of the words, “I dissent,” refusing to use the word “respectfully.”

I believe this case should be decided in favor of James Risen. I am a liberal judge who is open to change in how the constitution runs the nation. I believe reporters should have security in their right to remain confidential. We need reporters to report the truth and if the government is to come after them every time they do not like the truth that a reporter puts out then how can we ever expect to hear the truth? My opinion is in the favor of Risen and hope my counterparts can come to such an agreement as well.

1. Specifically in the case of Chris Fowler, I cannot say with confidence that I wouldn’t have made this same mistake. When you find information about an athlete from what seems to be a credible source, it is easy to believe that this information is true. It is not like Fowler was trying to seek out scandalous information about this athlete but rather was just looking for some hard-nose, basic facts. However, after class discussion, if I were to have been Fowler in this scenario I would make sure to check my sources. In doing this I would solidify that A. my sources are credible and B. That this information is backed up by at least three other sources.

In the case of the faulty twitter interview, I would have made sure to do the interview anywhere but Twitter, preferably by phone or in person. Gaining your sources from twitter is risky but at times could be the only route to take. However, a full on interview should have not been conducted via twitter, rather gain the contact information via twitter and follow that up with a phone or in-person interview.

2. In the case of Fowler my decision was reached through both are class discussion and the belief that you should always back your sources up. When you are going to announce something as fact, like Fowler attempted to do, you should-at minimum-find that same pool of information on three other sources. Furthermore, if you on in the high-paying and high-profile position Fowler was in then this information could have easily been confirmed by way of a quick phone call.

In the case of the twitter interview, my decision was reached by the basic journalistic standard of not ever doing interviews over social media, let alone twitter where you can only supply answer in 140 characters or less. At bare minimum, this interview should have been conducted via e-mail. However, in the case of finding your source on twitter it would be important to do the interview as a phone call at least, preferable in person in order to solidify that the person is indeed who they claim to be.

3. For both Fowler and the twitter interview, I decided this way because it simply would have stopped the situation from happening. Had Fowler checked his sources and confirmed the facts about the tennis player than he would have said the correct information on air. Had the author of the Huffington Post article done this interview over phone or in person it would have been much easier to detect the lies the interviewee was feeding the reporter. Had the interview been done in person the problem would have been obvious, over phone not as obvious but still detectable.

The James Risen v. The United States raises many interesting points that have been questioned in cases prior to this. The issue we will be looking at is the idea of whether journalists have a qualified right to the First Amendment in which they refuse to reveal sources when subpoenaed to do so. Secondly, this case will look at whether journalist are and should be protected when it comes to revealing sources in front of a grand jury.

In this particular case, we will consider Mr. James Risen, a reporter for the New York Times, who has refused to reveal his sources for a book he had written back in 2006. Risen was subpoenaed to give a testimony to ensure that the some of the information in his book was indeed given to him by Jeffery Sterling, a previous C.I.A official. He has continued to reuse to do so and is facing jail time because of it.

I am quite confident in the fact that I’m not sure how this case may play out. We have seen a previous case in Branzburg V Hayes that has looked at these same issues. In that particular case we saw the decision of the supreme court to invalidate the right of reporters to use the First Amendment as protection when asked to reveal sources. However, since this case in 1972, a lot has changed, especially in media which may lead to a different outcome for Mr. Risen.

The changes I have referenced above start with the Obama administration and their aggressive acts to allow reporters to be protected. The administrations has supported efforts in Congress to create a Federal Shield Law that would squash subpoenas issue to reporters (NY Times). Therefore, with this in mind, it is quite possible that Mr. Risen could keep his confidentiality.

However, the Branzburg v Hayes case stood as a monumental case when looking at journalists protection so the decision could also just as possibly stay consistent with history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html?_r=0