Sandra Day O’Connor Case Journal #3

As I prepare for this court case, I am beginning to look back at previous court cases that I have been apart of.

As I have stated in the past, I like to look at each of my cases individually and compare them to the constitution and uphold the law of the land. With this being said, I have tended to vote on the conservative side of the law.

I have been the deciding vote on many of my cases, and have definitely been known to cast a definitive swing vote.

Here are some of them.

Grutter v Bollinger involved affirmative action in colleges. I was the vote that affirmed the right of these colleges to continue to implement this policy.

In Hunt v Cromartie, I voted to allow states to use race to influence how state district lines are drawn.

Stenberg v Carhart allowed the overturning of a state-wide abortion ban.

While looking at the ramifications of the case I have been dealt, I have to look at the key issues at hand. They consist of national security and personal privacy. These two rights almost have to exist in equilibrium. By limiting national security, we put our country at risk. By limiting persona freedom, we violate basic concepts of the constitution.

We will have to see how this plays out in the courtroom.

EC2: Real and fake information on the internet

As discussed in class, not everything posted on the internet is completely true. This is certainly not shocking to anyone who has ever surfed the web, even for a brief time. Some articles posted just seem outright laughable. However, not all are as blatantly false as others are.

The Huffington Post was tricked by a source on twitter, claiming to be at the scene of a shooting. In reality, the man entitled “Jesus Christo” was not at the scene. The reporter on this article tweeted an apology for his mistake.

In another incident, and ESPN host was fooled when he heard that Kei Nishikori, a tennis player, was the highest paid player who makes $46 million a year. Other claims were made pertaining to all the things Nishikori owns, such as a soccer team and restaurant chain. All of these claims have been proven false. The statements made were gathered from satire site Media Mass and a fake magazine titled People with Money. ESPN host Chris Fowler tweeted out that he apologized for his error and was laughing at the mistake he had made by taking the information he received at face value.

In these situations, it is easy to state what you would do when looking back on what has already happened. If I were in either of these situations, I would make sure to thoroughly fact check each case to make sure there is some sense of reliability. In the first case, the name the man had should in and of itself be a key to lead to further investigation. It also shows that sometimes you should not interview the first eager person who wishes to speak to you. In the second case, the claim of the salary made is a bit absurd, at least to me. Considering it is rather common knowledge that Roger Federer is the highest paying tennis player in the world, due to his long term success and presence in the sport. Also, the salary claimed seemed extremely high to begin with. On top of it all, all the things the player allegedly owned seemed a bit extensive.

Bottom line- I would have fact checked a lot more than these two reporters did.

I would do this for the simple reason that it a basic duty of journalists. You are meant to inform the public of the truth, not some faulty lies that have been carelessly posted on the internet. Fact checking is not that difficult, and in the second case, even a quick Google search would have shown that the claims made were blatantly false.

We are meant to report the truth and make sure that what we write is as true as it can be.

Sandra Day O’Connor- Case Journal #2

Currently, I have been looking over the case I will soon rule on. It is Associated Press v. United States. As I look into more detail, it seems that the prevalent struggle is between privacy and national security. Our main character here is Edward Snowden. Snowden was a former CIA employee who leaked information pertaining to the new government surveillance program entitled PRISM. Ironically enough, there was another information leak prior to the one brought on by Snowden. The Washington Post also received leaked information that contained various records from people at The Associated Press. It seems to me as thought this type of action is going to repeat itself.

This is a very big case. The ideas of privacy and nation security are quite lofty. It is up to me and my fellow eight supreme court justices to decide if the government’s claim of defense of national security is enough to punish Snowden and the others who leaked secretive government information.

It is my goal to scrutinize this case very carefully. However, I have a very lofty bar set– the U.S. Constitution. I like to hold each of my cases to this standard, to ensure that the supreme law of the land is being upheld. It is typically claimed that I like to stick to republican party lines, but I would never let this identity overshadow my duty of upholding the Constitution. I see the importance in this case of promoting the first amendment right of freedom of speech and the press, yet this will not damper my need to uphold the letter of the law.