Bobby Jindal announced on Tuesday that he is suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, leading many Americans to ask, “who?” The Louisiana governor had a tough time breaking into the crowded Republican field and on Tuesday remarked, “this is not my time.” He will be missed by about 0.4 percent of likely Republican voters. In remembrance of this fallen candidate, here are the top seven moments of Bobby Jindal’s campaign (10 moments are reserved for candidates who poll over 1 percent).

1. His campaign announcement

Any great presidential campaign begins with a great announcement video. Bobby Jindal’s hidden cam announcement to his unenthusiastic family was a pretty good precursor for the American public’s reaction.

“Yaaaaaay…”

2. Calling for the End of the Supreme Court

Right at the beginning of his campaign, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage, to the dismay of many social conservatives. Bobby Jindal boldly proposed the best solution for this political frustration: disbanding a branch of the federal government.

I don’t think RBG is going down without a fight.

3. Having a lower approval rating in his deeply red home state than Barack Obama

Many people commented that Jindal’s campaign was a long shot and pointed out that he didn’t have the support he needed to get the nomination. Unfortunately, not even his home state of Louisiana was behind him. His approval rating stood at 32 percent when he announced his candidacy, compared to 42 percent for President Obama.

And he’s governor of a state where Obama lost his reelection by 17 points. Rough.

4. Polling higher than Jeb Bush in Iowa (Briefly)

Despite the doubters and the critics, Jindal fought hard and campaigned even harder, especially in Iowa. This paid off, when he recently topped former front-runner Jeb Bush in an Iowa poll.

I’m not sure whether this was more exciting for Jindal or sad for Bush. Even more, in the most recent Iowa polls before he dropped out, Jindal stood ahead of Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and John Kasich.

5. Stating that he deserves a spot in the primetime debate.

In late October, Jindal was highly critical of the debate structure which only allowed the top 10 candidates in national polls to participate. It is unclear whether he would have preferred a debate with 15 people on the same stage, a debate with a rotating stage, or maybe a head-to-head tournament style debate.

Caesar Flickerman seems to like the last idea

6. Attacking Chris Christie for being a “big government Republican.”

Speaking of debates, one of his biggest moments came in the most recent JV debate where he staked out ground as a true conservative Governor, calling out Chris Christie. He has spent much of his campaign defining himself as an aggressive candidate, and this was no exception.

Come at me, bro.

7. Dropping out.

Unfortunately for Governor Jindal, the 2016 presidential race just wasn’t his to win. In a year with so many eccentric, anti-establishment Republicans, there was little chance that an unpopular, bland governor could get the nomination. Kudos to him for running anyway, and extra kudos for realizing that he should drop out.

Here’s to hoping more candidates follow suit…

Bonus:  Muslim no-go zones and Muslims colonizing Europe

Earlier this year, before he announced his campaign, Jindal discussed his theory about “no-go zones” in some European cities that were overrun by violent Muslims and even stated that Muslims were “colonizing” Europe.

He will be greatly missed.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 7 Moments of Bobby Jindal’s (Brief) Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

On October 24, the RiseUpOctober group held a three-day rally in New York to protest police brutality. The biggest story of the rally was Quentin Tarantino’s attendance and the director’s fiery remarks. He has since received incredible backlash for his comments, from pundits as well as some police unions. But the twisting of his words and generally poor coverage of the rally highlights the media’s chronic inability to cover groups and events that try to bring attention to the issue of police brutality.

In a three-day rally against police brutality, the media decided to only focus on Tarantino’s comments, as opposed to the families of unarmed individuals killed by police officers. When given a chance to speak, Tarantino addressed the crowd by saying “I am a human being with a conscience, and when I see murder I cannot stand by, and I have to call the murdered the murdered, and the murderers the murderers.” A number of people expressed disapproval with Tarantino’s remarks and criticized him. Pundits, as well as his own father, went as far as to call his comments “dead wrong.” They criticized him for denigrating police officers and many people misquoted him as calling all police officers murderers, even though he was referring to the specific instances of killings of unarmed citizens that the rally was focused on.

Recently Jim Pasco, the director of the national Fraternal Order of Police, warned that the union has a “surprise” in store for Tarantino, a veiled threat that follows the Pasco’s plea for police officers to boycott Tarantino’s next film. While he does not represent the viewpoint of all police officers, it is unfortunate that someone so influential has decided to escalate this issue, instead of taking the value of the entire rally to heart. Granted, Tarantino’s comments were certainly inflammatory and it is totally fair for people, especially police officers and their relatives, to be unhappy. Still, this does not make what Tarantino said any less valid. It is important that we as a nation remain open to critically analyzing all of our social institutions to ensure that they are operating as best as they can. By making it taboo to criticize law enforcement, we keep one of the most important foundations of our society from being the best it can be.

The rhetoric surrounding Tarantino’s comments is not new; rather, the false dichotomy between protesting police brutality and respecting police officers is constantly present in the media. Critics of the BlackLivesMatter movement, and other attempts to address police brutality often equate criticizing excessive police force with hating police officers. Some blame these protests for the recent spike in crime in some major cities–often called the “Ferguson Effect.” Proponents argue that this increase in crime can be traced to changes in police tactics due to a fear of excessive force. Even if this were true, this logic is faulty. Firstly, these movements are not directly responsible for the changes that have occurred in police tactics. Secondly, even if there appears to be an overcompensating response, this does not invalidate these movements. It is important that police brutality be addressed and prior to the activities of such groups, this issue was largely ignored.

Finally, one of the biggest issues with the coverage of the BlackLivesMatter movement is the assumption that it is a single-minded movement. The actions of anyone who associates with the group are taken as a representation of all the members. In reality, like any social movement in history, individuals have different ideas, tactics, and goals, even if they associate with the same movement. Unfortunately, pundits will change the subject to black-on-black violence, and accuse the movement of promoting violence instead of dealing with the actual issue of police brutality. Like so many issues nowadays, police brutality is poorly handled by the media, which leads to a polarized and sometimes uninformed public and prevents the issue from being addressed. This failure in media is disheartening and it is the same reason why Quentin Tarantino has received undeserved backlash for his comments.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Quentin Tarantino Takes on Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

If last night’s GOP debate could be summed up in one word, it would almost certainly be “utter disaster.” Well, that’s two words, but in true debate form I will take some liberty with the constraints. In close second, the debate could be described as “entertaining” but unfortunately, substantive political discourse is rarely entertaining. Due to the media’s obsession with sensationalizing politics, and the candidates’ (somewhat forced) decision to play into this atmosphere, last night’s debate highlighted the growing issues with modern politics.

The debate was a disaster for a number of reasons, the primary one being the odd and, at times, incompetent moderating. Very little time was spent discussing substantive issues, which is crucial at this point in the race for allowing candidates to differentiate themselves. Moderators asked peculiar questions that seemed to be designed to embarrass candidates instead of revealing their policy ideas. This included attacking Marco Rubio’s voting record and asking  “why not slow down, get a few more things done first, or at least finish what you start?” calling out Jeb Bush on his falling poll numbers and asking Donald Trump “is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”  Moderators should certainly feel free to ask candidates about reasons they may not be qualified, however, this seemed to be the only goal of the moderators. The candidates noticed this apparent bias and began attacking the moderators, as well as the media at large. The crowd loved it, and the candidates continued these attacks for the rest of the night, even in post-debate interviews. An event that should have helped differentiate candidates mainly resulted in all of the candidates touting their disdain for media.

To make matters worse, the media decided to cover this election, like many other political events, about as horribly as it could. Instead of addressing the nuances of the debate, nearly every media outlet was content with publishing critiques of CNBC’s handling of the event, which while fair, decreases the public’s focus on the true purpose of the debate: hearing what the candidates have to say. The only other coverage of the debate were picks for “winners and losers.” Seriously, Google “GOP Debate” and look at the top results, I’ll wait…

Are these high quality political outlets or an ESPN version of politics? Who knows. At this point, much of our political dialogue has the same sophistication as our dialogue about sports. By manipulating the coverage of this event, the media pushes the public to choose winners and losers instead of strong or sound minded candidates with good ideas. Both the running of the debate and the post-debate coverage emphasized a polarization between the parties, and settled for petty direct attacks between candidates, not their substantive differences.

There were no winners in last night’s debate, except perhaps candidates who will gain polling boosts, but there were a lot of losers. CNBC, Republican voters, and perhaps most importantly, American politics at large. Without some drastic changes in the process and media coverage of political events, the perceived polarization and proliferation of petty political maneuvering will continue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate Reveals Everything Wrong With American Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was a big night for fans of Star Wars, J.J. Abram’s work, and movies with explosions. The newest trailer for the seventh installment in the Star War’s franchise aired during the Monday Night Football game, and garnered a lot of buzz on social media. The biggest story of the night, however, was the appearance of the hashtag #BoycottStarWarsVII that began trending on Twitter. This hashtag was used by users who were upset at the film’s use of minority actors, especially in the leading roles.

Twitter users used this hashtag to attack the movie for inspiring “white genocide,” and accusing it of forcing a multicultural agenda on its “core audience of young white males.” Asking its fans to accept aliens of all shapes and sizes, robots imbued with artificial intelligence, and even a lame comedic character who sparked racist claims is one thing, but minority actors in leading roles is a whole other. Apparently there’s nothing like an intergalactic science fiction film to inspire racist Twitter rants:

#BoycottStarWarsVII because it will be ghetto garbage. pic.twitter.com/SkNiqg8bKX

— Lord Humungus (@DarklyEnlighten) October 19, 2015

#BoycottStarWarsVII Because everyone knows dindus don't have the brainpower to use The Force. pic.twitter.com/Uh91gnCsEe

— Spooky Azzmador (@The_Azzmador2) October 19, 2015

On the other hand, some also used the hashtag to attack these trolls:

George Lucas and his wife laughing at these #boycottstarwarsvii tweets like pic.twitter.com/0fksLcki2N

— DeMarko Gage (@DeMarko_Gage) October 19, 2015

When I went on Twitter and saw that #BoycottStarWarsVII is trending pic.twitter.com/GOEzI8PZes

— Giants 9001-0 (@zoated) October 19, 2015

This hashtag, along with the #CelebrateStarWarsVII response hashtag brings to light just how political Hollywood can become. “Mad Max: Fury Road” received similar criticism from so-called “men’s rights activists” who claimed that the movie was “feminist propaganda” and urged men to boycott the film. It is truly sad that movies with story lines that don’t relegate women and minorities to stereotypical roles can cause so much backlash. Despite the fact that Hollywood is still heavily dominated by white males as leading actors, directors, and producers, apparently some are still opposed to any increased diversity. Fortunately, the anti-diversity outrage over the new Star Wars movie is minuscule when compared to the number of people excited for the film and either happy to see minority actors utilized, or much too concerned with the movie’s content to worry about political and social complications:

Gloriousness of the new #starwarstrailer has left me completely unable to cope. BRB, in coma of sheer glee.

— Claudia Gray (@claudiagray) October 20, 2015

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BoycottStarWarsVII: Racist Trolling at Its Finest appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders is running arguably the most exciting and revolutionary campaign of the 2016 primary season. Nevertheless, he is still trailing Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton by a large margin. With that in mind, here are the top 10 (mostly serious) things Sanders should consider if he wants to win the Democratic nomination

1. Get more of the minority vote

In recent weeks, Bernie has been showing signs of improved polling among black voters, which is a great sign. But he is still trailing Hillary by a very wide margin, and is also having trouble with the Hispanic vote. His message of systematic change has the potential to be very attractive to minority voters, but Sanders needs to improve his recognition among these important Democratic blocs. But as long as he doesn’t try to do the Nae-Nae on television, he has a good chance of improving on this front.

2. Get better exposure on traditional media

This is a phrase you probably never thought you would hear uttered in the 2016 election cycle. If you frequently use social media, you could easily be under the impression that everyone in the country is rooting for Bernie to win the nomination, but this is not the case in polls. Bernie has to continue to get his message out, but in ways that don’t just reach young voters. That means he will have to use carrier pigeons, or whatever way old people get their information.

3. Convince Joe Biden to run

With Biden in the race, Bernie can let the other candidates fight each other in a failed attempt to prove that they have distinct visions for their presidencies. This will highlight the incredible pushes for reform that comprise Bernie’s platform.

4. Downplay the “democratic socialist” label

Even if it is accurate, it is important that Bernie downplays the “socialist” label, since the word is too loaded for an American audience. Instead he should stick to more acceptable terms like “progressive” or “radical left-wing nut.” It is also important that Bernie rebuffs the idea that he is the Democratic version of Donald Trump. He needs to continue to emphasize that his platform is composed of progressive attempts to save the middle class, not a series of rants that sound like the political satire on the “Colbert Report.”

5. Break his “no attack ad” policy

One thing Bernie is very proud of is the fact that he has never run a negative campaign, but he has hinted that this is a possibility for this race. As commendable as it is that he has tried to remain above the political pettiness, at the end of the day he has to convince a fickle, emotion-driven American population to vote for him. There’s a saying here: “you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.” Bernie would do well to keep that in mind.

6. Keep racking up the endorsements.

Endorsements send powerful signals to voters and being endorsed by labor unions, civil rights activist Cornell West, and the makers of Ben and Jerry’s are important steps for Bernie. Now if only Elizabeth Warren and Obama would throw their support behind Bernie…

7. Be even more fed up with the system

There are some people who don’t support Bernie Sanders because they just aren’t sure he really wants to change the American political system for the better. His history of dedication to the middle class, American labor, civil rights, climate change, and bipartisan action just isn’t convincing enough. I recommend he yells 10 percent louder in a 20 percent more exasperated tone at all subsequent rallies.

8. Fix his hair

We understand, Bernie was too busy fighting the partisan crap-fest that is Congress to ever have time for a comb or brush, but presidential candidates need to have tame hair. Remember, the presidential process is just a grand popularity contest, and all the cool kids have cool hair. I mean come on, there is no way that any candidate with crazy hair could ever win their party’s nomination, or lead in the polls.

9. Release his email record

Everyone is doing it, and I heard that it’s the only way the news media will cover a Democratic candidate.

10. Get Tom Brady to admit he deflated the footballs

We haven’t forgotten about that, have we people? He can’t just get away with that. Not in Bernie’s America.

At the end of the day, pundits and statisticians alike will continue to posit that Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination. But remember, they also said that there would never be fourth Pirates of the Caribbean and now they’re making a fifth, so anything can happen. The biggest must-do for Bernie’s campaign at this point is exposure. As more and more Americans hear his message, they are starting to #FeelTheBern. He’ll need the fever to keep spreading if he hopes to win the nomination.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 10 Things Bernie Sanders Needs to Do to Win the Democratic Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Governor Scott Walker became the first candidate to drop out of the running for the Republican presidential nomination. His departure from the primaries has led to a wide range of reactions, from utter shock, to great relief, to unoriginal jokes. No matter your opinion on this small town Colorado native turned runner up student government president turned college dropout, there is no doubt that he was a solid candidate. An exciting one? No, but a solid one. His position on some of the most important issues to Republican primary voters were almost uniformly in line. He held tenure for three terms as governor in a swing state while only being recalled one little time. Moreover, his position on the core issue of this recall, bargaining rights for public unions, made him a conservative hero, and thrust him onto the national stage. Perhaps most importantly, Walker rides Harley Davidson motorcycles and is a good Midwestern Christian. So how did this walking, talking embodiment of rice cakes become the quickest failed campaign in modern politics?

Well, people watched him talk. If you were to describe Scott Walker as a candidate, he would appear to be one of the strongest candidates. Unfortunately, as we watched him drowned out by bigger voices in two straight debates, it was hard to see such strengths. The constant coverage of these two debates ensures that voters do not forget about his dismal performances. Due to the incredibly long span of time in which primaries are held, candidates must hold on to the excitement and support that they originally garnered. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how hard that is.

In addition to their length, primary campaigns require millions of dollars, which means many devoted supporters and maybe a billionaire donor here and there. In any other election season, with these issues still remaining, Scott Walker would be a candidate who sticks around until the end of the primaries. Unfortunately for him, this election’s primary voters have no interest in a run-of-the-mill establishment governor. This is a group of voters who have dealt with eight years of a wildly liberal Obama administration intent on limiting religious liberty, weakening America’s stance in the world, and involving government in every facet of our lives. Or at least that’s what many primary voters feel has been the case. Changing the course of this country would require someone who is willing to think outside the box and speak his mind. Scott Walker didn’t seem to fit the bill for those voters.

Scott Walker’s exit from the Republican primaries is a case study in everything wrong with American politics. In the age of a 24-hour news cycle intent on telling its viewers who is winning at every moment in primaries that run for over a year, require millions of dollars in funding, and are decided by radical primary voters who reward borderline racist and Islamophobic speech with huge campaign donations and poll boosts, solid candidates become unelectable. And that is how a candidate who was originally the front-runner at his announcement abruptly spiraled into dismal poll numbers and eventually dropped out. Here’s to hoping Scott Walker finds more success as a bedtime audio book narrator. Or maybe a NyQuil spokesperson.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Scott Walker Really Drop Out of the Presidential Race? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, an armed citizen named Patrick Ewing shot and injured a man who had drawn his weapon and fired at civilians. The story did not get a lot of media attention, but the coverage it did receive sensationalized the event, focusing on Ewing’s concealed carry permit. Some gun rights activists and conservative news sources dramatized and championed the what happened as proof of the benefit of concealed carry permits. Unfortunately, this event, like certain other gun-related incidents, was given disproportionate attention and used to defend simplistic approaches to gun laws.

According to police, 62-year-old Thomas McCary was engaged in an argument with a woman when Patrick Ewing, her brother, approached to check on the situation. McCary then pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired three shots. Ewing then drew his own weapon and fired three shots back, hitting McCary once in the leg. After retreating into his house and grabbing another gun, McCary returned and began shooting at the woman he was arguing with, as well as her one-year old son and a third man. Ewing fired more rounds at McCary in order to divert his attention while the others retreated into their home.

While Ewing’s actions almost certainly saved lives, arguing that more people should carry guns in public is far too simplistic. Neither shooter proved very effective with their weapon, with Ewing only hitting McCary once in the leg. People often imagine that licensed gun carriers can effectively defend themselves and the people around them, but the reality is that such accuracy is difficult and guns are not often used in self-defense. The use of weapons in dangerous situations, even by well-meaning citizens, is complex and potentially dangerous.

This exaggerated emphasis on a single event is also often true of those who support stronger gun control laws. Events such as the recent theater shooting in Louisiana have prompted politicians to again talk about the issue of gun control–a recurring response to mass shootings. Despite the well-intentioned rhetoric, these calls to action by politicians also rarely result in substantive change. When such events are no longer in the headlines, politicians are content with moving on to other issues. While mass shootings invoke media attention, they account for less than one percent of gun murders, meaning these events may not be the best basis to determine gun policy.

Sadly, most Americans are desensitized to mass shootings and the gun control rhetoric that follows. Instances of heroic gun-toting civilians are not very common, which is why these stories can resonate so strongly, but also why they should not be used as evidence of the norm. For issues like guns and gun violence, it is important to rely on facts instead of anecdotal evidence.

There is evidence on both sides of the debate over the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Some evidence suggests that increased access to guns, especially through concealed carry permits, reduces gun violence. These studies conclude that high gun ownership leads to decreases in crime and that gun laws have been ineffective at stopping criminals from getting access to guns. On the other hand, there is evidence that counters these conclusions. The correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths in the United States, as well as large loopholes in current gun laws, point to the need for stricter gun control. Also, one NIH study found that guns being used in self-defense are not very common, with only one instance of self-defense per seven assaults, eleven suicide attempts, and four accidents involving guns.

The fact of the matter is this: the jury is out on the effect of gun ownership on gun violence. It also important to remember that although it is certainly an important factor, the prevalence of gun ownership is not the only issue to consider. Mental health treatment, increased gun training, and community-based violence prevention initiatives are all important avenues to explore. These solutions, which take a more comprehensive approach to the issue of gun violence, are more likely to be effective than gun restrictions alone.

Too often, the activists and biased media–on either side of the issue–can sensationalize certain events. And while blaming media coverage for motivating mass shooters is not supported by data, there is something to be said for the media’s effect on the general public. Despite dramatic decreases in crime over the past few decades, the public’s perception of crime is that it is either increasing or stagnant. This is at least partially due to the sensationalization of crime, as well as new media’s ability to cover more stories. There are, however, responsible sources that try to look at the whole picture when it comes to the debate over gun control and it is crucial for citizens to do their best to remain properly informed. In order to foster a productive conversation about gun control, the discussion must be driven by facts, instead of the sensationalized events that fit into each side’s rhetoric.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Need to Stop Sensationalizing Gun Self Defense appeared first on Law Street.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley both speaking at a Progressive rally: what could go wrong? At the recent Netroots Nation conference, the two candidates were interrupted during a town hall event by protesters who chanted and demanded they discuss racial issues, such as police brutality. While both eventually yielded to the protesters, their responses were not very well received. Despite the disruption, the conference marked an important moment for both the Democratic primaries and the progressive movement at large.

Although progressives openly acknowledge racial issues, it is not emphasized in the same way as topics like income inequality, campaign finance reform, and affordable college tuition. Aside from the fact that race needs to be more directly addressed as a society, candidates should also give it more attention since black Americans are a large and important contingency for the Democratic party.

At Netroots Nation, the protesters eventually forced both candidates to respond to their concerns, but were ultimately disappointed with how general the comments were. After being pressed multiple times, O’Malley eventually stated his belief that police departments should report all police related shootings and brutality complaints, also noting his support for civilian review boards, a measure that he implemented in Maryland. In his final comments O’Malley stated: “Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”

This comment was met with boos and disapproval from protesters, who reminded the former governor that the “black lives matter” slogan is not to devalue other races; rather, it is to point out the seeming lack of value given to black lives in particular, as evidenced by recent police-related deaths.

O’Malley later apologized for his statements saying,

I did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and depth of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this issue.

Later on it was Sanders’ turn to face the protesters. He responded to cries from the audience saying,

Black lives, of course, matter and I spent 50 years of my life fighting for Civil Rights and for dignity.

After more pressure from the protesters, Sanders addressed concerns with the criminal justice system as well as economic inequality, which he pointed to as the root of the racial issues being discussed. He talked about his past efforts to address racial inequality including implementing community policing initiatives and fighting to include provisions in Obamacare that improve minority health care. The protesters eventually settled and let Sanders continue on to the issue of immigration, which was a big focus of the conference as a whole.

After the event, commentators primarily criticized the protesters’ interruptions. Some referred to the event as a disaster, and others touted it as evidence of great Democratic divides. But many were confused why protesters would attack these two candidates, who generally have solid records on racial issues. Despite their records, however, neither candidate has seemed willing to address race now that they are running for national office.

One likely reason why both candidates have neglected to focus on race is a fear of distancing some potential voters. As a presidential candidate, it is dangerous to focus on problems that are not as salient to the entire populace–especially when you are fighting to gain footing against Hillary Clinton. Issues like income inequality and the influence of money in politics are more general, so it is not surprising that both candidates emphasize those. But these candidates’ failure to confront race does have consequences–both are polling miserably with black Americans. The Netroots conference highlighted the fact that Democratic candidates are largely unprepared to address an issue that has become, and will remain, important for progressives.

Over 70 percent of black Americans are registered Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates have received over 80 percent of the black vote since 1964. But with increased attention given to racial issues in the past couple years, Democratic candidates will need to address racial issues properly in order to mobilize black voters.

O’Malley, Sanders, and even the frontrunner Hillary Clinton have been content addressing race through easy, symbolic issues like the confederate flag and Donald Trump’s comments about Mexicans. This is unacceptable. For these protesters race isn’t just political, it is quite literally an issue of life and death.

The Netroots event was designed to give candidates time to discuss their platform and explain how their overarching views align with the broader progressive agenda, and the interruptions hindered their ability to do so. Yet, while criticism of the protesters is well-intentioned, it is also misplaced. The same criticism was leveled at Civil Rights protests, and more broadly all protests– which, by nature, involve disruption of the polite status-quo.

We also have to remember that rowdy crowds are not foreign to Netroots conferences. During the 2008 election cycle, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama received uproarious booing and applause for the various policies they proposed. This crowd interaction provides valuable feedback for candidates as they try to appeal to their liberal base.

It’s also interesting that this conference happened on the same weekend that the Ku Klux Klan rallied in South Carolina to protest the removal of Confederate flag and was met with resistance by the Black Panthers–something that sounds like it belongs in the 1960s. This rally is a vivid and sobering reminder that despite much progress, racial issues persist in America.

It is hard not to be disappointed with both candidates at the Netroots conference if you care about racial issues and believe that the progressive agenda should address them. O’Malley and Sanders do not represent the entire progressive movement, and many progressives see figures like Elizabeth Warren as better embodiments of progressivism. Nevertheless, many have also celebrated and accepted Sanders and even O’Malley as the progressive candidates of the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton has applied the progressive label to herself; however, many progressives point to ways her policies do not, or at least until recently, align with the progressive agenda, including her views on trade, war, crime, and immigration. Therefore, it is important for both O’Malley and Sanders–as the more staunchly progressive candidates–to take the issue of race seriously and incorporate it into their platforms.

In a way, this event was a positive experience for both candidates and the Democratic nominees who were not present. They are now keenly aware of the importance of substantively addressing concerns of minority communities if they expect these communities to rally behind them in large numbers. In 2012, the Tea Party was a dominant political movement and when Republican candidates realized this, they made sure to appeal to the group’s cause, for better or for worse. Likewise, movements like Black Lives Matter are important political trends for the coming election season.

The events at the Netroots conference not only bring to light the lack of attention being paid to issues of race by Democrats, but also highlights the continued struggle by black activists to get support from well-meaning, white progressives. These activists are frustrated since progressives are generally concerned with racial issues but have yet to take significant action. This is the result. In their failure to adequately address these concerns, O’Malley and Sanders proved the protesters’ point: the progressive agenda does not adequately address specific issues that affect black Americans and other minorities.

In the wake of the Netroots conference, one blogger commented that at this event “even progressives, sympathetic allies to the Black Lives Matter movement got a tiny taste of what the movement is REALLY about. It’s about having your voice heard and taken seriously.” Those who participated in the protest were aware of this significance. “They all fumbled when we brought black issues to the table,” said one of the protesters speaking on the event–“that was by design.”

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time for Progressives to Step Up and Talk About Race appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama granted clemency to 46 federal prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses on Monday, 14 of whom faced life sentences. This move comes amid a broader push for prison reform, in an attempt to fix issues like overcrowding and disparate minority prison populations–especially for nonviolent drug offenses. In a political atmosphere that is too often hyper-ideological and unproductive, criminal justice reform appears to be one arena where real change is happening.

President Obama has granted clemency to prisoners in the past, especially for drug-related offenses, and has made prison reform a sticking point of his presidency. Last year, the Department of Justice announced a new initiative that allows drug offenders to petition for a sentence reduction or clemency–an attempt to reflect modern sentencing practices. With the latest 46, Obama raises the total number of commutations during his presidency to 89. While some criticize Obama for not acting strongly enough on this issue, he has now granted the most commutations in the modern era. The inmates, who will be released by mid-November, are among more than 30,000 who have applied for clemency since the new initiative. Although very few of these cases will reach the President’s desk, the recent commutations mark an important step symbolically. As he approaches the last year of his presidency, President Obama’s executive actions have the power to shape the future of these issues.

There are a number of problems with the justice system that activists and politicians are currently working to address. The United States has an incarceration rate of  700 per 100,000 citizens, the highest of any nation including authoritarian countries like Russia and Cuba. Among the federal prison population, over half are serving for drug-related offenses and nearly three-fourths are nonviolent offenders with no history of violence. There is also a large racial disparity, with Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately represented in American prisons. A 2005 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found some troubling trends in recidivism. About two-thirds of released prisoners were arrested again within three years and three-quarters were arrested within five years.

President Obama is not the only one addressing criminal justice reform, as it is an issue that has generated strong bipartisan support. In 2014, the Justice Department reported the first decline in the federal prison population in 34 years. Former Attorney General Eric Holder attributed this change to new initiatives intended to improve sentencing fairness. Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to reduce the penalties for most drug crimes and later made that change apply retroactively. High profile cases also highlight the need for reform, including that of Kalief Browder, a man who committed suicide after being wrongfully imprisoned for six years at Riker’s Island. As this issue rises into the public light, more and more people are calling for substantive reform.

In a political climate that is increasingly partisan, it often feels like there is no common ground that would allow for significant change. Prison reform is one issue with which Republicans and Democrats can cooperate and help people get their lives back, help prevent people from throwing their lives away, and save money that shouldn’t be spent on nonviolent criminals in the first place. In granting these prisoners clemency, President Obama sends a powerful message about his willingness to lead on this issue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Clemencies Mark Symbolic Push for Prison Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, oil and gas giant BP agreed to a $18.7 billion settlement with the U.S. government for damages to the Gulf Coast caused by its 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Since 2010, BP has made concerted efforts to repair the damage caused by the disaster. This agreement, if accepted by a federal judge, will settle the remaining state and federal claims against the company. This settlement will help facilitate the continued Gulf recovery efforts and sends a strong messages to other oil companies: if you cause damage, you will pay to fix it. But while $18.7 billion does seem like a large amount–it’s the largest settlement ever reached for environmental damage–the question remains: is it enough?

In April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank, causing a sea-floor oil leak that took 87 days to control. During that period, an estimated 200 million gallons of crude oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, damaging approximately 68,000 square miles of water and almost 500 miles of U.S. coastline. To put these numbers in context, the Deepwater Horizon spill leaked 19 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989. Some of the environmental impacts may not be fully understood for decades, and while the Gulf economy has experienced a revival, there are still lingering effects from the disaster.

Within weeks of the disaster, BP announced that it pledged billions of dollars to aid the cleanup and recovery effort. While these efforts marked a show of good faith, it is also important to note that the company faced intense public outrage, not to mention potential backlash from the Justice Department to penalize BP. This move ensured that investors did not flee the company and helped keep the Justice Department at bay. In 2012, BP agreed to a class action settlement with attorneys representing thousands of individuals and organizations affected by the spill. In the wake of this agreement, many Gulf Coast residents came forward to claim damages, including some whose claims were dubious at best. This was controversial–a deal once celebrated by BP became an agreement which from the company’s perspective took advantage of its good intentions. In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty to 12 felonies, settling another component of its liability, and paid the government $4.5 billion in fines.

It would appear that BP is being heavily penalized for the 2010 spill–spending $25 billion directly afterwards, $4.5 billion in government penalties, and agreeing to this $18.7 billion settlement–but these repercussions are not as severe as they seem. While BP made considerable efforts to clean up the Gulf and pay for damages, the company has also kept its own interests in mind. BP spent $500 million on a campaign to rebrand its image after the spill, and in 2013 it launched a PR push to complain about fraudulent damage claims. Although the company protested fraudulent claims, the federal government also cracked down harshly on those who made false claims, making these concerns largely invalid.

The incident hasn’t really damaged BP’s financial situation. The company reported profits of $5.3 billion just a year after the Gulf spill, and until the recent decline in oil prices, continued to thrive. Instead of the $54 billion that BP will likely end up spending overall, Louisiana’s top aide for coastal affairs, Garret Graves, argues that its true liability should be much larger. Graves extrapolated from settlements of other large oil spills to estimate what the company’s true liability is. According to his calculations it ought to exceed $125 billion.

While some celebrate this settlement, BP likely received a less severe penalty than it deserved. Since this settlement will resolve all of the government’s remaining claims, it is unlikely that BP will be held legally responsible for any long term damage that may be discovered in the future. Despite its issues with the claims process, BP agreed to the terms and must accept the consequences. Any extra payouts that BP claims are almost certainly outweighed by the potential negative effects if BP were to put up a stronger fight. Public outrage would have remained fierce and this would likely have led to a federal campaign to give BP a harsher punishment.

Interestingly, BP’s stock rose sharply after the settlement was announced, likely due to investor confidence that this will end the company’s issues. All that is left now is for the courts to approve of the deal and it will officially become the largest settlement with a single entity in American history. Despite this, BP should thank its lucky stars that it managed to avoid more severe consequences for this spill.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the BP Settlement Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Today the Supreme Court handed down an historic ruling on marriage, striking down state laws that ban same-sex marriage. Always one to out-do himself, Justice Scalia delivered a dissenting opinion of immense rhetorical heft, perhaps even better than his Obamacare dissent. Here are the highlights:

10. “The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Hey, Ginsburg was drunk at ONE State of the Union, don’t hold it against her.

9. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

No, I’m pretty sure this guy still rules everything that the light touches.

8. “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall.”

Hey, as long as you fall with style, it’s all good.

7. “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

Good thing Scalia’s got his glasses on.

6. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Putsch. noun \ˈpu̇ch\ :  a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.

Is Ginsburg the Mockingjay?

5. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages…”

Yikes. I hope they have some ice at the Supreme Court

4. Referring to the makeup of the Supreme Court: “Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

You’re not even real California, just get over it!

3. “…but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that the happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.”

Scalia’s wife may have some words for him when he gets home today.

2. “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”

I don’t think he found any.

1. “Ask the nearest hippie?”

Upon inquiry, the hippie responded, “Who’s Antonin Scalia?”

Bonus:  (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

Takeway of the day: Scalia is very confused. And those brackets certainly aren’t helping.

To read more Scalia fun, make sure to check out the Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes From Antonin Scalia’s Marriage Equality Dissent appeared first on Law Street.

Today the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold important provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But in his strongly worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia used some of the most creative and entertaining language in Supreme Court history. Here are the top 10 funniest quotes from the dissent:

10. “The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.”

I absolutely agree. Not to mention the vociferous remonstrance the Court will face after their incongruous conjecture.

9. “Words no longer have meaning.”

Finally, we can all throw away our dictionaries.

8. “Could anyone maintain with a straight face that §36B is unclear?”

Sorry, I tried my best, but I couldn’t

7. “What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?”

Well if we take the number of words written in the bill at 381, 517 and multiply that by the chances of a writing error at 1 in 1000 words, but account for the flux of the earth’s gravitational field using Gauss’s theorem as it pertains to the Capitol Building, then the chances are 1 in 999, BUT multiplying by the chance of it occurring in the exact places where the issue is mentioned using a factorial… it’s not very likely.

6.”We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

It does have a nice ring to it, but I don’t know how Obama would feel about that.

5 “Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!” Later, “Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!” (tie)

Rhetorical mastery, thy name is Justice Scalia

4. “A sense of belt-and-suspenders caution.”

I hope the Court isn’t ruling on any fashion issues anytime soon.

3. “The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State.” Later, “Because the Secretary is neither one of the 50 States nor the District of Columbia.” (tie)

image courtesy of Gage via Wikipedia

Image Cortesy of Carol Norquist via Flickr

I don’t know. I’m definitely seeing some resemblance here.

2. “Pure Applesauce”

Really, just for me!? No additives or anything!?

1. “The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery…”

It’s jiggery-POkery, not jiggery-poKERY

Bonus Quote:

“Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the ‘interests of graduate students’ into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has ‘graduate students,’ so that ‘graduate students’ must really mean ‘graduate or undergraduate students’? Surely not.”

Besides how random this reference is, of course not. Professors don’t care about undergraduates.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent appeared first on Law Street.

After the federal government bailed out insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the company’s former CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg expressed his gratitude by suing the United States. In 2008 the government lent AIG $85 billion in return for a 79.9 percent stake in the company, which Greenberg claimed was an illegal taking of property from shareholders. Although the court ruled in Greenberg’s favor, it decided not to award the $40 billion in damages that he wanted. This decision, which both sides will likely appeal, could discourage the government from engaging in future bailouts, as such a move could be deemed illegal.

In his ruling, Judge Thomas Wheeler stated that the Fed had crossed the legal line in demanding an equity stake in the company; however, he did not believe that AIG’s shareholders had been damaged by the move. Since the company would have gone bankrupt without government funding, he did not award damages. According to Wheeler, “20 percent of something [is] better than 100 percent of nothing.”

While Wheeler acknowledged the positive effects of the bailout, he also argued that the government should not have taken such a large portion of the company’s ownership. But without that requirement, the government may not have been confident enough to give billions of dollars to a company that was failing due to risky business practices. The ruling could create a precedent that discourages the government from dealing with future financial crises. Many Americans are upset by Greenberg’s victory, especially because the taxpayer-financed bailout clearly saved AIG.

AIG and several other companies were involved in the sale of credit default swaps, but as the value of its mortgage-backed securities fell, its credit was downgraded because it could not provide adequate collateral to back outstanding loans. No private creditors were willing to provide money to the company since AIG was in a downward spiral and any loan would mean taking on a considerable amount of risk. But if AIG did not receive the necessary collateral, it would have almost certainly gone bankrupt and its collapse could have disastrously affected the global economy. As a result, the federal government stepped in. The Fed offered AIG an $85 billion bailout package, but also required the company to give a 79.9 percent stake to the U.S. government, which later grew to as much as 92 percent.

AIG signed the deal the same day it was offered. The company not only avoided bankruptcy but also rebounded to an even larger recovery than expected. Since 2010, AIG made a series of moves to gain value and the U.S. government sold back its last shares in 2012, generating about $22 billion for taxpayers.

So what exactly was Greenberg upset about? He sued the Fed because he believes that demanding an 80 percent stake in the company as a condition of the bailout violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. As the largest stockholder, he argues that the terms of the bailout constituted an illegal taking of shareholders’ property. Big banking corporations were arguably just as guilty as AIG of risky practices, yet they received much more lenient terms for government funding. Greenberg notes that the terms given to Morgan Stanley and Citigroup were much more generous.

In what has been termed “backdoor bailouts,” corporations like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America ended up receiving AIG bailout funds, but without the same demands. Because these banks were the largest creditors of AIG, they received some of the $85 billion without any terms and despite their involvement in the risky investments. When Greenberg brought his case to the AIG Board in an attempt to get the corporation to join the lawsuit, they declined–particularly because it would have created a PR nightmare for the company. The sad thing is that Greenberg’s case has some validity–other giant corporations were bailed out but did not face harsh penalties.

Despite Greenberg’s argument, the fact remains that the government’s actions saved AIG and its stockholders from imminent bankruptcy. The terms of the bailout were steep since AIG was grossly insolvent, and the loan was riskier than many of the other bailouts. Moreover, the influx of $85 billion was worth much more than the $12.8 billion that the company was worth on the day before the bailout. Some, like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have also pointed out that the rate at which the Fed loaned AIG money, known as the Libor rate, was artificially low at the time due to manipulation by several large banks. As a result it saved AIG and other bailout recipients millions or even billions of dollars. Greenberg’s frustration over not being treated exactly the same as others sounds like it belongs more in a kindergarten classroom than in a courtroom.

The results of this case will almost certainly affect how the government deals with any future financial crises. Due to the dramatic amount of money the government gave AIG and the circumstances that led to its downfall, the government decided to demand assets, a deal that AIG accepted. This case may set precedent that harsh terms for a bailout, even when they are crucial to the health of the U.S. economy, may be deemed illegal, forcing the government to use a light hand when a heavy one is needed. Although he technically won, Greenberg did not receive the money he wanted, sending another powerful message: if the government bails you out, good luck trying to get compensation for the terms.

The U.S. government found AIG a stray, starving dog with no one else willing to feed it. Sure, AIG wasn’t given Purina like some of the other dogs, but it was fed enough to survive and get back on its feet. In response, Greenberg decided to bite the hand that fed him. Maybe we should have left AIG to face the hungry hounds of the free market.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Ruling May Stop Future Bank Bailouts appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most recent applications of Indianapolis’ new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not exactly what supporters of the bill expected when Governor Mike Pence signed it into law in March. The bill was designed to ensure that personal religious liberties are not infringed upon, seeking to reflect a federal bill of the same name. Following this decision, a new church named the First Church of Cannabis, sought to gain recognition as a religious group. Its founder, Bill Levin, recently received IRS certification that it is officially a nonprofit charitable organization. This group, created in Indiana, plans to have its first service on July 1, which Levin says will include smoking marijuana. There’s just one problem: marijuana is illegal in Indiana. However, since this is in the context of a religious service, Levin believes he has the right to smoke marijuana without having his religious liberties infringed upon. This claim as a church will have to be defended legally, but Levin, in an interesting application of the new law, is pressing on with plans for the July 1 meeting, which is when RFRA takes effect.

Since its passing, the Indiana RFRA bill been very controversial, with individuals, businesses, and even government officials from other states stating their concerns that its language would allow discrimination against LGBT citizens for religious reasons. Although Pence oversaw a change to the law on April 4 that added a section saying that it cannot supersede local laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many local Indiana municipalities do not have such anti-discrimination laws. Also, despite what some proponents of the bill have argued, Indiana’s RFRA bill is not the same as its federal counterpart. Before this bill, and currently in most states, laws that are neutral and generally applicable are only subject to a “rationality review,” and religious objections would be less likely to overrule basic laws. Under Indiana’s bill, even neutral and generally applicable laws are now subject to “strict scrutiny” and allow for religious objections to such laws.

Despite these issues, there is still a lot of support for the bill, especially among conservative media. Most proponents argue that it will not be used for discrimination, but rather it will protect religious observers from being forced to act against their faith. On his Fox News show, Todd Starnes argued that the Indiana bill does not allow for discrimination, although the language of the bill does seem to allow it. He mentions that “bakers, photographers, wedding planners, even pastors” are being attacked “simply because they choose to live out their religious beliefs.” In a heated (and not very productive) discussion on his show, Sean Hannity and two of his guests stated their fears of infringement upon religious rights, repeatedly arguing that discrimination is not the issue at hand. While many have stuck to this position, some, like constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, admit that the provision protects the practice of faith to the point of discrimination.

Upon hearing about the Church of Cannabis, the religious Right who fervently supported Indiana’s bill, are now singing a different tune. Bill O’Reilly, host of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox, discussed the bill on April 9 during his “Talking Points” segment. O’Reilly praised the Indiana bill for “providing people of faith with an avenue of legal challenge.” In a later show, O’Reilly labelled the first Church of Cannabis a “con,”  and pointed to the conflict between the church doctrine and the state’s marijuana laws. But, this is exactly what the Indiana law was intended to do: allow religious objections to supersede laws that a believer claims is in conflict with his or her faith. When discussing the implications of RFRA for the Church of Cannabis, O’reilly stated, “it’s really a different situation.” Is it a different situation because the religion in question is not Christianity? If there is a strict investigation to determine if the Church of Cannabis is a genuine religious group, should the same apply to all religious objections?

While the First Church of Cannabis has to legally prove that it is a church before the protections of Indiana’s bill are applicable, should a Christian believer have to prove their faith and the legitimacy of their place of worship before being allowed to pose a religious objection under RFRA? In her statement on the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that she believed in “keeping the courts ‘out of the business of evaluating’ . . . the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held.” And while courts have historically analyzed the sincerity of religious beliefs, it has only been on a basic factual level.

The development of this new church in Indiana has brought to light two issues with Indiana’s RFRA. The first is that, when applied in a context different from what supporters originally imagined, the support for its effects begins to wane. A law about religious freedom that is only meant to affect certain religions violates its own principles of protecting religious liberty; however, this is the exact context under which the bill was passed. Secondly, the validity of concern over religious freedom is subject to question. Given the rulings of the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, Church of Lukumi Babalau Aye vs. City of Hialeah, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and most recently in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch, it appears that religious liberty is alive and thriving. In this situation it is almost certainly the rights of LGBT citizens that are under the greatest threat. Moreover, despite what some have claimed about the issue, the Supreme Court does not allow religious rights to trump civil rights. In the 1968 case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, and in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Court ruled that a religious defense could not be used to prohibit black people from an amusement park, or prevent interracial dating at a university. In both of these cases, as well as others, the Court ruled that a “compelling government interest” can supersede religious liberty and civil rights have consistently been one such interest.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Church of Cannabis to Open Thanks to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law appeared first on Law Street.

The North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of Senate Bill 2 on Thursday, a move that will allow officials to abstain from performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs. Magistrates may now refuse to perform marriages and deed registrars can refuse to issue certificates for couples if they have a “sincerely held religious objection.”

Both the senate and the house voted to override the governor’s veto in the last two weeks, making the bill North Carolina law. Under the new law, once a magistrate claims a religious objection he or she cannot perform marriages for a six-month period, after which the district court judge may allow them to resume their duties.

McCrory vetoed the bill following a district court ruling earlier this year that struck down North Carolina’s Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After the court’s ruling, McCrory vowed to uphold the decision despite his personal opinions of the issue. In a statement shortly before his recent veto, he said,

Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.

Some citizens and members of the state senate disagree with McCrory’s stance. Senate Leader Phil Berger commented that “if someone takes a job, they don’t park their First Amendment rights at the door. They are entitled to exercise those rights.”

The law stirred up controversy over the intersection of personal religious beliefs and the rights of LGBT citizens. Supporters of marriage equality point to the law as another way to set up roadblocks for same-sex couples. In the time leading up to an important Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, North Carolinians who support gay marriage accuse the state legislature of preemptively seeking loopholes.

Despite some media coverage, the law is not as radical as opponents may claim, especially because it states that all couples who are issued a marriage license will be given a magistrate to marry them. This means that same-sex couples will still be granted licenses, but individual magistrates may now claim an exemption from the process. This law is not as expansive as some other religious liberty laws, such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which saw a significant backlash after its passage. North Carolina’s law places the burden on individual magistrates to claim an objection then wait the six-month period before performing marriages, rather than allowing for blanket exceptions.

Although this law likely will not hinder same-sex marriages in North Carolina, the message and precedent behind it are still important. Allowing public officials  to exempt themselves from laws that bind other citizens is a complicated issue. But as McCrory and Berger’s opinions reveal, there is a significant divide among people over the supremacy of religious beliefs. It makes sense, as Governor McCrory stated, to require public officials to fulfill their sworn duties regardless of their personal opinions. Even in the strongest religious liberty protections, a “compelling government interest” can supersede religion. Although it is seen as one of the strongest and most unalienable rights, religious liberty–both in the courts and in the legislature–has never had supreme authority. The question then remains: where does personal freedom end and civic duty begin? That debate is far from decided.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Same-Sex Couples Be Affected by North Carolina’s Newest Law? appeared first on Law Street.

In a groundbreaking article released on Sunday, the Washington Post reported the findings of a five-month study showing that from January through May 2015, at least 385 people were shot and killed by on-duty police officers in the U.S. The rate of killings, more than two per day, is also more than twice the rate reported by the FBI in the last decade. In addition to the possibility of a spike in police killings, the Post points to the lack of accuracy in past reporting for the disparity. The article also mentions that the FBI itself is aware that its numbers are incomplete, particularly because these statistics are voluntarily submitted by police departments.

Other studies, including a project by the Guardian called The Counted, also reveal the incredible rate of uncounted police shootings. In a period of public outcry over police brutality, it is no coincidence that this issue is finally being addressed. By not requiring accurate statistics to be maintained, the government is only reinforcing public fears of a lack of police accountability. Understanding the extent of this problem is the first step toward being able to properly discuss and analyze it.

The Post study also found some troubling patterns in these shootings. Nearly a quarter of the victims were identified by police or family members as mentally ill. Among the cases identified by the Post, 16 percent of the victims were either unarmed or were carrying toy weapons. Both the the Post and the Guardian investigations highlight the disproportionate killings of blacks and Hispanics, particularly in shootings with unarmed victims. Police treatment of mentally ill suspects and minorities have become a widespread issue on which these studies begin to provide insight.

Although these reports sparked some public outrage, it is important to remember the big picture. More than 80 percent of those killed by police were armed with potentially lethal objects, which likely makes police action justified in many situations.

Police shootings are a complex and nuanced issue. Comparisons between the United States and other nations are not incredibly informative given the vast differences in weapon ownership, crime, and various other characteristics. Furthermore, the demonization of police officers to which some citizens resort, is neither reasonable nor helpful in dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, limiting police shootings is certainly a laudable goal, and gathering accurate data is the best place to start.

Let us not forget the harmful consequences that officer-involved shootings can have on police departments and individual officers. Police officers face the damage–particularly emotional damage–that can be inflicted when they are compelled to use deadly force. Moreover, the divide that such events creates between law enforcement and their communities can be detrimental to their ability to function. Unnecessary police shootings are a losing situation for all sides and must be addressed by law enforcement.

One issue that relates directly to these shootings is police officer training. This issue was addressed from a unique perspective in an article on Police One by Roy Bedard, a close quarters and field tactics specialist who trains police, corrections officers, and military professionals. He cites his own rookie officer training and the training that most new officers receive on handgun use. Officers are trained to fire for the center of mass in order to “shoot to stop,” yet Bedard comments on how “shoot to stop” and “shoot to kill” become synonymous in practice.  With this training, it is no surprise that rough encounters with police have resulted in so many deaths.

It would be foolish to blame police shootings solely on training and decisions made by police officers. In high-intensity situations with civilian lives on the line, as well as their own, police officers must quickly determine the best course of action for all involved. Sometimes this means shooting suspects. Sometimes these shootings save lives and that must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, it is important for police departments to train their officers to use deadly force as sparingly as possible. Many of the cases cited by the Washington Post, as well as several recent high-profile police shootings, point to officers using unnecessary force, which is troubling.

On Tuesday, following growing publicity of these reports, two senators announced their plan to introduce legislation that would require states to report all police-related deaths to the Justice Department. This bill, proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) would require all details of these cases to be reported, including age, race, sex, and the situation surrounding the shooting. With more accurate information, law enforcement will be able to understand the true scope of police shootings and take any necessary steps to reduce them.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Number of Americans Killed By Police is Much Higher Than You Think appeared first on Law Street.

New York City experienced four fatal shootings last Friday night, including the death of Jahhad Marshall, a 22-year-old chef who was killed in Queens. Stacey Calhoun, the victim’s uncle, told the media the next day, “We need stop-and-frisk.” This comes amid a significant call for the return of the controversial NYPD policy. In particular, Stop-and-Frisk supporters cite the nearly 18 percent increase in murders in New York City between January 1 and May 30, 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. Moreover, there was a 7.7 percent increase in shootings–from 403 to 434–during the same period.

In the wake of the increase in murders, particularly shooting-related murders, the heated debate over the efficacy of stop-and-frisk has returned. Supporters of the policy cite the dramatic decrease in crime in New York City since 2002, when stop-and-frisk became more frequently used. Between 2002 and 2011, there was a steady increase in stop-and-frisk related stops from 97,296 to 685,724. In this same period, there was a steady decrease in shooting deaths, as well as overall murders. Proponents argue that the threat of being searched leads to decreased gun possession and thus decreased gun violence. Therefore, many supporters of stop-and-frisk blame Mayor Bill de Blasio’s reigning in of the policy for the increased number of murders in 2015, particularly firearm murders. In a recent interview with FOX News, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik blamed the increase in crime in 2015 on the dismantling of stop-and-frisk, citing it as the reason for the decrease in crime in New York City.

Contrarily, a lot of  evidence suggests that stop-and-frisk was not a successful policy. The policy’s opponents point to the general inefficacy of the stops, about 90 percent of which did not result in further police action. Although former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others have defended the racial disparity of the stops by asserting that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes, the NYCLU found that whites were twice as likely to possess  a weapon when stopped. Furthermore, the dramatic increase in stops between 2004 and 2011 did not lead to a dramatic increase in the number of weapons found (176 additional guns found in 524,873 additional stops). Following the controversy over the policy in 2011, the use of stop-and-frisk was dramatically reduced, and while searches decreased by 72 percent between 2011 to 2013, murders fell by 35 percent, and shootings fell by 29 percent. This shows that the continued trend of declining crime in New York City, as well as across the country, that has occurred since 1993 continued even with a dramatic cutback in the use of stop-and-frisk. This evidence seems to suggest that increased use of stop-and-frisk does not guarantee a decrease in the number of murders or shootings.

The bottom line is that it is statistically and logically imprudent to assert that the changing of one police policy is the cause of the increase in murders in New York City so far in 2015. It is possible that stop-and-frisk does limit violent crime; however, it is too soon to tell whether the policy’s removal under Mayor de Blasio is the reason for the additional murders this year. The small sample size of five months, relative to the 24 year trend of decreasing murder, also makes such assumptions fairly weak. Furthermore, the decrease in other crimes, including robbery, felony assault, burglary, and grand larceny point to the issue being more nuanced and complicated than some will admit. Other issues such as the growing civil unrest over police brutality and the possibility of a spike in gang activity are all possible causes. Mayor de Blasio has addressed those who blame his cutbacks on stop-and-frisk for the increased violence and has cited, among other factors, the possibility of gang-on-gang violence.

Contrary to opinions on both sides of the debate, the presence of stop-and-frisk is not an “all-or-nothing” situation. It is possible that the NYPD could return to the frequency of stops that it employed in 2002 while still limiting violence. Perhaps the threat of being searched does limit the possession of guns, as proponents of stop-and-frisk assert. On the other hand, the statistics don’t show that an increase in stops will lead to significantly more weapons seizures. Furthermore, the correlation between greater searches and fewer murders is far from definitive.

It is important to separate legitimate criticism of police tactics from a lack of respect and gratitude for their work. Some sensationalist defenders of stop-and-frisk will try to spin the attacks on the policy as such, and thus delegitimize an important debate. While there is no doubt that those who serve in police forces are brave and essential to our well being, it is important to constantly question and refine police methods.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the End of Stop-and-Frisk to Blame for the Growth in NYC Murders? appeared first on Law Street.