Knowledge About Supreme Court Vacancies May Affect Polling Results

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia came as quite a shock to the public this week, and has raised many questions about what happens next now that there is a vacancy. The death of Scalia, the notorious supporter of conservatism, has raised many opinions about who should choose the next justice, whether a justice should be chosen now, or whether it would be best to wait until after the 2016 election.

In a report by the New York Times earlier this week, the poll results of a poll taken by Morning Consult showed that forty-six percent of registered voters said the next justice should be nominated by the president this year, while thirty-nine percent said the winner of the 2016 election should be the one to put forth a nominee. According to the report, seventy-five percent of the people surveyed said they had heard “some” or “a lot” about the death of Scalia, but it was impossible to tell how much the individuals surveyed knew about Supreme Court vacancies.

It makes sense as to why people wouldn’t know very much about the process of vacancies, seeing as the last time a vacancy occurred during an election year was almost 50 years ago, during the last term of Lyndo

n B. Johnson. Having that in mind, the New York Times asking Morning Consult to add a few questions to the survey about Supreme Court vacancies to reveal how much those being surveyed knew about the process. For examples, individuals surveyed would be asked about the average number of days from the time of nomination to vote for a successor (25), the longest number of days for a nominee’s confirmation (125), and the number of days Obama has left in office (340).

The results showed that respondents were more likely to say the justice should be nominated this year when given more historical context. However, the results also changed when the question of when the next judge should be selected was phrased in different ways. When asked who should do the nominating instead of when the nominating should take place, the number of respondents saying that the winner of the 2016 election should make the decision rose to 44 percent from 39 percent. This reveals that President Obama also plays a key role in the opinions of registered voters concerning this issue. During his presidency, Obama has taken a lot of heat for his policies. Some politicians and spectators believe that the policies are getting criticism by Americans simply because Obama is the one initiating them. In my opinion, this is another example of people not wanting something simply because Obama has the power to choose the course of action. Also, Justice Scalia was a strong conservative, and often conservatives would outrank liberals in court decisions 5-4. Due to his death, the Democrats have a chance to nominate a liberal justice, therefore turning the tables on issues in the Supreme Court. In this time of conflictual political culture, the Republicans in Congress, already feeling not politically tolerant of Obama, will no doubt do all they can to try and prevent Obama’s nominee from reaching the Supreme Court.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/upshot/should-obama-pick-nominee-your-answer-may-depend-on-how-much-history-you-know.html?ref=topics

Unit 1 Post

Do Subpoenas Demanding Secrecy Violate the Constitution?

In numerous, documented cases involving the law, tension between prosecutors, defense lawyers, witnesses, and judges was caused by the controversial issue of “secrecy subpoenas.” More specifically, the issue at hand is whether or not prosecutors, eager to protect their cases, go too far and even violate a constitutional right when asking a witness to keep quiet about a subpoena. 

A federal subpoena arrived at the offices of Zuccarello, Zerillo & Co. in early March of 2015. Prosecutors wanted records of one of the firm’s clients: the Gigliottis, who were under investigation for cocaine smuggling. In the subpoena was a message written in capital letters: “You are hereby directed not to disclose the existence of this subpoena, as it may impede an ongoing investigation.” The secrecy demand triggered a fierce rebuke of the US Attorney’s office in Brooklyn by a federal judge. According to Judge Raymond J. Dearie, “Policy was violated multiple times [in New York] and it is apparent that such violations are not isolated to this case.” In fact, violations are not just isolated to New York either. Records show that subpoenas around the country have come dangerously close to violating the constitution as well. 

In the summer of 2015, Mike Alissa, publisher of the magazine Reason, received a subpoena from federal prosecutors in Manhattan asking for the account information of all commentators from Reason.com who posted threatening comments towards a federal judge. The cover letter of the subpoena read, “The Government hereby requests that you voluntarily refrain from disclosing the existence of the subpoena to any third party,” adding that the recipient was not under any obligation. By law, this is legal. 

The difference between the subpoena Alissa received and the subpoena received by Zuccarello, Zerillo & Co. is that the Alissa subpoena suggested that the recipient keep it a secret instead of demanding it.The problem with demanding that a recipient keep a subpoena a secret is that it violates the First Amendment, which includes the Establishment Clause and
 the right of freedom of speech. Therefore, prosecutors cannot demand that a subpoena recipient keep the investigation a secret, or else they are violating that person's constitutional rights. According to Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, “[Under the First Amendment] the government is not allowed to silence its citizens without satisfying the highest standard in the law, and even then only after judicial review…” By law, recipients of subpoenas are allowed to tell anyone about them.

Essentially, the difference between a subpoena violating the constitution and a legal subpoena is word choice. Although prosecutors are not allowed to demand subpoena secrecy, they are entitled to suggest that the recipient of a subpoena keeps the information to themselves. After reading this article, I agree that prosecutors need to be more careful about the wording of their subpoenas, or else there could be issue an issue with impeding the recipient's right to freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is not considered a natural right, it is an expressed power. Freedom of speech is a right that is not taken for granted in our country, and is consistently used to defend the actions of citizens. 

Want to know more about how subpoenas work? Watch this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzIz-6fghMs

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/nyregion/prosecutorssecrecy-orders-on-subpoenas-stir-constitutional-questions.html?ref=topics&_r=1