Antonin Scalia 1936-2016

On February 13, 2016 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away while staying at a ranch house in Shafter, Texas. Scalia served as a Justice for 30 years and was known as a man of his faith who stuck to what he believed in. "Scalia was known as a consistent and principle defender of free speech rights."(Liptak). Scalia was well known and even sometimes infamous for his stance on free speech, as some argued he only defended speech he agreed with. If Scalia will be remembered for anything it is how strongly opinionated he is, mostly tying back to his religious roots. This article also points how the other justices vote when it came to free speech cases and organized by speech that was backed by conservative claim vs liberal claims. Clearly there is a bias in the high court as to what free speech should be free.

Scalia's death raised many other questions as well. When appointing the next justice, should religious beliefs be taken into consideration. This due to the fact many believed that Scalia's decisions were based solely off his christian morals and beliefs. So, the question is how can you eliminate bias in the Supreme court without having justices voting for things they don't believe in. If justices are making decisions based on their political beliefs or their religious views than the system is flawed. There is no denying Justice Scalia had a an incredible impact on the judicial system and did some really great things but going forward I would like to see someone a little more even keeled replace him and hopefully find some balance in the Supreme Court.
 

Freedom of the Press Doesn't Come Free

Freedom of the Press is a well debated topic especially in recent news. Where do we draw the line? At what point does the media take it too far? In 2015, some anti-abortion activist made a documentary about planned parenthood that clearly crossed the line. David Daleidan and Sandra Merritt were the pro-life activist who discretely filmed their interaction with a planned parenthood in Texas. The whole point of their documentary was to prove that Planned Parenthood was selling fetal parts or tissues for profit. They also found government documents that related to the point they were trying to make and altered them to bolster their claim of wrong doing. Daleidan and Merritt failed epically as it was proven that Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal parts as both have been indicted for altering government documents and attempting to purchase fetal tissue. You may say well case closed, this was one singular example and this is not something that happens often but you would be wrong. In this case, yes they were not main stream media, but they are acting in similar ways as some large media giants.

Modern Media either swings left or right and they will do whatever necessary to push their liberal or conservative agenda. Which includes making wild, fact-less claims as well as in some cases just flat out lying. This was the case with world famous NBC reporter Brian Williams. So how is this really any different than Daleidan and Merrit's documentary? The First Amendment protects the media through freedom of press but there has to be some other form of regulation. News is so instantaneous and accessible it is even more crucial that every piece of information put out be reputable, and of course there will always be the TMZ's of the world, but we can't have the self proclaimed reputable news sources making wild accusations and lies. How can the First Amendment protect a modern media that can lie to the nation without consequence?