The Court Can't Stop Progress

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/26/the-supreme-court-meets-the-real-world/justices-put-great-weight-on-existing-property-interests

    In this article Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, explains that the Supreme Court doesn't like to go against "established practices" or take away rights that have already been given. For example, when the Court ruled on the constitutionality of a national federal bank, many people had already invested their money in that bank, meaning the Supreme Court was less likely to rule it unconstitutional. Since Obamacare has been upheld, judges are now reluctant to overturn it since people have planned their care around it and getting rid of it now would affect far more people. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Court will rule existing same-sex marriages invalid even if it rules same-sex marriage unconstitutional. However, Amar says regardless of the ruling, the spread of same-sex marriage is "irreversible" and will not stop.
      I agree that the Court should be careful about what laws, rulings, ect., they overturn. They should definitely consider how many people will be affected and whether it will be positive or negative. I don't think the Court should rule against same-sex marriage because that would seriously affect couples who were in the process of or planning on getting married. Every time a same-sex marriage ban is lifted, news reports show multiple couples getting married as soon as possible- and many of them are above the usual age of marriage and have been together for years. Same-sex couples wait for years just to be able to marry the person they love - it would be horrible if the Supreme Court set back all the progress that has been made for them.

The President goes on Youtube!

http://www.voanews.com/content/youtube-stars-to-interview-obama-glozell-mota-hank-green/2609416.html

     In this article, Matthew Hilburn discusses Obama's interviews with three Youtubers today. Obama was interviewed by Hank Green (John Green's nerdier brother), GloZell (the woman with green lipstick who swallowed a ladleful of cinnamon), and Bethany Mota (a makeup/fashion guru). Hank, whose main channel is 'vlogbrothers', asked him about drones and the United States' relationship with North Korea. GloZell, whose channel is 'GloZell Green', asked him about recent racial conflicts, particularly Ferguson, and same-sex marriage. Bethany, whose main channel is 'Bethany Mota', asked about education costs, cyberbullying, and how to get younger people interested in politics. Hank has 2.5 million subscribers on his main channel alone, GloZell has close to 3.5 million, and Bethany has more than 8 million.
     I think this isn't a bad idea. Nearly everyone watches Youtube, and most people tend to watch the same channels regularly. If Obama interviews with these three Youtubers, he'll have a combined audience of around 14 million people. I couldn't tell if the author approved of Youtubers or not- he seemed like one of the people who is shocked that you can actually make a successful career out of videos on Youtube. For example, all he had to say about the vlogbrothers' videos was that they "address a wide variety of topics, including how to apologize, flatulence and explaining international news topics.". But in general I think this is an interesting way for politicians to connect with younger generations and I wonder if more politicians will do this.

Congress Actually is a "Bunch of White Dudes Fighting"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-congress.html
  
    In this article, named "The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress", the demographical makeup of Congress is compared to the actual ethnic, gender, and religious makeup of the United States. Congress is almost completely made up of white, male Christians, which does not accurately represent America as a whole. America is split almost exactly in half between women and men (women have a one percent majority). Congress is about one-fifth women, but in the House, only one of the twenty committees is led by a woman. The U.S is, in fact, ranked 98th in the world for the percentage of women on the legislature. A little over half is white, almost 15 percent are African-American, and nearly one-fifth are Latino. While in the House ten percent of the members are African-American, in the Senate they make up only two percent. Latinos make up only 3 percent in the Senate and about 7 percent in the House, hardly the 17 percent they actually make up. Additionally, almost one-fifth of the nation are not Christian, but this Congress is more than ninety percent Christian.
     There is clearly an issue with these demographics. It makes no sense that these percentages are not closer to the true makeup of the United States. These percentages reflect the percentages of the wealthy upper class, which they shouldn't. Other countries are clearly representing minority groups better than we are, so it's not impossible to do. And even though some people argue that our government works more efficiently and allows more freedoms than those governments, there is no reason why properly reflecting the demographics of the U.S would change that. I think this indicates not so much an issue with Congress as it does a serious flaw with our society as a whole. Whites tend to be higher in the economic bracket than people of color, and we tend to vote for them, especially if they are male and Christian. We need to adjust our thinking to accept America as it is and work to fix the prejudices that affect so many people's choices.