Money influence in our courts

Unlike federal judges, most state court judges are elected.That stems from the democratic (notice the lower-case "d" in that word] movement of the Jacksonian era. Elected judges, the thinking went, would be less influenced by politics if they were elected (I know, sounds odd, doesn't it?)

At any rate, we like to think that our judicial system is impartial and that our judges use only their knowledge of the Constitution and state laws to objectively decide cases and appeals.
But since the release of campaign money in the last few years, much has changed. On the Media, a respected radio program bringing news about journalism, has released a story this week that refutes the idea that elected judges are impartial.

Click below to listen to the podcast (only a few minutes) about how campaign contributions are not only helping to decide who sits to preside over a case or hear an appeal, but also influences how that person decides issues.

Click here to listen.

Short-term memory-itis

A few years ago, Bill Clinton came to campus and gave a memorable speech. One of his many themes that night involved our attachment to the new and our disregard for anything that occurred later than this morning. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram all encourage us to focus on this second. Who posted what in the last thirty seconds? That seems to encompass much of our waking hours.

Historians have our own version of this phenomena. We focus on minute details and short periods of time. A recent study found that doctoral dissertations in history reported that in 1900 the average period studied by doctoral students was about 75 years. By 1975, when the historical profession was in the throes of a movement called microhistory, the span was down to 30 years. My own dissertation covered 66 years--out of the totality of US history, that's not much.

Now, two historians are calling on the profession to expand its gaze again--to focus on the macro level--to see what I so annoyingly keep referring to as "the big picture." I agree and I applaud such advice to young historians. For more, see this summary of the authors' argument:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/10/16/reclaiming-history-for-the-future/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Like your free speech?

Anyone who appreciates our nearly absolute right to free speech in this country should thank some students at UC Berkeley from fifty years ago.

It's hard to believe, but as late as the 1960s, students had little right to express themselves or to hear countermajoritarian viewpoints. To learn more, click here for a fascinating New York Times story about the student free speech movement that was ignited on the Berkeley campus and quickly spread.

Only within the last fifty years has the nation adopted a culture of open expression. I'll leave any further thoughts about this to you.