+
牛
opinion
Text your #FFA submissions to 785-289-UDK1 (8351)
Yes we don't have assigned seats, but you're kinda sitting where I like to sit. Please kindly relocate yourself.
Over heard in class: "I definitely took a couple years off my life this weekend"
No way in hell t-swift deserved the album of the year award. NOT AT ALL. Kendrick should've taken it.
I really wish I could take all the business minor courses again
No time for sleep?
Coffee. No time for
food? Coffee. No time
for homework? Coffee.
Huge shoutout to the boys who live below me for the constant blaring music. You make the world a better place.
Editor's note: Maybe you should just shake it off.
I woke up a half hour ago and I already want to take a nap
Charcoal drawings for class = charcoal facials in class
86 days until commencement
My middle school experience can be summed up by that scene in The Revenant where Leo is savaged repeatedly by that grizzly bear.
To the 41 bus driver who is always super nice to me: You're the best, and I hope you have a great day.
You wouldn't like me when I'm hangry.
Oh, another parking ticket? Put it on my tab.
I've been single for 10 years...I'm gonna be single forever probably.
Editor's Note: You and me both, kid.
READ MORE AT KANSAN.COM
@KANSANNEWS
/THEKANSAN
KANSAN.NEWS
@UNIVERSITY
DAILYKANSAN
Jake Kaufmann/KANSAN
PRO/CON: Should the Next Supreme Court justice be appointed by Obama?
► DANYA ISSAWI
@danyasawi
YES
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing last weekend has created more than just a vacancy on the Supreme Court bench — a controversy seems to have manifested itself in the wake of his death. There now remains a dead-even split within the remaining justices on the political spectrum. Four lean toward the liberal left while the other four swing toward the conservative right. This means the next Supreme Court appointee could be a pivotal piece in tipping the
scale toward either political extremity.
extremity. With the presidential election around the corner, the Republican Party is calling on President Obama to hold off on nominating a new justice in hopes of barring a left-leaning nominee from getting the nomination. The irony in this, as Obama points out, is that the Republican Party is well-known for adhering quite strictly to the Constitution, which lays out an essentially straightforward plan for the subsequent nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Although a liberal nominee is unlikely to receive confirmation or even have a confirmation hearing from the majority-Republican Senate, the selection of an appointee is still under Obama's jurisdiction with a little less than 300 days left in his term. "Your job doesn't stop until you are voted out or until your term expires," Obama said in a speech Tuesday.
To say that the responsibility of appointing a new justice should simply be passed down to Obama's successor is nonsensical. If a doctor is in the emergency room with the knowledge that his or her shift is over in 10 minutes, do they take a seat in the nearest swivel chair and twiddle their thumbs while patients strapped to gurneys are rushed past?
needs to be done. Although Obama's days in office may be numbered, he has the constitutional right to appoint the nominee he deems best fit to fill Scalia's seat in the Supreme Court.
No. There is a job that
This comes down to an inability to perpetuate a bipartisan democracy. If the roles were reversed, and Democrats were meddling with the nomination process during the tenure of a Republican president, the issue would remain the same. In fact, some Democrats have called on Obama to nominate a left-wing "sacrificial lamb" to appease liberal voters and increase their numbers and morale come election time in November.
It is unethical to attempt to tamper with the judiciary process already long-established as a means to gain political ground in an election season. Regardless of the potential nominee's political affiliation, the external forces attempting to meddle with our country's constitutionality are a sad indicator of the United States' current political climate and of our inability to take into account the long-term effects of our short-term decisions.
Danya Issawi is a sophomore from Kansas City studying journalism.
- Edited by Madi Schulz
▶ RACHEL GONZALES
@rachellnoel
NO
News surfaced Friday of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Since then, controversy has sparked as a result of Republicans in the Senate stating their intent to block any nominee from President Obama. While Supreme Court justices are nominated by the current president, it is up to the Senate to "advise and consent" the president's nomination, according to the U.S. Constitution.
The timing of Scalia's death presents a unique opportunity for American citizens to have a more pronounced voice in the selection of our
next justice. Blocking the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice until a new president has been elected would allow Americans to directly influence who will take Scalia's place.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. Several Republican officials, including almost all of the current GOP presidential candidates, have endorsed his position.
The fact that Republicans want to block a last-minute appointment by Obama seems to be, on the surface, a strategy to ensure Republican representation on the bench.
Democrats such as Senator Elizabeth Warren have said such a block "threatens our democracy." However, a block by the Senate essentially puts the nomination back into the hands of the people who may or may not have changed their political opinions over the course of Obama's terms. It is more progressive to allow the current voice of Americans to be considered instead of assuming that the majority of American people would still choose Obama as the right person to nominate a justice.
Senators, like presidents, are elected officials who Americans have voted to trust with the well-being of our democracy. The rights guaranteed to the Senate are equally as important as those guaranteed to the president. America was
set up with branches of government intended to check and balance each other. It is fundamental to democracy that the rights of all branches are equally recognized.
"The Senate's right to delay or reject nominees is an important weapon in the constant struggle for advantage between the executive and legislative branches," said Berkley Law professor John Yoo, who worked for the Department of Justice during the Bush administration.
where does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations."
Democrats have criticized the potential block as being unconstitutional, but just as the Constitution guarantees President Obama the right to appoint a nominee, it also guarantees the Senate the right to consent to the nomination. As Adam White writes in the Weekly Standard, "No-
Because democracy requires that the nomination for a new justice ultimately lie in the hands of the people, the question becomes: Which election results should be taken into account? An appointee chosen by Barack Obama would represent an outdated American voice. America does not need a justice who reflects an administration that is on the way out the door. We don't need a judge who will represent the past; we need one who will represent the future.
Rachel Gonzales is a junior from Fort Collins, Colo. studying journalism and sociology
How to combat inaccuracies in Facebook politics
▶ MADDY MIKINSKI
@Miss_Maddy
Around this time during the campaign cycle, I start to hear complaints about the abundance of political commentary on social media. Yes, oversharing is an issue, but for me an even bigger problem is the spread of misinformation in quotes, headlines and infographics via social media. A lot of times I don't think people mean to spread false information, so I've devised a helpful checklist to help determine what to share and what to avoid.
Step 1: Check the source
As disappointing as it is, not everything written online is true. Looking at the source of an article, blog post or mime is the first step in validating your internet activism. Sometimes simply looking at an article's URL will be enough. Will marcorubio.com really
have the most up-to-date, unbiased information on Jeb Bush's campaign strategy? Probably not. Will Reuters? That's more likely. Turning to a respected news organization such as the Associated Press, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal can ensure that various angles and positions are covered in a fair, unbiased manner. When in doubt, Snopes is a never-fail mythbuster for viral information.
Step 2: Do some recon Last November, Donald Trump retweeted an infographic entitled "USA Crime Statistics - 2015." The facts in the infographic, which seemed to imply that 97 percent of black people are killed by other black people, were attributed to the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco." The information in the infographic doesn't check out, mainly because
the Crime Statistics Bureau doesn't exist in San Francisco or anywhere else in the US. Every infographic should have a source line that lets readers know exactly where the information in the graphic comes from. The same can apply to quotes. In 2014, US Representative Jody Hice began sharing incorrect Founding Father quotes to gain publicity for his campaign. For example, one John Quincy Adams quote Hice posted has only been found in management books. Doing basic research on a quote or infographic's sources is a quick way to make sure that the information you're sharing is completely accurate.
Step 3: Don't get framed Sometimes ill-intentioned writers can sneak their own opinions into works that are supposed to be objective. Word choice that adds an editorial slant to facts such
as using "calculating" in the place of "forward-thinking" or "bossy" instead of "confident" are examples of writers fiddling with word connotations to get their opinions across. Similarly, opinion columns should have easily-defined facts. If a news organization doesn't differentiate between its editorial content and its news coverage, then pick a different place to get your news. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it shouldn't be based on the truth. If a description of a candidate seems a little too editorialized, maybe it's time to move on to another article.
Step 4: Memes are no reliable sources for information
Memes are fun, but they're not a place to find your daily news — especially if there's a minion on it. Using memes to relay information to your followers and friends is a blatant violation of steps 1-3. No reliable news organization ever uses memes to convey vital political information. Memes never have a source line; therefore, any facts presented in them cannot actually be backed up with research and sourcing. Finally, everything from the grainy picture to whatever's written in that aesthetically-pleasing, black-borderlined font is created by a person trying to get their own ideas out to as many people as possible. I'm not trying to stifle the spread of memes (God forbid), but I am saying that they're probably not the most effective way to convince your followers to vote for your favorite candidate. And isn't that what social media's all about?
Maddy Mikinski is a senior from Linuvood studying English and journalism.
HOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
LETTER GUIDELINES: Send letters to editor@kansan.com. Write LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the email subject line.
Length: 300 words
The submission should include the author's name, year, major and hometown. Find our full letter to the editor policy online at kansan.com/letters.
CONTACT US
Vicky Diaz-Camacho
Editor-in-chief
vickyde.kansan.com
Gage Brock
Business Manager
gbrock@kansan.com
THE KANSAN EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the Kansan Editorial Board are Vicky Diaz-Camacho, Kate Miller, Gage Brock and Maddy Mikinski
+