Brown puts his John Hancock on a big stack of bills. Supreme Court to take up health reform, immigration, profanity and more. Did Anwar al-Awlaki deserve due process? Got sex appeal? Use it to get ahead!
Brown puts his John Hancock on a big stack of bills
Governor Jerry Brown has been busily working his way through some 600 legislative bills on his desk – the bills must be either signed or vetoed by October 9th. So far he’s approved 145 and vetoed 14.
Among the bills that have received the governor’s stamp of approval: one that prohibits cities from banning male circumcision, which was crafted in response to a controversial ballot measure in San Francisco, which was struck down by a Superior Court judge in June; a measure that creates penalties for selling synthetic marijuana, which purportedly has effects similar to the real thing; a bill that prevents local governments from banning union labor agreements on publicly-funded construction projects and one that allows museums and nonprofits to display dead mountain lions. And he’s nixed around 14, some with pithy rebukes to their authors, including one that would have allowed funeral salesmen to pester seniors in their homes without required notice.
Still to go are a number of significant measures: one that would allow unions to organize home child care providers, a ban against “open carry” of handguns and a bill requiring insurance companies to cover certain behavioral therapies for autism. With over 400 bills yet to be signed or vetoed and less than a week to go, there are still many important issues on the table. We’ll talk with capital watchers to find out which ones should breeze right through – and which could get a thumbs down.
WEIGH IN:
What bills are most important to you and your community? Do you give the governor a yay or a nay on his decisions so far?
Guests:
Dan Walters, Political Columnist for The Sacramento Bee
Bob Stern, President at the Center for Governmental Studies
Supreme Court to take up health reform, immigration, profanity and more
The US Supreme Court kicks off its new term today. Fascinating cases about hotly divisive issues are expected on the docket. The most politically-charged will look at the Obama Administration's health care law. At dispute is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require people to buy insurance. The 11th Circuit struck down that requirement in the Affordable Care Act, but the 6th Circuit upheld it. Now, the Supreme Court will hear it, and a decision could come just months before the 2012 presidential election.
Another major case for health care watchers stems from California's cuts to Medi-Cal. Doctors and hospitals have been trying to sue the state for lowering reimbursement payments. The Supreme Court is being asked whether they have the right to sue. The decision could affect Governor Jerry Brown's ability to reduce spending on social services.
A bigger headline case will test Arizona's power in enacting its controversial immigration law, SB 1070. Can states such as Arizona and Alabama adopt their own enforcement schemes or does the federal government have exclusive control?
Other top cases include the FCC v. Fox: think of the late, great George Carlin, Cher's f-bomb and prime-time nudity; Perry v. New Hampshire: the validity of eyewitness identification testimony; US v. Jones: does the warrantless installation of a GPS monitoring device on a person’s car and the monitoring of the car’s movements violate the Fourth Amendment?; and finally, one that could prove to be among the Court’s most important religious-liberty cases in many years: Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which asks whether religious schools have a First Amendment exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
WEIGH IN:
Which cases will you be watching? How could a decision on the Affordable Care Act affect the next election? What impact could an immigration decision have across the country? Is America ready for profanity on network TV?
Guests:
Kitty Felde, KPCC’s Washington D.C. correspondent
David Savage, Supreme Court Reporter, Los Angeles Times
Lisa McElroy, Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University; Supreme Court scholar
Did Anwar al-Awlaki deserve due process?
On Friday, Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and propagandist Samir Kahn, both American citizens, were killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki has been accused by the government of aiding terrorists, including training and motivating three of the 9-11 attackers, communicating with the Fort Hood Shooter and helping the Christmas Day bomber plan his failed attack. Kahn is behind the al-Qaida web magazine, Inspire.
Al-Awlaki is well known for his fiery sermons against the United States and for being one of the best recruiters al-Qaida has. Some even call him the "Pied Piper" of the terrorist organization. Government officials say because al-Awlaki was raised and educated in the United States and able to communicate in English and in Arabic, he was also an incredibly effective propagandist for Al-Qaida.
Last year, al-Awlaki became the first American to be added to the United States list of terror suspects who can be targeted and killed by government operatives. According to an unnamed American official at the time: “The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words.”
Later that year al-Awlaki’s father, along with the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, sued the government to have his name taken off the kill list. They said targeted killing violates the constitution and international law by denying a suspect his due process. In addition, the suit claimed that the government had essentially convicted al-Awlaki using standards and evidence that no one was allowed to review.
WEIGH IN:
They lost the case, but now that the man is dead, what will their next step be? Are they right? Did al-Awlaki, as an American citizen, deserve a fair trial if the government could have routed him out of hiding? Or did he give up his citizenship when he joined the al-Qaida terror network? Was the radical cleric an immediate threat to American lives?
GUESTS:
John Yoo, scholar at The American Enterprise Institute; professor of law at Berkeley Law School and a former Justice Department Official.
Jameel Jaffer, director of The American Civil Liberties Union’s Center for Democracy.
Got sex appeal? Use it to get ahead!
If you really want to maximize your career, sociologist Catherine Hakim thinks you need to tap into your erotic side. In her new book, "Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom," Hakim introduces the idea of a fourth dimension to the already recognized financial, cultural and social capitals as a tool for one’s personal and occupational advancement.
Erotic capital, she argues, is a conflation of an individual’s beauty, sex appeal, fitness and social skills. Obviously, erotic capital plays a role in coupling and marriage, but Hakim asserts that it can also be used to get ahead at work, in politics, sports and the arts.
While accessing the erotic might be viewed as negative, the author uses the book to dismiss such unsavory associations and underline the benefits to erotic exploitation. She argues that feminists have decreased the ability of women to bridge the gap between themselves and their male counterparts at work by failing to embrace this aspect of their lives. After all, she argues, women will always have a higher erotic capital than men, so they should start using it.
WEIGH IN:
Do you agree with Hakim’s argument? Is she empowering women, and men, to better their own lives? Or is she championing the basest of means for climbing the ladder? Are attractive people more successful in work and play than their less superficially gifted peers? Are you living up to your full erotic potential?
Guest:
Catherine Hakim, Author of "Erotic Capitol: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and in the Bedroom;" sociologist and professor at the London School of Economics