Until Midterm Elections...

Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Second Amendment and Suspected Terrorists

One thing that conservatives often attack liberals on is the “being soft on terrorism” issue. The consistent claim is that liberals are putting America in danger by being soft on terror.

These claims have been made often, especially on the issue of accused terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Charles Krauthammer has been hard on liberals when it comes to Miranda-izing suspected terrorists, even though Attorney General Holder has recently embraced a new Miranda policy endorsed by the conservative columnist.

The Obama administration has further been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing.

Friday, May 14, 2010

If Obama Does It - Republican Just Gotta Hate It

In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, plenty of Republicans said they found it refreshing that Miers' experience amounted primarily to her time as a corporate lawyer and Bush aide.

That included Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who noted then that "40 percent of the men and women who have served as Supreme Court justices" had no judicial experience.

"One reason I felt so strongly about Harriet Miers' qualifications is I thought she would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court," Cornyn said in 2005. "Because right now you have people who've been federal judges, circuit judges most of their lives or academicians."

Thursday, May 6, 2010

What the Stevens Retirement Might Actually Mean

If it has been so that the Supreme Court could properly be called the “Kennedy Court,” because of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s grip on a tie-breaking vote much of the time, which may well be even more so when the Justices open a new Term next October. Without Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring at the end of the current Term, Justice Kennedy moves into position to become a frequent “assigning Justice.” That is a role not well known beyond Court-watchers, but it is quite important, and can make a difference in how ambitious, or cautious, the Court is in ruling on major, hard-fought cases.

But Kennedy also will no longer be an object of Justice Stevens’ efforts to marshal a majority of the Court for results that are — more often than not — liberal rather than conservative. There is, at present, no other member of the Court’s liberal bloc likely to match Stevens’ ability to persuade a sometimes-reluctant Kennedy to join with that bloc in a closely divided case. If Kennedy is to vote for liberal outcomes, it may well have to be more of a personal choice than it has seemed to be up to now.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Arizona is leading the way - we should follow.

Let me begin by first saying that the new law recently passed by the state of Arizona regarding illegal immigration should not have been necessary.

No, if the Federal government had done what it promised to do, what it is charged with doing – protecting the citizens and borders of the United States – this task would not have fallen to the states to take up for themselves.

Yesterday was May Day. Hundreds of thousands of people, in all likelihood many of them illegally here, protested in the streets of this country. They want President Obama to tackle the politically unviable task of “immigration reform”, which to all but the most obstinately blind translates directly into “amnesty for all illegal immigrants”.