#Justice Sonya Sotomayor | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 18 days

Text

The Supreme Court on Monday said Idaho can enforce a law banning gender transition care for minors, stepping into the debate over an issue that has divided lower courts.

The court did so over the objections of the three liberal justices.

It’s the first case about restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under age 18 that the court has acted on. But it does not get to the underlying legal questions of the ban itself, an issue that has divided lower federal courts and is part of a wave of conservative legislation and litigation aimed at transgender Americans.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for herself and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, criticized the majority for granting Idaho’s request through its “emergency” route, rather than letting it proceed through the regular channels.

“This Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances,” Jackson wrote.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the district court went further than it should have when it blocked the state from enforcing any aspect of the law while it’s being litigated. That decision threatened to suspend the law indefinitely because it can take years to reach final judgment, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own defense of the majority’s order in a concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not make his position public.

The court could also decide soon whether it will review such bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. That election-year decision would come as transgender issues have become an increasingly potent political issue.

Passed last year, Idaho’s law is being challenged by the families of two transgender teenagers.

After lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to let it go into effect with an exception carved out for the challengers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the two Idaho families, said that option won't protect the teenagers as medical providers won't want to risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade. Also, the teens would have to give up their anonymity.

AN 'AWFUL RESULT FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH'

The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state."

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption," the group said in a statement.

Praising the court's decision, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the law ensures minors will not be subjected to life-altering drugs and procedures.

"Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids," he said in a statement.

Filed as an emergency request, Idaho’s appeal to the high court is a prelude to the larger pending issue: Whether the justices will uphold such bans, which have proliferated in recent years.

KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE TRANSGENDER CASES MAY COME NEXT

Families of transgender children have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit allowing Kentucky and Tennessee to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors.

The Justice Department has weighed in on the side of the families, telling the court that its input is “urgently needed” to definitively resolve whether the bans are discriminatory.

“These laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the nation,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a filing.

The court could announce as early as this month if they will hear the appeals.

Combined with other state actions to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use and what sports teams they can join, the laws are expected to be a major issue in this year’s elections.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PUSH TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR MINORS

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has said he will press Congress to pass a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and will cut federal funding for schools pushing “transgender insanity” if he returns to the White House.

President Joe Biden has boasted about steps he’s taken to strengthen the rights of “transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.”

The issue has gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny fraction of Americans who are transgender.

Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors has grown from four to 23, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Restrictions were fully in effect in 17 states as of January.

That’s despite the fact that most major medical groups support youth access to gender-affirming care.

The American Medical Association has called the state bans a “dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making.”

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people,” Dr. Michael Suk, a member of the AMA board, said when the group reinforced its opposition to state bans in 2021.

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND SELF-HARM

One of the transgender teenage girls challenging Idaho’s law suffered from depression, anxiety and self-harm before starting gender-affirming medical care, according to filings. The mental health of the other teen likewise deteriorated as puberty began.

Their parents have told the courts they’re terrified about the impact on their daughters’ health and lives if they can’t continue treatment.

Labrador, Idaho's attorney general, argued the law is needed to protect “vulnerable children” from what he called “risky and dangerous medical procedures.”

“Idaho should be able to protect children from experimental medical procedures that cause irreversible and life-long harms,” Labrador wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, Idaho's law was temporarily blocked by a district court judge in Idaho while it’s being litigated. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in January.

Despite the litigation swirling around transgender minors, the Supreme Court has largely been silent on the issue. In April, the high court sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who was challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition. The ruling came on the court's emergency docket and did not resolve the underlying questions in the case.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether schools can bar transgender students from using a bathroom that reflects their gender identity, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a transgender middle school boy in Indiana to use the boys' bathroom.

9 notes · View notes

virginiaprelawland · 10 months

Text

The U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Over 40 Years of Court Precedent

By Luis Canseco-Lopez, George Mason University Class of 2024

July 4, 2023

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court found in a joint case involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina that affirmative action violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision is highly controversial and was ruled in a 6-3 decision, with all conservative judges joining the majority opinion while the remaining liberal judges dissented. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion criticizing the use of race in college applications to determine enrollment. Now, college and universities, public and private, must use colorblind criteria in admissions. [1]

In Harvard’s case, the plaintiffs, mostly comprised of Asian-Americans, claimed Harvard’s Admission discriminated Asian-Americans by placing a limit on how many may be admitted. Harvard states and admits to using race in its admission because of a previous Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. [2] In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court held Michigan’s Law School decision to narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. [3]

Meanwhile, the University of North Carolina lawsuit is like Harvard’s of using race to determine admission. UNC claimed it awards racial preferences to African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans; UNC identifies these students as “underrepresented minorities.” [4]

Both universities were sued by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), an organization who stated purpose is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law.’’ [3] SFFA argued that race-based admission is a direct violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

According to Pew Research Center, half of U.S. adults disapprove of selective colleges using race and ethnicity in admission decisions. [5] This study found African Americans support affirmative action at 47%. Meanwhile, 57% of White Americans disapprove of affirmative action. In addition, 52% of Asian Americans also dislike affirmative action. Hispanics were 50/50 split for or against affirmative action. Although half of Americans disagree with affirmative action, many articulate different reasoning. Some have similar viewpoints to Justice Chief Robert and argued that the U.S. Constitution is color-blind. Thus, affirmative action is a direct violation. Others don’t believe that systemic racism is a problem in American life or are skeptical of systemic racism in the U.S. education system. [2]

In Chief Justice Robert’s majority opinion, he states that universities for too long have judge individuals on the color of their skin rather than merit and skills. He also adds that our constitution does not tolerate the color of skin to be a factor in our education system [6]. Justice Clarence Thomas took a bigger jab at universities by calling affirmative action admissions “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.” [6]

Justice Sonya Sotomayor and Justice Jackson were livid in their dissent opinion. Both Justices echo each other in the overturning of Grutter v. Bollinger and undoing decades of precedent. Sotomayor states, “The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.” [6] Meanwhile, in Justice Jackson’s dissent, she compares the SFFA argument for “colorblindness for all” to Marie Antionette’s “let-them-eat-cake” obliviousness. Jackson also states that while the legal link to race in college admission is gone, it does not change the fact that race still matters in the lives of Americans daily. [6]

Although affirmative action is now considered unconstitutional, in Chief Justice Robert’s majority opinion, race can still be permissible in college admissions if a student wishes to write about their race and how it has impacted their life. [6] However, Robert made it explicitly clear that while a student can talk about their race, colleges and universities should consider a prospective student “as an individual—not on the basis of race”. [6] In addition, the court did not discuss eliminating affirmative in military academics because of “distinct interests" with the U.S. government. [1] This decision will also have an impact in primary and secondary schools. Top high schools like Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School in Virginia and Boston Latin in Massachusetts will have to eliminate race consideration in their applications. Both schools over the past few years saw an increase of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans after implanting affirmative action in student admission. [7]

Regardless of institutions support or disapprove of affirmative action, this decision will have a ripple effect in the upcoming future. Decades of precedents are now thrown out the window on that Thursday evening. Universities and colleges now need to modify their policies and seek creative methods to preserve student diversity. Do not surprise if the Court must review future cases that involve race and education again. As Nina Totenburg puts it, “race has never been any easy subject for Americans to deal with, and it's about to get a lot harder.” [1]

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision

[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/american-opinion-affirmative-action/

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-241P.ZS

[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-707/199684/20211111164129792_UNC%20Cert%20Petition%20-%20Nov%2011%20-%20330pm%20002.pdf

[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

[7] https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/maggie-walker-governors-school-diversity

0 notes

cultml · 2 years

Link

36 notes · View notes

bighermie · 2 years

Link

6 notes · View notes

ademocrat · 4 years

Text

Supreme Court will decide if foster agencies can discriminate against gay couples

The Supreme Court has announced it will take a case brought by a Catholic adoption agency suing for the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. The agency alleges that their religious freedom should allow them to refuse service to same-sex couples.

Catholic Social Services sued after the city of Philadelphia ended a contract with the service after finding out the agency wouldn’t serve gay couples. Lower court rulings have sided with the city, pointing out that religious beliefs are not grounds for violating general civil rights laws.

Related: A Catholic adoption agency is closing because they can’t discriminate against gay people

The Catholic charity “failed to make a persuasive showing that the city targeted it for its religious beliefs, or is motivated by ill will against its religion, rather than sincere opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that religious groups are not exempt from general local, state, and federal laws, but the current makeup of the court has caused concern among civil rights advocates. The Court has lurched to the far right lately with Democrat-appointed Justice Sonya Sotomayor accusing the Court of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration.

The administration supports giving adoption and foster agencies the right to discriminate in the name of “religious freedom.”

This isn’t the first time the Catholic Church has come under scrutiny recently in Philadelphia. Last year, a grand jury in Pennsylvania released a report detailing the sexual abuse of over 1000 children and the church’s attempts to cover it up.

The court will hear the case during the next term, which starts in October.

1 note · View note

politacs7 · 2 years

Text

0 notes

azindy · 2 years

Text

SCOTUS Justices’ COVID Ignorance Illustrates Why They Should Stay in Their Lane - American Thinker

0 notes

teachingreadingisasuperpwertodd · 2 years

Text

Short Stories/Poems/Songs/Speeches: Annotated Bibliography

Sotomayor, S., & López Rafael. (2021). Just ask!: Be different, be brave, be you. Findaway World, LLC.

YA Universal Theme(s): disabilities, acceptance

Lexile level/Grade range: 1100 level/middle school

Short summary of the highlights: This is a picture book by supreme court justice, Sonya Sotomayor. She writes about how each of us is different, and that’s what makes us all special. She compares people to a garden. Each flower in the garden is unique. She draws on her own childhood experience as she was diagnosed with diabetes. The book also highlights disabilities and other medical conditions. Sotomayor also highlights the fact that people should ask if they are curious about someone else.

Nijkamp, Marieke. (2018). Unbroken: 13 Stories Starring Disabled Teens. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (BYR)

YA Universal Theme(s): disabilities

Lexile Level/Grade Range: 1290/Upper Middle School

Short Summary of the Highlights: This is a collection of short stories told by the point of view of fictional teens, each having a disability. The disabilities highlighted include physical, and mental. Each story is centered around a different milestone in a teen’s life: first romance, travel, friendships. The reader sees these important aspects of a young person’s life through the eyes of a person living with a disability.

Black, Sheila & Bartlett, Jennifer (2011). Beauty is a Verb: The New Poetry of Disability. Cinco Puntos Press

YA Universal Theme(s): disabilities

Lexile Level/Grade Range: 1430L/Middle/High

Short Summary of Highlights: This book is an anthology of poems and short essays all centered around physical disabilities. Some physical disabilities highlighted in the anthology include cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and multiple sclerosis.

Jessie J. (2011). Who You Are On Who You Are [song]. Scala, London, UK.: Universal Republic

YA Universal Theme(s): insecurity

Lexile level/Grade range: Upper Middle /High School

Short Summary of the Highlights: This song speaks to the insecurities and fear that teens feel. The song is meant to inspire people to face fears and conquer them. Jessie J empowers listeners to look inward, and love yourself. Lyrics below.

I stare at my reflection in the mirror

Why am I doing this to myself?

Losing my mind on a tiny error

I nearly left the real me on the shelf

No, no, no, no, no

Don't lose who you are

In the blur of the stars

Seeing is deceiving

Dreaming is believing

It's okay not to be okay

Sometimes it's hard

To follow your heart

Tears don't mean you're losing

Everybody's bruising

Just be true to who you are

No, no, no, no, no, no, no

(Who you are, who you are, who you are)

(Who you are, who you are)

Brushing my hair, do I look perfect?

I forgot what to do to fit the mold, yeah

The more I try the less is working, yeah yeah

'Cause everything inside me screams

"No, no, no, no, no" (no, no, no, no, no)

Don't lose who you are

In the blur of the stars

Seeing is deceiving

Dreaming is believing

It's okay not to be okay

Sometimes it's hard

To follow your heart

But tears don't mean you're losing

Everybody's bruising

There's nothing wrong with who you are

Yes, no's, egos, fake shows

Like "whoa", just go, and leave me alone

Real talk, real life, good love, goodnight

With a smile, that's my home, yeah, oh

That's my home, no

No, no, no, no, no, no

Don't lose who you are

In the blur of the stars

Seeing is deceiving

Dreaming is believing

It's okay not to be okay

Sometimes it's hard

To follow your heart

Tears don't mean you're losing

Everybody's bruising

Just be true to who you are

Yeah, yeah, yeah

Vasicic. (2020, August 9). Never Give Up, Just Be Yourself [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN_zSoBIdRw

YA Universal Theme(s): disabilities

Lexile level/Grade range: Upper Elementary/Middle School/High School

This speech, by Nick Vujicic, is nothing short of inspirational. Nick was born without arms and legs. He speaks about the challenges he faced along his path of life. Nick speaks to people all over the globe, inspiring them to go about their dreams. He credits his parents with loving him like crazy and always supporting him along the way.

0 notes

innocentamit · 3 years

Text

Justice Sotomayor Rejects New York School Vaccine Vaccination Application

Justice Sonya Sotomayor turned down a new job application in New York City. CNN reports: Sotomayor did not send a petition to the Supreme Court or to comment on the merits of the decision. In August, Judge Amy Coney Barrett also rejected an anti-vaccination effort at Indiana University. In the lawsuit, the teachers’ lawyers said New York City, as well as the Department of Education and the…

View On WordPress

0 notes

chrispiascik · 6 years

Video

Justice Sonya Sotomayor and the horrible, no good, Muslim ban. #DailyDrawing 2717

#dailydrawing

2 notes · View notes

levon824 · 3 years

Text

Kamala Harris Sworn in By Justice Sotomayor

Kamala Harris was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor during the inaguration on January 20th. Kamala became the first ever woman Vice President in the history of America.

She is not only the first woman Vice President, she is also the first Black and South Asian person to become VP. This was a big deal for many people, whether they are women, people of color, or citizens who have been waiting for a woman to be in high office.

I think this image is unique because Kamala is being sworn in as the first ever woman Vice President. This is significant because girls who are growing up and aspiring to be leaders in the future will look up and see someone that they can relate to in the high office.

This image is important, especially at a time when racism and sexism is not being hidden any longer, and it is out in the open. At a time when the country is in need of change, whether that’s adressing police brutality, the healthcare system, COVID vaccines, etc. it’s always great to see women in the same positions as men to dictate what comes next for this country.

Another reason this image is important is because Kamala Harris has been on the right side of the spectrum when it comes to healthcare, climate change, and education. At a time when all three need to be addressed as soon as possible, this is a good sign that change will be coming sooner than later.

0 notes

districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog · 3 years

Text

The Potential Impact Of Biden Administration And Continuing Trends On The Death Penalty

By Ritabella Krapf, American University Class of 2022

February 2, 2021

In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a law in Georgia that allowed prosecutors to argue in favor of the death penalty in certain aggravating circumstances, such as an extensive criminal history, while the defense could present an argument for a less severe sentence due to mitigating factors like mental illness or a traumatic upbringing. Under this standard, capital punishment is permissible if aggravating factors are determined to exceed mitigating factors. However, even after Gregg, many states did not provide adequate legal representation to defendants facing the prospect of capital punishment, allowing for more death sentences. [4]

The year 2020 saw some of the lowest rates of new death sentences and executions in more than three decades, despite the federal government resuming executions following a moratorium. Only five states administered executions in 2020. During that year, Colorado outlawed the use of capital punishment, making it the 22nd state to do so. [4][5] COVID-19 has profoundly impacted legal proceedings and delayed some scheduled executions, which may have contributed to this. However, the decline in the use of the death penalty in the United States in 2020 is consistent with an overall downward trend since the 1990s, when capital punishment was at its height. This decline is correlated with an overall drop in violent crime and decreased support for the death penalty among Americans. [4] As capital punishment is used less frequently and loses support, there is a possibility that federal laws could change in the near future.

After the federal government resumed executions, the debate over the constitutionality of capital punishment was amplified. Regarding the petition of certiorari for Dustin Higgs, who was convicted for playing a role in the murder of three women, Justice Sonya Sotomayor denounced the federal government’s push to continue executions. Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Over the past six months, this court has repeatedly sidestepped its usual deliberative processes, often at the government’s request, allowing it to push forward with an unprecedented, breakneck timetable of executions.” [2]

Justice Stephen Breyer also opposed moving forward with Higgs’ execution and has previously criticized the arbitrary nature of the death penalty, stating that the Court should review its constitutionality. [2] Since majority of the Supreme Court allowed the execution of Higgs and others to proceed and have not raised constitutional issues with the practice of the death penalty, the Court will likely not contribute to any efforts to end or decrease capital punishment. However, officials in other branches of government are actively working to end this practice.

Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced legislation to outlaw the death penalty at the federal level and communicate the sentences of those on federal death row. Although the House and Senate are currently controlled by Democrats, it is not yet certain if this proposal will have enough support to pass. [1][6] President Joe Biden also expressed support for eliminating the federal death penalty and creating an incentive for states to adopt the same policy. Although Biden has not indicated what he might do specifically in the near future, it is possible for him to commute the sentences of all inmates on the federal death row through an executive order. [1]

According to a 2020 Gallup poll, 55% of Americans support the death penalty, while 43% oppose. Support for the use of the death penalty is the lowest since the 1970s, and has been consistently trending downward since the 1990s. [3] Recently introduced federal legislation, President Biden’s campaign promises, and more states eliminating the death penalty reflect this shift in public opinion. If these trends continue, it is possible that capital punishment could end throughout much of the US.

______________________________________________________________

Carlisle, Madeline. “What Happens to the Federal Death Penalty in a Biden Administration?” Time, 25 January 2021, https://time.com/5932811/death-penalty-abolition-joe-biden/.

Cassens Weiss, Debra. “'This is not justice': Sotomayor slams final federal executions before Biden's inauguration.” ABA Journal, 19 January 2021, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/this-is-not-justice-sotomayor-slams-final-federal-executions-before-inauguration.

“Death Penalty.” Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx.

Millhiser, Ian. “The decline and fall of the American death penalty.” Vox, 30 December 2020, https://www.vox.com/2020/12/30/22187578/death-penalty-united-states-executions-decline-gregg-georgia-bucklew-precythe.

“The Death Penalty in 2020: Year End Report.” Death Penalty Information Center, https://reports.deathpenaltyinfo.org/year-end/YearEndReport2020.pdf.

Summers, Juana. “Democrats Unveil Legislation To Abolish The Federal Death Penalty.” NPR, 11 January 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955693696/democrats-unveil-legislation-to-abolish-the-federal-death-penalty.

0 notes

politacs7 · 2 years

Text

0 notes

myweddingsandevents · 3 years

Text

Open SmartNews and read "‘This Is Not Justice’: Sotomayor’s Death Penalty Dissent Is Scorching" here: https://share.smartnews.com/vuEv

To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/Jnt3

0 notes

perfectirishgifts · 3 years

Text

Feel Like A Fraud? How To Outsmart Imposter Syndrome

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/feel-like-a-fraud-how-to-outsmart-imposter-syndrome/

Feel Like A Fraud? How To Outsmart Imposter Syndrome

70% of people are impacted by imposter syndrome.

Did you just win an award, get a promotion, or accepted into a prestigious school? Are you questioning if the selection committee made an error in taking you? Do you doubt your achievements, asking yourself if you are good enough and belong? If so, stop. What you are feeling is ‘imposter syndrome,’ the feeling you are a fraud. This crushing feeling, first coined in 1978 by Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes, impacts 70% of people, including Oscar winner Tom Hanks, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz, famed poet Maya Angelou, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, and former First Lady, Michelle Obama.

Few are immune to this feeling. The good news is that there are steps you can take to mitigate this unsettling concern.

To Whom Are You Comparing Yourself?

When imposter syndrome shows its ugly head, you might be comparing yourself to someone else. But to whom exactly are you comparing yourself? If you stop and think about it, no one person is accomplishing the different things you are doing. They might be an expert in one aspect of a task, but that is not your focus. Keep things in perspective, and don’t compare yourself to others.

Reframe The Task

Make sure that your expectations and aspirations do not rise faster than your accomplishments. In other words, manage your expectations. You can’t do everything well all the time, so make sure that your task aligns with your ability and support.

Work With Others

Often, our expectations for ourselves are misaligned and out of touch with reality. Working and checking in with others will help set appropriate benchmarks.

Reward Yourself

We tend not to give ourselves sufficient (or any) credit for what we accomplish. Make a list of all of the small and large wins you’ve recently achieved. You will notice you likely did more than you recognize. Reward yourself for the small victories as a reminder that you did well.

Stop Being a Perfectionist

Being a perfectionist will stop you from turning something in or consider a project done until it is 100% perfect. 99% won’t do, which means you will never finish. Most project tasks will never be perfect. Also, who decides what is perfect? A colleague once told me, “You B level work is like everyone else’s A level work.”

Stop Procrastinating

Procrastination is the cousin of perfectionism. You are so afraid of not knowing all of the information needed to start or complete a project, so you simply don’t begin. Get started, get perspectives from others, rework the project, and turn it in. Sometimes just being done needs to be the goal.

Iris Zimmermann is an Olympic fencer and performance coach.

Olympic fencer and performance coach, Iris Zimmermann, suggests stopping to look at opportunities from the point of a deficit and areas of growth. “Take inventory and recognizing what you have. Shame and need for proving oneself are powerful rocket fuel, but what happens when you get there and want to go further? There just isn’t anything in the tank; the rocket fuel is spent. It is at the point we are stuck and need to try something else.”

Zimmerman suggests pushing yourself from a place of opportunity rather than a deficit. “To continuously refine your craft and focus on the process is where most high performers can avoid burnout. Balance is key, and to achieve it, you need outside inputs of worth besides work. You need rest and recovery, and ultimately take ownership of the things you have done.”

Having feelings of doubt is normal. Have a plan in place so that imposter syndrome doesn’t derail your career.

From Leadership Strategy in Perfectirishgifts

0 notes

go-redgirl · 4 years

Photo

By Stephen B. Presser Thursday, 24 September 2020 02:00 PM

Current | Bio | Archive

Return the Constitution to the People Where It Belongs

Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the possibility of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Aren’t Supreme Court Justices supposed to decide cases according to the law and Constitution? Wouldn’t any new appointee to the court do just that?

Why is Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., threatening to "pack the court," to increase its size to build a majority of Democratic-appointed Justices, if the Democrats retake the Senate?

Why is U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., contemplating a second impeachment of President Trump if he dares nominate a new Justice?

Why does Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., outspoken and from the Bronx, warn Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that if he goes along with the president’s desire to confirm a new Justice he will be "playing with fire?"

Why would these Democrats all but call for armed insurrection because of a judicial appointment?

This could be seen as simple political payback, because the Republicans refused to allow confirmation of Barack Obama’s 2016 nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, but much more is actually at stake.

It is not unusual, in American History, for presidents to succeed in placing their picks on the Court, even in the last years of their administrations, and, in fact, the greatest Justice of them all, John Marshall, whom nearly everyone venerates, was appointed and confirmed in the waning months of the Adams administration, after John Adams had actually been defeated by Thomas Jefferson.

What is unusual is that we have reached an historical moment where the two political parties have starkly different visions of what the Court’s task is, and about the meaning and character of the Constitution itself.

Some of the partisans in this pitched battle have framed it as a dispute over whether Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the controversial decision discovering a right to abortion in the Constitution, will stand, but the likelihood of Roe being overruled any time soon is actually very slim, given that it was strongly reaffirmed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and in many other decisions since then.

The real controversy is actually over the jurisprudence that led to Roe, to many of the decisions of the Warren Court, and even to the famous "switch in time that saved nine," when the Supreme Court, in 1937, suddenly took a more favorable stance toward allowing FDR and Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, reversing its earlier position that overruled many of the measures of the early New Deal.

Those decisions were made by Justices who believed that the meaning of the Constitution was not fixed for all time, and that the ringing phrases of the Bill of Rights, such as "equal protection" and "due process," were broad enough to accommodate the changes in culture and "evolving standards of morality" actually to render the document malleable in the hands of the justices.

This is the view of our Constitution as a "living document," one embraced not only by Justice Earl Warren, but also by Justice Ginsburg, her colleagues Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and expressly by President Barack Obama.

Republicans, however, and, in particular President Trump, now adhere to a different, more traditional view, associated with the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.

This jurisprudence, which usually goes by the name "Originalism," holds that the "living Constitution" idea is nothing but a license for the arbitrary exercise of judicial power, and that only by interpreting the Constitution according to the manner in which it was understood by those who framed it, can we have a clear and certain rule of law.

Originalists, like Scalia, go even further, and suggest that when the Supreme Court, in effect, makes new law, it usurps the role of the legislature, and thereby fundamentally alters the Constitutional structure of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The Democrats, who have for years used the "living Constitution" theory to get the Court to implement policies that they couldn’t get through legislatures, according to Scalia, were actually undermining popular sovereignty (the notion that the people should be the only rulers) and, indeed, repudiating the rule of law itself.

Republicans, as originalists, now believe that law is something different from politics, and that the Constitution is the expression of the permanent values of our polity.

Democrats, as "living Constitution" theorists, believe that document should be put in the service of whatever political policy goal strikes their fancy at any given time.

Ruth Ginsburg’s reported deathbed wish was that the next president fill her vacated position, but justices are not hereditary aristocrats to whom deference is owed.

It's always the right time to give the Constitution back to the people themselves.

ABOUT: Stephen B. Presser is the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus at Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law, the Legal Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and a contributor to The University Bookman.

He graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has taught at Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and University College, London.

He has often testified on constitutional issues before committees of the United States Congress, and is the author of "Recapturing the Constitution: Race, Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered" (Regnery, 1994) and "Law Professsors:

Three Centuries of Shaping American Law" (West Academic, 2017). Presser was a Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado's Boulder Campus for 2018-2019.

0 notes