Republican Women for Obama

I was a Republican most of my life.
I’m still a registered Republican. I was raised in a very Republican, conservative
family. I voted for Bush, and Bush before him.
I voted for Ronald Reagan eight times. Four primaries, four major elections.
I voted probably as many times as Republicans got elected.
I’ve been a Republican since I was 18, I guess. But something’s happened in the last couple
years that’s just completely turned everything upside down.
The Republican party has gone too far to the right. I feel like I’m more of a moderate,
I don’t feel that there are many moderate Republicans out there anymore. If they are,
they’re not speaking up. I think I just became more aware of the things
that they were saying, and what that meant and how it affected me and my life.
It’s just hard to understand, it’s hard to talk to people about it, and it’s divided
our nation, these new attitudes. One of the things that makes me really upset about it
is the attitude toward birth control, contraceptives and abortion.
If you truly believe in a small government, that government shouldn’t be deciding what
I can and cannot do with my own body. I am very concerned about Mitt Romney’s policies
concerning women’s rights. He wants to reverse Roe v. Wade. Mitt Romney
has endorsed a governor that overturned equal pay for women.
We have worked long and hard to get where we are today as women. I don’t want all that
to go by the wayside. People like me and my family have realized
that the Republican party once was in line with our views but are no longer.
After being a Republican for so long, that was quite a change. I almost felt like I was
turning my back on my friends and my family. And then I stopped and thought, no, no I’m
not. There’s no way on God’s great earth I would
consider voting Republican. I don’t want to even think about them having
control, as a woman, I don’t. If you’re a conservative woman, and you believe
in small government, then Barack Obama is your candidate, because he’s keeping the government
out of the decisions that should remain between you and God, and you and your own conscience.
This is personal now. I am doing what I believe is right.
If we don’t look out for our best interests, then how can we expect someone else to?

LifeTalk Breaking News: MeToo & Politicians Ignore America’s Hidden Sex Scandal!

🎶 Music 🎶 Hello. I’m Mark Crutcher,
president of Life Dynamics. On this Tuesday’s edition of Life Talk,
we released our new report documenting that thousands of women and girls have been raped
or sexually assaulted in American abortion clinics. This has been going on for decades
and since the release of our report, the cover-up by the abortion Lobby and
the mainstream media has continued. We’ve also contacted the #MeToo movement as
well as more than 50 of their political supporters . So far we’ve had absolutely
no response from #MeToo, and only one inquiry from
one of these politicians. Their claim to care about sexual assault
victims is being exposed as they lie. So I’m asking each one of you for your help. First, go to and inform yourself – and then
encourage all your friends to do the same. Then write letters to the editor,
call in on talk shows, use social media, or do whatever you can to get this
message in front of the American people. You can even have these talk shows
contact us about an interview. And if you don’t think that’s
important, remember this: at least four of the sexual predators
we identified in our report are STILL working in American
abortion clinics right now. We are counting on you – because without
your help this scandal will remain hidden. Thank You. you

Structure of the Court System: Crash Course Government and Politics #19

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government
and Politics. As fans of our series know, here at Crash Course we believe in hierarchy.
First at the top you got me, then there's John Green, then Stan, then Brandon, then
Zulaiha, then a bunch of independent contractors – wait I'm an independent contractor. But
I'm still at the top! Anyway then the rest of it's turtles all the way down. 'Cept at
the bottom. There's an eagle. Anyway, it's the strict adherence to hierarchy
that makes CC HQ run like a well-oiled machine. The same can be said for the U.S. court system. [Theme Music] As you probably remember, because you're a
smart rememberer of things, the American court system is hierarchical which means any discussion of it
cries out for a visual representation. Thought Bubble! Like Drake, we'll start from the bottom. The
trial courts have original jurisdiction. When you realize there are 50 states, each with
its own court system, it shouldn't be a surprise that the vast majority of cases start out
in state courts. Of course most cases never get to court at all. The vast majority of
disputes, criminal and civil, are settled outside of court. How's that for efficiency. On the federal side, the trial courts are
the U.S. district courts. There are 94 of them with 663 judges, more or less. Sometimes
in civil cases, a plaintiff, the person bringing the case, will have a choice of whether to
bring that case in state or federal court. But you can only start in the district courts
if your case meets certain important criteria. Almost all criminal cases start in state courts.
So if you don't like the result in a trial court, and you have a reasonable claim that
there was something procedurally wrong with the case or the way the law was applied, you
can bring an appeal. Notice that if you start in state courts,
you usually have more chances for appeal because most states have two levels of appellate courts,
and the federal system has one. Appeals courts can refuse to hear appeals, and if they do,
you're done. One thing to remember: the loser can always try to appeal, even if that loser
was of the state that failed in its prosecution. Federal appeals courts are called circuit
courts, and there are 12 of them distributed regionally throughout the U.S.. You might
guess if the region where your case is heard matters, and you'd be right! Judges in the
9th circuit, which includes California and Oregon, tend to be more liberal than judges
in the 5th circuit. Federal appeals are usually heard by panels
of three judges while trials in the district court are before a single judge. There are
four scenarios where the federal courts have original jurisdiction, and in all cases they
must be brought in a district court. They are:
Cases where the law at issue is a federal law like a claim against Obamacare.
Cases involving treaties which are by definition federal laws. These are pretty rare and rarely
interesting. Cases involving the U.S. Constitution. For
example a case concerning freedom of religion. And cases where the U.S. government is a party
to the litigation. The other type of case that can go in a federal
court is one involving more than one state where there's more than 70,000 dollars at
issue. This make sense because if the parties in dispute are in different states, they might
not even agree where to have the trial, and federal judges are supposed to be more impartial
than state judges. Thanks Thought Bubble. So thoughtful. So bubbly. If you read the news and pay attention to
legal cases, most of what you see are lower court decisions. At least until the spring
when the supreme court starts handing down decisions. These are the ones that tend to
make it into the history books and that you may have even heard of. But how does a
case get to the supreme court, Craig? Well, I will answer that for you. That's my job. Most of the time, the supreme court has appellate
jurisdiction. In fact, it's the final court of appeals. If you lose there, you really
really lost. When the court hears a case it's called judicial review. There are however
circumstances when the supreme court has original jurisdiction and can act like a trial court.
So it's a good thing that most of the justices are in fact lawyers. Although there's no constitutional
requirement that they need to be. The court has original jurisdiction in cases
between the U.S. and a state, cases between two or more states, cases involving foreign
ministers or ambassadors, and cases brought by citizens of one state against citizens
of another state or against a foreign country. What do these cases have in common? The main
thing is that you can't imagine there being a single state where they could happen. This
is especially true in cases involving foreign officials. And then there are my favorite supreme court
cases – crimes committed on the high seas. That's right — the supreme court can exercise
original jurisdiction over pirates! This is not as weird as it sounds because crimes on
the high seas by definition have not happened in any state, so where are you gonna have
the trial? But most of the time, cases that make it to
the supreme court are there on appeal. In order for the court to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, the case must raise a federal question. For example one involving due process
or equal protection, or an important federal statute. Statute! If you don't know what those
terms mean, don't worry. We'll get to them. Here's the thing though: the supreme court
doesn't hear a lot of cases, it doesn't want to. And I don't want to either! I understand!
They also can't. And it's not just because most of the justices are kind of old, it's
because there are only nine of them, and they get requests to review about 8,000 cases a
year. Out of these they actually hand down about
80 decisions. So they have decision rules to weed out the cases that they don't want
to hear. The first one is there has to be a case or controversy, which means that you
can't request the court to review whether or not a law is unconstitutional before it has gone
into effect. There has to be an actual injury first. Another way of saying this is that the supreme
court will not issue advisory opinions, speculating in whether or not a law might violate the
constitution. The second hurdle a potential supreme court
litigant has to get over is called standing. Huh! That sounds terrible. I wouldn't want
to be standing. No, this means that in order to bring a case, the parties must have a substantial
stake in the outcome, which usually means an actual injury. Lack of standing is one
reason that the court has refused cases about same sex marriage brought by opposite sex
married people. The court will also refuse to hear cases that
is moot. Mootness, which is a real word I promise, I'm reading it on a teleprompter, means that
the case no longer requires a resolution. Say because one of the parties is dead. The
flipside of mootness is ripeness. If a potential injury has yet to occur, the case is not ripe.
It's like a hard avocado. Your guacamole…just not going to be very good. It's best not to be too anxious about bringing your case.
Most of the time you can wait, except in cases like Bush v Gore, where we kind of needed a new outcome
so a new president could move into the White House. There's also a vague decision rule called
the political question doctrine. In some cases the court would rather let the executive or legislative
branch handle the issue and not get involved. There are certain cases that the court would
almost always take, even though all things being equal, they'd rather not. When the circuit
courts have reached different or conflicting conclusions on the same issue, what's known
as a circuit split, the court will usually hear the case to resolve the confusion. The
court will also almost always hear a case where the federal government itself initiated
the appeal. Finally the supreme court will usually take
a case that has a clear constitutional question like one involving freedom of speech or religion,
although there are sometimes constitutional issues that they feel are settled, or they
just don't want to deal with. For a long time, for example, the court
didn't hear gun control cases, and nowadays they don't usually take obscenity cases. Okay so that's the structure of the court
system and how a case does, or usually doesn't, make it to the supreme court. But what we
haven't really discussed is what happens when a case does make it to the supreme court.
We'll show you that next time when we take a shortcut to the supreme court by suing the
ambassador to Switzerland for making such delicious chocolate. It's making me unhealthy.
Thanks for watching, see ya next time. We're not actually going to sue Switzerland. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course Government comes from Voqal.
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn
more about their mission and initiatives at Crash Course was made with the
help of all of these supreme court justices. Thanks for watching.