Alexander Hamilton called the United States Supreme Court the least dangerous, and the weakest, of the three branches of the U.S. government. This is not to discredit the importance of the court, but serves as a reflection of the court’s function: to stand for the will of all American people as expressed in the Constitution. This differs from the executive and legislative branches, which the Supreme Court is meant to keep in check, as these branches are intended to have power over the force and will of their policies, while the high court exerts only judgment. 

This is not to say that the Supreme Court has always existed as an all-knowing, unbiased entity in American politics, however, over recent years it seems to have become more and more politically biased. There is no better example of this than our current Supreme Court justices; the court sits at a right-leaning majority of 6-3, and three of these six Republican appointees were nominated by the Trump administration.  

Political parties put justices on the court that they believe will favor their own policies and legislations, and this directly contradicts the constitutional intent of the Supreme Court, that being to function in absence of political pressure. The solution? Term limits for Supreme Court justices. 

The fact of the matter is, people are living a lot longer in 2020 than they were in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. Where life expectancy has increased, so has the number of years that a justice can sit on the Supreme Court. The ability of an appointed judge to sit on the court for 50-plus years greatly affects the appointment of justices, making it a way to extend political power in wake of a new administration. 

Sabeel Rahman remarks on how dangerous this truly is in an article for The Guardian: “courts today are a threat to democracy because of how they have been weaponized to skew political power.” We need to abolish this obstruction of power by amending the construction of our Supreme Court system in the Constitution.

While such an alteration to the American government seems impossible, Fix the Court lays out the facts as to why term limits are the solution for, as they call it, a Supreme Court that is “polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors other broken political institutions.” Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization, proposes 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, saying this would “restore limits to the most powerful, least accountable branch of American government.” 

Fix the Court’s movement is the first Supreme Court Term Limits Act to be backed by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), a U.S. agency whose mission is the enforcement of civil U.S. law and protection of consumers. This goes to show that the push for a Supreme Court amendment is not small-scale, but rather it’s a topic that has been discussed for a while now and it’s time to make it happen. 

In a piece for Center for American Progress, Maggie Jo Buchanan explains how pushes for Supreme Court term limits are gaining momentum, and an 18-year term is most commonly proposed. 18-year term limits would result in a new Supreme Court vacancy every two years, so each presidential term would bring two new justices; this would help to ensure that justices are reflecting the general public. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has also supported 18-year terms, saying they allow adequate time for justices to learn the job and develop jurisprudence. 

If the past four years have shown us anything, it is that our existing checks and balances are not enough. While amendments to the constitution may seem drastic in the modern day, it is important to remember that our constitution was written with the intention of being amended. It is through these amendments and changes that some of our most powerful rights were born, i.e. The Bill of Rights. 

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg should not bring half of the nation terror, and the Supreme Court should not be the battleground for whatever current standoff exists in our political landscape. The court should stand to reflect the stance and protection of the American people, not affiliation with a political party. Term limits for justices is the way for the American people to regain representation, and for our nation to regain unity.

Jimi Hendrix once said, “when the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” An incredibly important, grand quote, these words are more relevant than ever for Americans. In a totally different sphere, the Canadian sitcom “Schitt’s Creek” demonstrates the music icon’s message in real life… or rather, on television.

At the 71st annual Emmy awards ceremony in 2019, “Schitt’s Creek” was nominated for four awards, but the cast and crew walked away with zero wins. This year things couldn’t have been more different, and the show deserves nothing less. Created by father-son-duo Eugene and Dan Levy, “Schitt’s Creek” is truly more than a regular sitcom. Rather, it’s a show that we could all learn some lessons from. For the sake of time, I will pick two: how the show reflects Hendrix’s quote, and the nonchalant manner in which the show’s primary love story, which is between two men, is portrayed.

The show follows the extremely wealthy, powerful, and spoiled Rose family, as they, in short, lose nearly all of their money and possessions, and are forced to relocate from their pampered lives to a small town called Schitt’s Creek (which was purchased as a joke, due to it’s amusing name). At the inception of the show, the Rose family perfectly encompasses the “love of power.” They’re pampered, selfish, judgemental, rude, and they perceive their previous wealthy lifestyle as ideal. However, as the show develops, the family slowly embraces their new life in Schitt’s Creek and genuinely becomes part of the community. 

In an article for CNN, Elizabeth Yuko remarks that the show “gives us an example of what life in a small North American town could look like if people valued respect and kindness over money and power.” In the show, this important message is clear; season after season, viewers witness the change in the family’s relationship to the community and amongst themselves. With wealth and power out of the picture, the kids, Alexis and David, become close friends and confidants, and they get to know each other and their parents in a way they never seemed to have time to before. In the community that they initially looked down on, they become respected and adored figures. If you want to see the change for yourself, and see how Hendrix’s message is reflected in this hypothetical family, I encourage you to watch the first episode, and then any episode in the most recent season. You’ll see a family with little to no apparent love between members turn into a family with love for each other, their friends, and even, their tiny, “Schitt-y” town.

The other lesson from the show is short and simple. The main love story that the show follows is between David Rose and Patrick, a young man and resident of Schitt’s Creek. The message that the show sends here is clear: there is a love story, and the genders and sexual orientations of the figures in this love story do not matter. No attention is paid to the fact that the relationship is between two men. No fuss is made. A BBC article by Manish Pandey describes how David and Patrick “[aren’t] seen as the ‘gay’ couple, they are the couple that everyone’s rooting for.” Similarly, a Huffington Post article notes that the sexuality of the queer characters is “casual and as unremarkable as any of the straight characters.” And that’s where the show strikes gold. Schitt’s Creek sets an example here for viewers, and for other shows and media, in how LGBTQ+ couples might be portrayed in the future: as regular couples, with regular love stories, because that’s what they are.

All in all, the Levy duo’s sitcom is more than just a sitcom. It’s a story that highlights humanity, kindness and community, and it deserves all the praise in the world. Congratulations to Schitt’s Creek on it’s amazing portrayal of love and life, and congratulations to the Emmys, for finally realizing that this show deserves awards.

In their viral tweet, @motherjuniper says “Let Lesbians Have Electricity In Their Movies!!!!,” a statement that I stand by. This is a subject that has gained recently gained traction in the LGBTQ community: why are all lesbian films based in the 1600s? While this is something that is worth exploring, and I would totally love some more culturally relevant lesbian movies, there is another point that needs discussing here. What did gay women do to deserve the title “lesbian” in the first place?

 Disclaimer: I am totally into gay girls. In fact, I am one. However, the word seems both unfair and grammatically illogical. It’s a noun, for crying out loud. It is not customary to call someone “a gay,” “a transgender,” or “a bisexual,” actually, it’s rude. But here I am, a lesbian. The word gay should be enough: someone who is sexually attracted to their own sex. It’s pretty simple. I don’t understand why there has to be a whole new, really serious sounding noun for women who like women rather than an adjective.

This is actually a common opinion among the LGBTQ community. In an article for Refinery29, Kasandra Brabaw explains that she is okay with being gay, and that it is actually a fact that she loves to share about herself; however, she has never used the word “lesbian” to describe herself. While she recognizes that the word describes a woman who is sexually attracted to other women, and she is, technically, a lesbian, she prefers the terms “gay” or “queer.”

Katherine Meraki also shares the opinions of members of the LGBTQ on the word “lesbian” in an article for Medium. One gay woman said that she felt the term is “too full on and intense,” and a transgender man responded by saying that it reminded him of, “an older butch woman.”

These responses both resonate with me, and this is because the word “lesbian” carries some heavy (though inaccurate) stereotypical baggage. Brabaw touches on this as well, explaining how there are two stereotypes that come to mind when considering the “L” word: there’s the “unkept and unattractive woman who’s only a lesbian because she’d supposedly never attract a man” stereotype, and the oversexualized, wildly attractive woman whose only reason for being gay is to turn straight men on. This does not leave much room for middle ground, which is where most gay women, and human beings, actually lie.

Additionally, the word lesbian is not inclusive to today’s LGBTQ community. As a queer woman, you can be sexually attracted to a lot more people than just other lesbians.

It is not surprising that young women today try to distance themselves from the word, fighting to create their own identity as queer women. In her article for Slate, Christina Cauterucci recalls her and her friends’ experiences as young, non-straight women. She says, “we were convinced that our cool clothes and enlightened, radical paradigm made us something other than ‘lesbians,’ a label chosen by progenitors who lived in a simpler time with stricter gender boundaries.”

If you or someone you know is struggling with the “L” word, rest assured that you are not alone. We all have the ability to decide our own sexual identity, and we can call it whatever we want.