On October 19, 2018, Dan Corjescu published a blog post titled The New Politics of Climate Change on Counterpunch.org. Dan Corjescu is an activist for the Green party and writes almost exclusively for Counterpunch. Corjescu's credibility and background does not extend any farther than merely being passionate for environmentalism and fighting climate change, but regardless, I agree with him. His intended audience is the American public and since this editorial was posted to a liberal-leaning blog, it seems that he is not spending as much effort convincing his readers that climate change is an issue as he is describing potential ways that political parties need to be addressing climate change. He claims that climate change is an urgent issue and that as it accelerates, it will become a more prominent and "boiling" issue within political parties. Corjescu states that there will be two political outcomes. One outcome being reactionary and one outcome being progressive. He briefly skims over the reactionary outcome and states that it will tend to "put up strong national defenses and seek out convenient sacrificial lambs such as migrants and refugees." The remainder of the article focuses on the progressive outcome and that the existing American political parties need to broadly transform themselves or else other parties "such as the Greens" will seize dominance. In his final paragraphs, Corjescu suggests that the green party employs tactics similar to the ones used by minority groups in the civil rights era such as "Earth Marches" and "Green Demonstrations" in order to be seen as more "hip," "cool," and appealing.  Overall, I agree with Corjescu and the pressing necessity of more legislation for decarbonization and technological-ecological innovation.

On September 29, 2018, Jennifer Rubin published an opinion piece to the Washington Post titled If we want to protect the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, Kavanaugh should not be on it. This article is interesting for many reasons.

Firstly, Rubin has held a moderately conservative perspective in her past writings, but in her piece which was submitted on Saturday, she took a liberal stance. She even went as far as to write that "the GOP became a right-wing, radical party that eschewed long-held principles such as truth, humility, decorum, and respect." These are bold words for someone that would have previously voted as a part of the GOP. Before journalism, Rubin practiced labor law which aids in her writing for The Post. The intended audience for this article is presumably the American public and any readers of The Washington Post.

Secondly, as most of the country and press are focusing on the investigation into whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted three women, Rubin's article shifts the focus towards the bias and partisanship that Kavanaugh has exposed during the investigation. She argues that he has revealed himself as a poorly tempered individual that believes in conspiracy theories and blames liberal groups for orchestrating an "attack on his integrity, his decency, and his very life as well as the life of his family." She relies on quotes from the Harvard Law Professor, Laurence H. Tribe, that state Kavanaugh should recuse himself in any case where such liberal groups appear before the Court due to the bias and personal involvement that he has expressed towards such groups. Kavanaugh has even revealed that he harbors a personal vendetta against the Democratic party when he shouted, "what goes around comes around!"

Finally, I agree with Rubin's overall argument, especially when she points out that the Supreme Court is already akin to a mini-legislature of two warring factions and that putting such a highly partisan judge into the fifth seat would demolish whatever is left of the Supreme Court's intellectual integrity. While it is incredibly crucial to determine whether Kavanaugh committed the crimes that he is accused of, we should also be questioning whether or not he is worthy to be a Supreme Court Justice at all, even if he is found to be innocent.