Supreme Court Should Rule in Favor of Pregnant Workers
Thomas did a great job using the football player metaphor as an example of how different people should have different workloads/activities. The intended audience for the commentary is people that are interested in women's rights and those who are interested in workloads that people get. His evidence is clear, while pregnant you will not be able to lift and have the same work load as when you are not pregnant. Thomas is being logical, some one can still be productive and be pregnant at the same time, just because she cannot lift heavy items does not mean she will lose productivity. I agree with Thomas, the supreme court should vote in favor of Young which means that women that are pregnant should get more rights!

Obama and Immigration

Obama has taken the correct action using his executive order to grant permits that will benefit more than 4 million undocumented Immigrants. In one speech he accomplished what could not be done by congress in almost 2 years. This also means that a lot of people will be out of the shadows and can do things that they could not normally do. They can go on vacations while still in the United states with out fear of getting pulled over and deported back to their country. This also means a boost in the economy locally and national because of the traveling that will be done by the people who's legal status will change, the immigrants have to pay fees and taxes in order to be able to change their legal status. This also means that people will not be afraid to spend money on things because they will be more secure. Most of these people already have jobs, this means that all the people that say that they will take their jobs are most likely wrong. This will help The United States because it will hold accountable all the immigrants that are felons and they will be sent back to their Nation. This means that the people who will be deported are those who have felonies. Also, the border between Mexico and The United States will be secured to catch most of the individuals who try to cross over to the United States illegally.    

"Marijuana Market Will Benefit Consumers and Society" Says Steve Fox the executive director of the Council on Responsible Cannabis Regulation. The author supports that marijuana should be legalized but in order for it to be legalized there also has to be a commercial market for the herb. His argument works up to the point where he compares marijuana to alcohol. When he compares it to alcohol he says that marijuana is safer than alcohol when it comes to driving. This does not work out because when he cites his source it goes to another editorial that also has no references to a scientific study. He concludes by saying that marijuana will be commercialized if it lowers alcohol use. I believe once it is legalized people will probably use both alcohol and marijuana together which can be even worse. I agree that if marijuana becomes legal and regularized people will know exactly what they are smoking and it will be a lot safer for the consumer, because everything would be labeled with the THC content.

Obama and the Election
Charles M. Blow from the New York Times is stating that Obama's approval rating is low and it will continue to get lower as time passes by. His targeted audience is people who want to know what will be needed to happen so his ratings will go up. Blow also states that president Obama does not need the African American vote to win "but he seems ever more reliant on this group to give him “the benefit of the doubt” and ride to his rescue". Here Blow quotes president Obama where he shows that he relies on African Americans to rescue him. In reality president Obama said, "black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt" there you can see that the president does not really rely on the black voters. Blow Does not really use good reasoning because he ends up contradicting himself in the end and his sources to back up his argument really have nothing to do with his topic. 

Supreme Court Allows Texas To Use Voter ID law Author, Robert Barnes, October 18. The Texas Voter ID law is the toughest in the United States requiring to present an approved Photo Identification. The ID can be a Texas Driver's License, United States Passport, Texas Concealed Hand Gun Permit, and or Personal Identification Card Issued by Texas DPS. In this article the supreme court ruled the the law was not unconstitutional. When voting in texas you will be required to show one of seven identifications that are valid. Voters with disabilities can apply for an exemption to show there identification card. If you do not have an ID you can still vote but that ballot will not count in the election and if you want it to count you have to go to the voting office in Austin and show a photo id. In this article it explains how the supreme court was able to say that it is too close to an election to be able to change the voting law.