# data[].attributes.body
Unless I misunderstood, a plan for a wall was set in stone (no pun intended?) a long time ago. However, no one wanted to carry it out, so it was just set to the side. Trump is just the first person to actually act on this, so I feel like a lot of people aren't aware of this and think that Trump is the one who proposed the border wall, which isn't the case, he's just trying to enforce something that was proposed in the past? Unless I just misinterpreted something along the way, it's possible that I'm wrong and Trump is the creator of the idea and its execution. But I'm pretty sure that there was something besides the Secure Fence Act...

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Callie, we need to entrust the president to do his job accordingly, because we are the ones who voted him into place. It's part of his job to appoint justices, and we just need to trust.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I agree it would be productive to provide incentives due to the "I won't be rewarded so I don't have to try" ideology, what if these incentives don't work? Bureaucrats (typically) think like this, and maybe an incentive just won't work. Then you'll effectively be rewarding them for work they're not doing, which kind of encourages them further? All speculation, it's hard to talk about "what ifs."

# data[].attributes.body
On Vanessa's point about bureaucracies, it is very hard to understand because there are many aspects to it.

# data[].attributes.body
The government should privatize as many bureaucratic jobs as possible because regulations could be put to insure quality and private business would insure efficiency

# data[].attributes.body
There are so many aspects to bureaucracies  that it is very confusing like Vanessa said. The book wasn´t very clear when explaining it.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Sarah, because I feel when not everyone agrees with another person's opinion they tend to only think negatively, and not open to see the other side of it. Especially when it comes to the people making the laws and regulations, there's obviously a reason why they're enforcing particular rules.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Andrew, there should be incentives because it would assure everyone that there is actually work being done to positively affect society. It would give them goals, it couldn't do any harm.

# data[].attributes.body
I think regulations are important for our society. Yes there are people in a suit telling us what to do, but they must know what is best for us and that's why there are regulations. It keeps us safe.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jackson of how bureaucracy helps divide the work load and brings in new opinions

# data[].attributes.body
I think there should be term limits because if one person is always in office, then there will be no changes and new ideas

# data[].attributes.body
I agree Vanessa, Bureaucrats and bureaucracy can be  confusing and the book didn't do the best job in explaining what it is.

Private businesses actually pay more than government jobs. Government jobs just have more retirement benefits.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there should be terms but not term limits. This would allow judges to be cycled out more often if the President wanted to appoint someone else but if the judge is decent, he/she would be able to be appointed for more terms.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there should be term limits. I think they should be longer terms instead of 4 or 6 years. By making term limits, that would help bring in more diversity and possibly achieving even more that what we do now.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that the supreme court should have term limits because of there would be a lot of change that America would have to endure. However, I don't like the idea that if a judge makes a bad decision, it isn't taken into consideration.

I like what Bo had to say because cutting one tree down on property may not be a huge issue but in the bigger picture, cutting down many trees (without replanting them).

# data[].attributes.body
I think if we had a term limit it would allow for the court to bring in more of the population's opinion and they would be more concerned with making decisions that benefit the population because they are concerned with being re elected and being liked by the public.

To be fair lobbyists and activists and such often influence the people we do elect in and almost are the cause for certain laws being wrote, it's like bureaucrats creating laws when they were not elected in. Like lobbyists get to almost write their own laws and they were not elected in either, but they still get to influence a candidate to write laws in their favor.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the  bureaucracy  needs to shrink because their are so many policy being made to please every opinion causing a super large  government.

Thank you Vanessa for asking to clearly define what bureaucrats are because I was very confused.

The government needs to have an incentive for the bureaucrats because they need to have motivation to complete task at a fast pace. When they work slow, it costs the public an immense amount of money and time.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes I think there should be a term limit on justices because  I think there should be a way new ideas can come in to the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
I think there should be term limits because we need more ideas and newer people to help make these new ideas and move forward

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that there should term limits on supreme court justices. The people could remove a justice if the justice did something bad, congress could impeach. Justices can also retire

# data[].attributes.body
Bureaucracy, to my knowledge, consists of government employees such as state officials that have a say in authority that have control over the public to an extent. I feel like the reason people have such a big problem with bureaucrats is because it consists of unelected representatives, so people have the ideology of "Why am I being controlled by someone I didn't elect?" Of course we're in school and we are children so we are controlled by the school, but when you're an adult, your thought processes are more like, why is this person my boss.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Alex T.'s point; since the Supreme Court is not elected, if you want new ideas, you need to start by electing a president who aligns with the values you believe should be in the Court. Most presidents just nominate a strong replacement who matches the person they're replacing, like what Mindy said with Scalia and Gorsuch. It's also similar to the reading with Bush nominating Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, most presidents just replace retired/deceased justices with a political equivalent.

I agree with Mrs. Ammons' argument; it's nice to have the justices insulated from public opinion because they should be the nine best people we can find. I understand the counterargument (justices do serve for a really long time, and there's no diversity/new ideas), but I think term limits on the Supreme Court would be too hard to implement.

I really agree with some of the points being brought up about trusting the bureaucracy. What Bo said is true, we have to just let the bureaucracy do their job even if we hate them. And great point, I could never imagine having to vote for all these bureaucrats!

The commercials for the Super Bowl are extremely powerful, and I think that it's important to make a political statement; at the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, the Super Bowl - any time you have a chance to voice your opinion to millions of people, do it. Celebrities and companies don't always get a chance to sit on the electronic throne, so they have been making use of their opportunities.