Ever since the groundbreaking social welfare programs that Roosevelt rolled out during his first 100 days, this period has been one of the first points at which the public (mostly the media if we’re being honest) passes judgement on a new president. It is a mostly arbitrary number, but it’s round, and roughly corresponds to when the president’s honeymoon period ends. President Trump recently passed his 100 day mark (on April 28th), so despite the problems with just looking at the first 100 days, now seems as good of a time as any to review his progress so far.

As many have noted, Trump has hardly had the traditional honeymoon period that a president receives; in fact, according to Nate Silver, his popularity hovers around 40%, which is down from around 50% immediately after he was elected. For reference, after 100 days, Obama was at 65%, George W. Bush was at 62%, Bill Clinton was at 55%, and George H.W. Bush was at 54%. So, clearly, the public doesn’t think he’s doing a great job, but 40% is still 120 million people, so he does have some support.

In terms of actual achievements during his first 100 days, Trump again scores relatively low. While he passed 29 laws, more than Obama’s 14 in the same time period, this figure is somewhat misleading. Most of the laws he passed lacked substance, or where minor measures in the first place. As a result, only 133 pages were included in these laws, compared to Obama’s 1,602.

Executive orders have also been ineffective for Trump, with many being struck down by the courts, or amended until their original purpose wasn’t really fulfilled.

Arguably, the most successful, or at least most decisive, aspect of Trump’s presidency was his attack on a Syrian air base. This strike was ostensibly a response to Bashar Al-Assad’s continued use of chemical weapons against his own citizens. However, the PR disaster that surrounded it somewhat diminished the posturing.

Overall, it’s probably fair to say Trump isn’t a very effective president, but it’s also probably not fair to say he isn’t trying. He has pushed stuff forward, and as he catches on to Washington politics, may become more and more effective.

Arkansas carried out the U.S.’s first double execution in 17 years on April 24th, 2017. The last double execution to occur happened in Texas, in 2000, when the state executed two killers.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, or DPIC, Jack Jones and Marcel Williams were the inmates who were put on death row and executed on April 24, 2017. Both Jack Jones and Marcel Williams were convicted for murder, kidnapping, and rape, and were sent to prison with life sentences. These two were the second and third people executed in a eight day period.

After the two men’s trials, the Governor of Arkansas had to make a tough choice of whether to let them live with life sentences or to issue a death penalty. According to CBS News, the Governor decided to issue the death penalty, and the jury voted with Governor Hutchinson, backing his decision to issue the death penalty.

One horrific reason, that Governor Hutchinson used to justify his decision, was that the state needed to use up its supply of midazolam, a drug used for lethal injections before it expired.

Pharmacists have been hesitant to supply states with the drug midazolam because they don’t want to be the cause of someone’s death. Midazolam has also been involved in several botched executions according to Live Science. The term “botched” is used as in the drug either didn’t work as it was supposed to, and left the person conscious, or the IV was placed incorrectly and the drug never fully worked.

This story truly became interesting when the details of the other Arkansas executions were uncovered. According to lawyers, and other media sources present, almost all of the deaths were botched in some way, ways that would make the death slow and tortuous.

Immediately after the injection of Jack Jones, the lawyer of Marcel Williams filed an emergency stay in federal district court. His reasoning was that Jones’ execution had seemed inhumane and painful, so he made this last ditch attempt to try and keep his client alive. The state completely disregarded this saying his claims were: “Utterly baseless.”

Witnesses of the Jones injection said it took the officials in charge 45 minutes to try to find a place for the injection in his neck. When they were finished sticking him in the neck, unsuccessfully trying to find a place to kill him, they eventually had to move elsewhere on his body. When the poor, scared man was finally injected, the officials didn’t wait the required 5 minutes to perform a consciousness check, and he was gulping air and struggling against the restraints.

The execution of Williams was held off until 9:30 pm Central Time after one judge accepted the appeal for a stay in court, and a short uneventful hearing took place. The Williams injection looked much less painful.

This double execution was part of a schedule set forth by the Governor to execute eight people in eleven days. Of those eight scheduled, only four have happened with the others receiving stays in court, and/or some clemency.

Why is it so hard for the government to find an effective injection that kills painlessly and quickly? This question will need to be answered if executions are to continue, but at the same time, the government could care less, after all, it would be a shame if their store of drugs for lethal injection went to waste.

Following a months long battle in the Senate, and possibly years if you count former president Obama’s attempt to nominate Merrick Garland, Mr. Gorsuch was finally confirmed as the 9th justice on the Supreme Court. The final vote count was 54-45 (Johnny Isakson (R-GA) abstained), making the vote substantially more narrow than previous votes.

The process was perhaps most notable for the so called “nuclear option” – removing the ability to filibuster the cloture vote on a Supreme Court Justice. Cloture is distinct from the actual vote in that it is a vote to stop debate – had the democrats been able to filibuster at that point, debate would never technically end, and it would thus be impossible to fill the seat.

This has huge implications for the Senate, especially concerning future Supreme Court nominations. Unless the Senate is tied 50-50 (it hasn’t been since 2000), no bipartisanship is required to confirm a justice.

The problem here is bipartisanship has historically been a necessary part of operation in the Senate. This has certainly taken a backseat in recent years, due to extremism and partisanship on both sides, but even ObamaCare need some GOP votes, if only to avoid filibuster.

Confirming a justice without the opportunity for the opposition to filibuster sets a bad precedent, one that could have potentially devastating consequences on bipartisanship in the Senate.