Bush 2021, Please Meet Bush 2001

 Jamelle Bouie is correct to recall that George W. Bush was the architect of policies that infected the American electorate and grew to be the crisis which now threatens our democracy.It is understandable that Mr. Bouie greets a recent Bush speech, condemning terrorism at home and abroad and the polarization of American politics, with great annoyance (“galling”).

Indeed, the Bush administration’s subversion of American unity and idealism is tempered only by comparison to the naked authoritarianism and lawlessness of the Trump years. And though Mr. Bush, as president, did a few praiseworthy things, such as funding AIDS relief in Africa and speaking in defense of Muslim-Americans,it is, nevertheless, hypocritical for him to now pose as a revered elder statesman admonishing a wayward nation for enlarging the practices he once preached.
Of coarse, reformation should be encouraged and Mr. Bush can make a useful contribution to the battle against domestic terrorists by continuing to speak out. His transformation would be more convincing, however, were he to acknowledge the error of his earlier misdeeds and atone for his own sins.

Justice Department to Challenge Texas Abortion Law

 

The defenders of the Texas abortion law are making two outrageous arguments in its support.
First, they contend that, although the law offends the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, it may not be challenged because its enforcement has been entrusted by the State to private citizens who are not state actors. By concocting a scheme to empower vigilantes to sue persons exercising recognized constitutional rights, and offering a bounty to incentivize such illicit lawsuits, Texas has thumbed its nose at the rule of law and is leading the charge to dismantle democracy.
Just as offensive is Gov. Abbott’s incomprehensible suggestion that the Texas law’s failure to make exception for victims of rape is, somehow, excusable because he intends to “eliminate “ rapists. The utter absurdity of that statement is apparent on its face.How does one identify would be rapists before they act and what legal justification can be offered for their elimination absent the commission of a crime?
If Abbott is referring to rapists who have already struck, what  comfort can a victim draw from Abbott’s patently preposterous boast?
The governor might just as well have announced the closing of all prisons in Texas because he intends to eliminate criminals.

Justice Department to Intervene in Texas Abortions

 Attorney-General Garland has announced that the Justice Department would continue to protect women who seek an abortion in Texas. The question is, how?

May I suggest that DOJ attorneys act as counsel for women sued by the vigilantes deputized by Texas law to act for the state against persons assisting procurement of abortions. The federal lawyers should make it clear that they will seek to recover legal fees and costs from persons acting on the state's invitation to violate the constitutional rights of pro abortion actors. Indeed,  it would be an effective deterrent to assert counterclaims seeking money damages from the vigilantes for their defiance of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Allows Texas Abortion Law to Take Effect

 The Texas law which enables the punishment of persons obtaining or aiding an abortion after six weeks of conception is a violation of a constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The patently disingenuous attempt by Texas to cloak that fact, by passing its enforcement powers to private persons, should be promptly and roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

The argument that this law is beyond judicial scrutiny because it does not amount to “state action “ is without merit.By granting private individuals standing to sue abortion recipients, providers or abettors, when no such authority would otherwise exist, Texas has exercised its state powers and deputized its citizens to act on its behalf as vigilantes.
Furthermore, judicial enforcement of this law by state courts, enabling unconstitutional invasions of protected rights, constitutes state action triggering constitutional protections.