Appeals Court Blocks Biden's Vaccine Mandate

 In blocking President Biden's vaccine mandate a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel, made up of three Republican-appointed judges, issued an opinion that is patently political and policy oriented. Thus, the court said that the "mere specter" of the mandate contributed to untold economic upheaval. The panel further opined that the mandate threatened our constitutional structure and the liberty of individuals to make "intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions". 

One can safely predict that the same panel would be far less sympathetic to and protective of the right of a woman to make the "intensely personal decision" of whether to bear a child. 

When, inevitably, this case reaches the Supreme Court the conservative bloc of justices will likely perpetuate that same hypocritical view of personal liberties and government intrusion. If the action being challenged accords with their policy preferences (e.g. banning abortions) it will be upheld. If it offends their politics (e.g. gun regulation, public health measures) it will be struck down. That is not how the rule of law should operate.

To End The Crisis At Rikers

 

Former NYS chief judge Jonathan Lippman is right to condemn the deplorable conditions  and unacceptable number of deaths at the Rikers Island jails. (11/12, A-23) His recommendations, on how to reduce the jails’ population until they can be finally shuttered, are commendable and should be implemented. However, there is another important measure which should be adopted that would make a significant impact on solving the problems he identifies. Many persons spend inordinate amounts of time in jail awaiting trial because there aren’t enough judges to conduct them. In NY appointed judges are compelled by the state’s constitution to retire at age 70. This antiquated requirement, enacted when 70 was considered ancient, makes no sense in the modern world and results in the loss to the criminal justice system of scores of experienced, well qualified judges who could handle the backlog of cases in a fair and efficient manner. Until the constitution can be amended to remove this out-dated and harmful barrier, the legislature should provide for the reappointment of these retired experienced jurists as emergency judges empowered to preside over criminal trials and quickly reduce the number of defendants who now languish interminably in jail for want of a trial.

Supreme Court Hears Second Amendment Case

 

It appears,  from comments made during oral argument, that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is poised to strike down New York's regulation of the right to carry concealed weapons outside the home. 

The court's originalist justices seem ready to apply their version of history without regard to the distinction between muzzle-loading guns, which were the weapons in use when the Second Amendment was adopted and the automatic, high-volume firearms of today. Imagine if the Constitution had another amendment, adopted in the 18th century, which provided that the right of the people to drive a conveyance, at that time a horse and buggy, may not be infringed. Would today's justices conclude that a state may not require a licensing test before permitting a citizen to operate a 400-horsepower car, an 18-wheel tractor-trailer or an interstate bus? 

If the Constitution cannot be interpreted in the light of radically changed circumstances it becomes a straitjacket rather than a protective shield.