Supreme Court Allows NY Vaccine Mandate

 

Once again, at least three members of the Supreme Court have made clear that their notion of religious liberty takes precedence over every other right or constitutional protection. This time these champions of religion are in the minority, dissenting to the majority's refusal to block enforcement of New York's vaccine mandate which requires health care workers to be vaccinated or be fired, without an exemption for religious beliefs.

History teaches that the nation's founders, though not deeply religious, recognized the importance of safeguarding the right to practice a religion without government interference or undue favor. At bottom, the founders were committed to keeping church and state separate; it was not their intent to elevate religion above all else.

To suggest, as do the dissenters led by Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justice Alito with Justice Thomas dissenting separately), that the government's paramount duty, to protect the health and safety of the citizenry, can be overridden by strained religious objections turns on its head the language and intent of the First Amendment, that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion".

The End of Bi-Partisanship in Foreign Policy

 Time was, as the old saying goes, politics ended at the shoreline, Americans closed ranks and united to oppose the threat of foreign aggressors and foreign policy was a bi-partisan exercise. No longer. Now, the right-wing, led by the likes of Sean Hannity, constantly belittles and berates an American president even as he squares off against and attempts to deter the growing aggressiveness of a belligerent Vladimir Putin.

While Fox talking heads profess to abhor Mr. Putin  they persistently praise him and his autocratic ways even as they support a man, Donald Trump, who would end democracy in the United States. Patriotism, as defined by the Right, has taken on a strange new meaning.

Supreme Court Argument of Mississippi Abortion Case

 Based upon the statements made and questions asked by Supreme Court justices, during oral argument of the Mississippi abortion case, the handwriting is on the wall; the court likely will overrule Roe v. Wade or, at a minimum, uphold the right of states to grossly narrow the period after pregnancy during which abortions will be permitted.

The position seemingly espoused by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that because the issue is so significant and controversial, the court should be "scrupulously neutral" and leave the decision to the states, is morally outrageous and legally indefensible. That same illogical reasoning could have been advanced when Brown v. Board of Education was argued, leaving the choice of segregation to each state legislature.

The primary function of the Supreme Court is to protect individual liberty against incursions by politically motivated or narrow-minded state legislators. When an important constitutional right is endangered the justices are not expected to punt.

The silver lining of this likely outcome, horrendous as it may be, is a backlash at the polls, driven by women and those respecting the rule of law,  sweeping Republicans from office.