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.

The War on Terrorism

 TO THE EDITOR:

If any lesson has been learned in the first quarter of this century, it is that the threat of terrorism cannot effectively be combatted by invading, occupying and attempting to re-make the government of a foreign nation. That approach has failed every time at great cost in lives and treasure. The terrorists find new ways to consolidate and train and new places to muster. The occupied country, once evacuated, never sustains conversion to imposed democratic government.
There are better ways to deter and punish nation-states that support or harbor terrorist groups. The use of economic sanctions, including termination of aid, the freezing of assets, cutting trade and barring access to the global banking system and world markets can be an effective means of deterrence, particularly when coupled with diplomatic isolation and travel restrictions. And when all else fails, over-the-horizon use of force involving targeted air, missile   and drone attacks and/or surgical strikes by special forces can neutralize any nascent terrorist development of training sites or command infrastructure.
Sadly, it is now apparent that the greatest threat to the American homeland is domestic terrorism. The danger to our democracy posed by White nationalists and other anti-democratic forces is growing exponentially and, emboldened by the tacit support or willful indifference of cowardly or power-hungry politicians, is becoming more violent and aggressive every day.

How Racist Is America?

 David Brooks asks “How Racist Is America?” (Editorial, July 23):

He begins his answer by accurately describing the historical and continuing barriers to economic and cultural advancement faced by Black and Native Americans. Then he clouds the issue by describing the success immigrant groups have had in moving up the economic and social ladders of American society. He compounds the confusion by broadly defining “people of color”. While he may be technically correct, the simple fact, as Mr. Brooks seems to acknowledge in other parts of his essay, is that persons who are visibly identifiable as Black, whether native or immigrant, continue to face discrimination in the broader society.
The more Black a person appears to be, the more likely she is to face heightened barriers spawned by racial prejudice. That prejudice is baked into the structure of American life and is, thus, systemic. Yes, the concept of “color” is a complex one, made more so by disparities in self-identification. And yes, the growing phenomena of interracial marriage may change the future. But for now, despite the fact that America may continue to be a land of opportunity for an astounding diversity of groups from around the world, it remains a land of white privilege that stamps it as a white supremacist nation.

New Racism Won't Fix Old Racism

 

Put aside, for the moment, the notion that basic fairness may require some table-tipping to offset centuries of disadvantage driven by racial animosity. When Chief Justice John Roberts uttered his infamous truism, that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”, he was, in the best light, guilty of gross naïveté.
States dominated by white legislators who put retention of power above preservation of democracy, will not stop discriminating as demonstrated by their continuing passage of laws limiting the voting rights of non-whites and reshaping voting districts for political (racial) advantage.
Since the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and declined to prevent partisan gerrymandering, the only remedy must come from Congress. And we all know that Congress, as currently constituted and as likely to continue being constituted, will provide no legislative relief. So, Mr. Stephens, if raising public awareness of racism and the role it plays in our society is a form of new racism that won’t fix the old racism, what do you see as the solution?

Biden Narrows Plan To Rebuild Infrastructure

 

In his vain attempt to achieve "bipartisanship" on infrastructure legislation, President Biden is violating a cardinal principle of effective bargaining; don't negotiate against yourself. By repeatedly reducing the scope of his plan to revitalize and rebuild the nation, without any meaningful concessions from Republicans, Mr. Biden is likely to jeopardize the success of his initiatives and further embolden Republican obstructionism. The end result is foreseeable. Should the president get any legislation at all it is likely to be a watered down version which fails adequately to advance the goals of the program or rekindle  a scintilla of bipartisanship.

Philip Morris Ad

 Philip Morris International, having knowingly created and promoted, for many decades, products that caused unimaginable suffering and premature death, now poses as the champion of a smoke-free future. In a full-page ad in the NYTimes (5/11), the company’s CEO ballyhoos its move to replace cigarettes with “better alternatives”.

First, cigarettes should not be any kind of alternative; they are deadly poisons that should be banned (and no longer be produced) just as other carcinogenic products have been banned. And the proposed smoke-free alternatives the company hails (presumably e-cigarettes or “vapes”) have been found to pose their own health risks, especially for young persons.
So, if Philip Morris really wants to perform a life-saving public service it should immediately stop producing cigarettes, shelve its smoke-free alternatives and further develop its other lines of business.

Pot Use Made Anti-Semitic Killer Unfit to Stand Trial

 The ruling by the highest court in France, that the brutal killer of an older woman, because he identified her as Jewish, may not be tried and held accountable  by reason of impairment of his judgment by chronic use of pot, is both wrong-headed and dangerous. The court found that French law does not allow a person to be held criminally responsible if, at the time of the crime , he was suffering from a neuropsychic disturbance that deprived him of control over his actions. The court relied on the fact that the law, as written, does not distinguish between a condition occurring naturally or one that is voluntary, as in the present case where the perpetrator’s voluntary use of drugs induced a delirious state. If the court is correct the law must be changed.

The law in the United States varies from state to state. In most jurisdictions voluntary intoxication, by drug or alcohol use, is not a complete defense to criminal prosecution. It may result in a reduced charge which doesn’t require specific intent, such as a charge of manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Allowing a killer to avoid responsibility entirely, if he chooses to get “high” before engaging in murderous acts, is a recipe for disaster. You can’t confine him once he is sober so he walks away without punishment or constraint on future acts of violence.
Yes, fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong.