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.

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.