Supreme Court Won't Block Vaccination Mandate

 The Supreme Court denied an emergency application which asked the court to block enforcement of required vaccinations for health care workers in Maine notwithstanding their religious objections (10/30, A16):

Not surprisingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito,  dissented. Justice Gorsuch opined that the hardships borne by health care workers, now being fired for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, made their "plight...worthy" of the court's attention. Apparently, in the view of these three justices, the plight of religious health care workers far outweighs the harm being done to thousands of women in Texas whose constitutionally recognized right to abortion is being blocked by state law. The health care needs of these women seem to matter little and they may be forced to travel to other states for help, bear the children of rapists or simply suffer their fate in silence while the Texas law is tested in court. 

Where were your concerns and those of your conservative colleagues on that one , Justice Gorsuch?

Supreme Court Schedules Argument on Texas Abortion Law

 Let's state the obvious; at least five justices of the Supreme Court disapprove of abortion and likely disagree with the holding of Roe v. Wade, that there is a constitutional right of privacy which protects a woman's right to obtain an abortion before the advent of fetal life. 

The Texas law which permits financial punishment of abortion providers and those assisting them, is unquestionably unconstitutional under current law. Yet, by repeatedly refusing to enjoin its application, a majority of the court is signaling their intent to overrule Roe v. Wade and strip women of a right previously protected by the constitution. In doing so, the court is allowing Texas ( and any other state that may follow suit ) irreparably to deprive women of the immediate health care they require. Setting an early date for oral argument is hardly any solace to women whose health needs will be unaddressed and whose rights will be irretrievably lost in the interim. Nor does it alter the likely demise of Roe v. Wade which the majority of the court seems to be straining at the leash to bring about.

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.

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.