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.

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.

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?