Justices Weigh Religion Rights Vs. Bias Laws

 The conservative majority of the Supreme Court seems poised to strike down a Colorado law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. The conservative justices seem inclined to allow businesses that offer services involving expression, as distinguished from the sale of goods, to refuse to serve gay couples. 

The justification for allowing such discrimination is the protection of free speech based upon religious conviction. If the court so decides, it will have gotten it wrong on two counts. Free speech, in the guise of denied service, is cabined when a person or business offers wares or services to the public. An offer to sell must be made without invidious discrimination.

Excusing such discrimination, as an exercise of religious liberty, is neither acceptable in a free society nor protected by the Constitution. Persons of true faith would not harbor such intolerance and a claim of religious entitlement cannot be upheld when its exercise violates the protected rights of others. 

A Skeptical Supreme Court Seems Poised to Overturn Public Corruption Rulings

 

The Supreme Court seems poised to restrict, once again, the ability of federal prosecutors to hold accountable state officials engaged in corrupt activities.
Not long ago, the Court overturned the conviction of then Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who accepted lavish gifts in exchange for arranging meetings for his benefactor with other public officials. The Court held that Mr. McDonnell’s action was not the kind of formal and concrete government activity necessary to constitute a corrupt bargain.
How can we expect a court whose members believe it appropriate to accept expensive trips, dinners and other benefits from lobbyists and find it unnecessary to recuse themselves from cases in which spouses have an interest, to uphold convictions for conduct which mirrors their own?

Carnage Leaves Empty Chairs at Thanksgiving

 

When, as happens daily, there is a mass shooting, gun worshipers condemn the senseless slaughter and recite the obligatory "thoughts and prayers" litany. Then, right-wing media invariably attacks those who demand sensible gun control laws, like banning assault rifles whose only purpose is to inflict maximum carnage. The likes of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and their ilk, target the public figures and victims who call for reform of the murderous gun culture which is twenty-first century America. The real villains, they charge, are left-wing radicals who rush to use every tragedy as an opportunity for political gain.

There is nothing more infuriating than to hear rational action turned upside down. When a problem continuously manifests itself, solutions must be found. Responding to mass shootings by proposing more effective gun regulation is the logical and humane reaction. Impeding measures to preserve life and condemning those who press for their adoption is the real outrage.

Roberts's Early Court Agenda: A Study in Disappointment

 The aspiration of Chief Justice John Roberts, to preserve the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a venerated institution and to safeguard the credibility of its decisions, has been seriously undermined by the majority of justices currently serving on the Court. Chief Justice Roberts's disappointment can be traced to two overarching factors.

The conservative justices, despite their earlier assurances, have abandoned their respect for precedent, a practice which is the essence and the bedrock of any worthy judicial system. That same conservative majority also ignores the time-honored mandate of the Court, to decide only issues raised by the litigants and to decide them as narrowly as practicable. 

This Court has an obvious agenda which it pursues by reaching out for issues beyond the scope of cases being considered, the very essence of judicial activism, and then promulgates decisions that unnecessarily overturn firmly rooted constitutional protections.

When the public perceives that the Court's decisions are detached from enduring legal principles and seem only to reflect the political preferences of individual justices, respect for the Court is shattered and the rule of law is put in dire danger.

Why Aren't Democrats Trouncing These Guys?

 David Brooks accurately reports that America is deeply divided between the college-educated and those who are not, between the working class and higher achievers. He observes that the feelings between the two classes have hardened and become more antagonistic.

While Mr. Brooks recognizes that the working class has moved to the Right and supports Republican candidates, he overlooks a glaring anomaly. In modern times the Republican party has always been and continues to be the party of the wealthy and corporations, representing the antithesis of the working class. Yet, somehow, that party has successfully misled workers, especially white workers, to believe that it champions their interests and beliefs.

This sleight-of-hand has been perpetrated by appealing to and encouraging the basest prejudices of the working class, by paying lip service to its cultural preferences and by using as a facade the likes of Donald Trump, a privileged scion who masquerades as kindred and who gives voice to and approval of their thinly veiled hostility and anger. Perhaps workers will rethink their embrace of Republicans when they awaken to the loss of their social security and medical coverage.

Justices Dubious of Race as Factor

 

If you start from the premise that all persons are being treated equally, regardless of race, then any form of racial distinction, whether discriminatory or preferential, would (and should) be a violation of equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
But this country has a long history of treating Black persons unequally and that legacy, which persists today, has disadvantaged members of that race. Therefore, measures which are calculated to overcome those disadvantages are remedial and should not be deemed constitutional violations until such time as the ideal of equality for all has been achieved.
Despite disingenuous declarations by some of the justices, when the court gutted the Voting Rights Act, we have not yet reached that goal.

Putin Says Western Elites Are the Enemy

 If ever there was a question, about whether there was an affinity between Vladimir Putin and the Trumpist movement in the United States, any doubt was extinguished by Putin’s speech at a conference in Russia on Thursday. Echoing the racist canards of the MAGA crowd and other autocratic leaders in the West, Putin declared that they had a common enemy, namely Western elites. Dripping with antisemitism, and using the dog whistles of the ultra-right, he identified these elites as aggressive, cosmopolitan neoliberals who are trying to impose their “pretty strange values on everyone else “. Putin contrasted these “common enemies “with those in the West who follow traditional, Christian values.

Trump and his following may decry evidence of collusion with Putin, in past elections and current rhetoric, but the handwriting is on the wall. There is a growing coalescence in both the West and the East to find scapegoats for unpopular policies and a justification for abandoning democratic government.