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?

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.