Daily Archives: January 3, 2022

Officials ignoring our problem

As I drove into work today, I couldnt help but notice the homeless camps spreading from Golf Links and Craycroft (2 miles) all the way to Campbell Avenue. There are now cars driving into these camps, and today I witnessed someone digging holes with a large shovel. I couldnt help but notice that two vehicles (City of Tucson) at 9:50 a.m. stood around and swept the sidewalks (really?), where just a mile down the road is where the problem lies. Not sure who to complain to, the city, Pima County, mayor or council members. I find it embarrassing how our city has become. Why do you all just turn the other way when this needs to be handled delicately, as well as firmly?

America's post-truth cancer

Post-truth has been defined as the contention that feelings are more accurate than facts, for the purpose of the political subordination of reality. This mindset is now rampant in America with a major faction of voters embracing this concept. Suddenly, our universities are nothing more than a Communist plot. Suddenly, science has a grand plan to subjugate the American people in some sort of deep state plot. Post-truth thrives on paranoia and confirmation bias in a broken society. Authoritarians depend on post-truth to gain power, since truth is the enemy of authoritarianism. Once a political role model convinces followers that only he holds the truth, then the most ridiculous things can become reality. The old truth can easily become a traitor, as fallacy becomes the norm. A quote attributed to George Orwell says, "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." Our embracing of post-truth is the embracing of authoritarianism. We are on a dangerous path.

Originally posted here:
Letters to the Editor: Dec. 27: Second Amendment, homelessness in Tucson, post truth, COVID vaccine - Arizona Daily Star

If we are no longer capable of amending our Constitution (In Our Dreams, Letters, Dec. 26), then we might as well give up on government of, by, and for the people.

Yes, amending the Constitution is hard, but previous generations did it 27 times. What would our country be like today if they hadnt? Slavery would still be legal (13th Amendment), women could not vote (19th Amendment), poll taxes would prevent millions of Americans from voting (24th Amendment), and young men and women risking their lives for democracy in the military would not be eligible to vote in state and local elections (26th Amendment).

A series of antidemocratic Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United and McCutcheon are undermining our democracy by exposing it to the corrupting influence of big money in our political system. The consequences are severe: unaffordable health care, rampant gun violence, grotesque disparity of wealth, climate chaos, and widespread distrust of our government.

According to a Native American proverb, we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. We owe it to future generations to fix our broken democracy by amending our Constitution.

Paul Lauenstein

Sharon

Wide awake

When I read last Sundays letters to the editor, my reaction was, I agree with them all. And while they all are important, I got to daydreaming about what it would take to make the proposed changes and thought: They needed prioritizing.

Id start with Citizens United because the others wouldnt stand a chance with the corrupting influence of big money. Then it was a toss-up: fatal ambiguities or term limits. But by the time we completely transition to term limits, the ambiguity of the Second Amendment will have contributed to far too many fatalities, thus urgency overrode politics. Then, of course, connecting the dots and filling the gaps should be part of any effort to make the Constitution truly relevant and to protect the rights of all citizens. Isnt that what the Founders intended (or so we like to believe)?

But alas, I was awakened from my daydreams by the harsh realities of the last letter.

Adam Villone

Cummaquid

Read the original post:
Constitutional amendments are the only way to correct past wrongs - The Boston Globe

One in three Americans believe violence against the government is sometimes justified, according to a new Washington Post poll.

The survey, with the University of Maryland, was released on New Years Day five days short of a year since rioters attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to overturn Donald Trumps election defeat by Joe Biden.

According to the authors of The Steal, a new book on Republican attempts to fulfill Trumps aim through legal action in key states, the rioters of 6 January 2021 had no more chance of overthrowing the US government than hippies in 1967 had trying to levitate the Pentagon.

But it was still by far the most serious attack on the seat of federal government since the British burned Washington in 1814 and the Post poll comes amid a sea of warnings of growing domestic strife, even of a second civil war.

The Post reported: The percentage of Americans who say violent action against the government is justified at times stands at 34%, which is considerably higher than in past polls by the Post or other major news organisations dating back more than two decades.

The view is partisan: The new survey finds 40% of Republicans, 41% of independents and 23% of Democrats saying violence is sometimes justified.

Other polls have found that more than half of Republicans believe Trumps lie that Biden won the White House thanks to electoral fraud, and do not trust elections.

As pointed out by Mark Bowden and Matthew Teague, authors of new book The Steal: The Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election and People Who Stopped It, Trump was ultimately stopped by the integrity of hundreds of obscure Americans from every walk of life, state and local officials, judges and election workers. Many of them Republicans, some Trump supporters.

Nonetheless, at a rally near the White House on 6 January, Trump told such supporters to fight like hell in his cause.

And if you dont fight like hell, he said, youre not going to have a country anymore.

Five people died, including a rioter shot by law enforcement and a police officer.

The Post poll found that 60% of Americans said Trump bore a great deal or a good amount of responsibility for the Capitol attack. However, 72% of Republicans and 83% of Trump voters said he bore just some responsibility or none at all.

The Post reported: A majority continue to say that violence against the government is never justified but the 62% who hold that view is a new low point, and a stark difference from the 1990s, when as many as 90% said violence was never justified.

The paper interviewed some respondents.

Phil Spampinato, 73, from Dover, Delaware, and a political independent, said he first contemplated the question of whether violence against the government might be justified as a way of defending your way of life after he saw Republicans changing state laws to restrict voting by Democrats and to make it easier to overturn results.

Not too many years ago, Spampinato said, I would have said that those conditions are not possible, and that no such violence is really ever appropriate.

Anthea Ward, a Republican 32-year-old mother of two from Michigan, said: The world we live in now is scary. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but sometimes it feels like a movie. Its no longer a war against Democrats and Republicans. Its a war between good and evil.

Ward said she did not approve of the Capitol attack. She also said she would not participate in violence over Covid-19 vaccine mandates another social flashpoint.

But, the Post reported, Ward did say other people could be justified in choosing to express their second amendment right if the government infringe[d] their freedom of choice over vaccines, and nonviolent action such as protests were unsuccessful.

Originally posted here:
One in three Americans say violence against government justified poll - The Guardian

The top Fresh Air web stories of 2021 reflect the show's status as a place where artists, authors and journalists speak to the moment. Valerie Macon/AFP; Grace Cary; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

The top Fresh Air web stories of 2021 reflect the show's status as a place where artists, authors and journalists speak to the moment.

As the producers of Fresh Air's web stories, we keep an eye on the pages that get the most traction throughout the year and sometimes there are surprises.

In 2021, the top pages reflect Fresh Air's strength as a place where artists, authors and journalists speak to the moment. Certainly, the COVID-19 pandemic remained at the forefront. Dr. Anthony Fauci's February 2021 conversation with Terry Gross about the likelihood that the virus would mutate proved eerily prescient 10 months later.

"We live in a global community," Fauci said. "Unless we get the rest of the world adequately vaccinated and unless we don't [give the virus] the opportunity ... to mutate in a place that doesn't have access to vaccines, we will always be threatened."

Other guests had warnings of their own. Former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill cautioned that U.S. democracy is being threatened from within, while Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg theorized that QAnon believers might become even more extreme now that President Trump is out of office.

But it wasn't all doom and gloom. Pop culture figures like Sacha Baron Cohen and Fran Lebowitz brought much needed levity. And the most clicked-on story of the year looked back waaaay back as paleoanthropologist Daniel Lieberman debunked myths about exercise and explained why our ancient ancestors didn't feel the need to hit the gym.

You'll find that conversation, and many more, in this list of the 10 most popular Fresh Air interviews of 2021:

1. Just move: Scientist author debunks myths about exercise and sleep: Paleoanthropologist Daniel Lieberman says the concept of "getting exercise" is relatively new. His new book, Exercised, examines why we run, lift and walk for a workout when our ancestors didn't.

2. Sacha Baron Cohen on Borat ethics and why his disguise days are over: Baron Cohen has been chased, sued and nearly arrested while in character. A scary experience with a gun rights rally while filming Borat 2 solidified his decision: "At some point, your luck runs out."

3. Former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill warns the U.S. is on a path to autocracy: Fiona Hill was a key witness at Donald Trump's first impeachment hearing. Now she's warning about the threat to American democracy that comes from within. Her memoir is There Is Nothing for You Here.

4. Dr. Fauci reflects on vaccinations and Biden's "refreshing" approach to COVID-19: The administration is in its early days, but the infectious disease expert says he's encouraged by the new president's attitude about the pandemic. Science, Fauci says, is "going to rule."

5. Without their "messiah," QAnon believers confront a post-Trump world: With former President Donald Trump out of office, Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg suggests some who believe in the baseless conspiracy theory will become even more extreme.

6. Trees talk to each other. This Mother Tree ecologist hears lessons for people: Ecologist Suzanne Simard says trees are "social creatures" that communicate with each other in remarkable ways such as warning each other of danger and sharing nutrients at critical times.

7. Andie MacDowell draws from the chaos and darkness of her childhood for Maid: MacDowell grew up with a mother who was mentally ill and addicted to alcohol. "Understanding the complexity of mental illness was something that I'm versed in," she says.

8. Fran Lebowitz's Pretend it's a City is the NYC trip you can't take right now: The show features the humorist's conversations with Martin Scorsese on many topics Manhattan in particular. "If I dropped the Hope Diamond on the floor of a subway car, I'd leave it there," she says.

9. After growing up in a cult, Lauren Hough freed herself by writing the truth: Hough was 15 when her family left the Children of God cult. Afterward, she struggled to face the trauma of her past. Her new collection of personal essays is Leaving Isn't the Hardest Thing.

10. Historian Carol Anderson uncovers the racist roots of the 2nd Amendment: Anderson says the Second Amendment was designed to ensure slave owners could quickly crush any rebellion or resistance from those they'd enslaved. Her new book is The Second.

Visit link:
The 10 most popular 'Fresh Air' stories of 2021, from Fauci to Sacha Baron Cohen - NPR

The late Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgBuckle up! 2022 is going to be a big one for the Supreme Court Roberts calls for judicial independence in year-end report The top political books of 2021 MORE once observed that its hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court. However, there are some years that are bigger than others. Thats what 2022 is likely to be.

The court has accepteda series of transformative caseswith few available exit ramps. It recently added to that list.

In other words, it is likely to issue historic rulings on abortion, gun rights and an assortment of other issues.

The fact that the Supreme Court is going to hand down such decisions in a major election year is also noteworthy. The court tends to be more conservative in the selection of cases before major elections, but 2022 will put the court at ground zero in one of the most heated elections in history.

For thosecalling to pack the courtto ensure a liberal majority, the already furious commentary is likely to reach near hysteria if the conservative majority rules as expected in some of these cases in the first half of 2022.

Heres just a partial list of what is coming in the new year:

Abortion

The country isawaiting a decisionby June inDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. At issue is whetherMississippi can impose a 15-week limit on abortions. That is earlier than previously allowed by the court, but the United States is one of only seven among the worlds 198 countries to allow abortions after 20 weeks. While the court could simply overturnRoe v. Wadeand return the area to the states, it is more likely that the court will increase the authority of the states while recognizing constitutional protections for such reproductive rights. That could result in a major reframing of previability cases.

AfterDobbswas accepted, advocates sought to enjoin a Texas law that banned abortion after just six weeks. The courtruled 5-4to allow the Texas law to be enforced. The Biden administration and other litigants then forced a reconsideration of that decision. The court as expected allowed the appeal to go forwardfor some of the litigants in the lower court but again refused to enjoin the law. To make matters worse, it declared the Biden administrations appeal to be improvidently granted.

Gun rights

If Dobbs is a frightening thought for abortion advocates,New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruenis a virtual heart attack for gun control advocates. In thelatest badly drafted gun lawto go before the court, New York has forced a challenge that could result in a major ruling reinforcing individual rights under the Second Amendment. The casedeals with theSullivan Actof 1911, giving local officials discretion over who can carry concealed guns based on a showing of proper cause.Bruenis likely to reinforce rights for concealed carry permits negating a host of laws across the country.

Agency deference

While not often discussed with the matinee cases of the term, one case on the docket could bring sweeping impacts across various areas from the environment to financial regulations to public health.American Hospital Association (AHA) v. Becerraraises a highly technical question of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule that cut outpatient drug reimbursements to hospitals. The rule is based on an agency interpretation of vague statutory provisions an interpretation that was defended under the deference afforded to agency decisions.(Notably, the court has accepted a variety of other cases that could curtail agency authority, including West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which could also curtail efforts on climate change.)

The case is technically aboutoutpatient carefor Medicare Part B recipients; however, for some justices, particularly Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoBuckle up! 2022 is going to be a big one for the Supreme Court No, Congress should not codify 'Chevron deference' Give me liberty and give you death MORE and Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchBuckle up! 2022 is going to be a big one for the Supreme Court Your 2021 holiday dinner political survival guide To uphold the rule of law, US Supreme Court must act in Texas death penalty case MORE, it is all about Chevron and agency deference.Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. is a 1984 administrative law case that has come to embody the role of federal agencies in not just enforcing but creating law. The Chevron Doctrine has insulated agency decisions for decades from substantive review, giving federal agencies an overwhelming degree of authority in our system of government.For some of us, the dominance of federal agencies has become equivalent to a fourth branch of government. The question is whether a critical mass has formed on the court to substantially curtail that decision. If so,AHA v. Becerracould be a torpedo in the water for the Chevron Doctrine.

New cases

With these and other important cases on the docket, it is hardly necessary to add anything new to such a momentous year. Yet the court is not done by a long shot.

At the end of 2021, the Supreme Court dove into the raging debate over vaccine mandates. It ordered an expedited argument in three such cases forJan. 7. The appeal raises the legality ofthe emergency temporary standard issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requiring a vaccine-or-test mandate for private employers with more than 100 employees. The case, again, raises core issues of agency deference as well as federal authority in this area. Courts have split on what White House Chief of Staff Ron KlainRon KlainBuckle up! 2022 is going to be a big one for the Supreme Court Experts say COVID-19 cases don't tell whole story Democrats like what they saw in Harris-Charlamagne tha God exchange MORE admits wasa workaround of the limits on the presidents authority.

The court is still mulling the case ofStudents for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, a Title VI case in which Harvard University is accused ofrigging its admissions processagainst Asian American students. Its the flip side of past racial preference cases in college admission, an area that has remained amorass of fractured or conflicting decisionsfor the court.

This is just a partial listing of what is coming in the new year.

It is perhaps not surprising that Democratic members of Congress and liberal groups are threatening the justices of consequences or even a revolution if they do not vote with the left of the court. Such threats, however,may backfire. Not only is Chief Justice John Robertsthe most popular public official today, but evenliberal justices have chafedat the claim that this is a conservative or biased court.

The new year will test the design of our constitutional system in insulating the court from such public pressures, even directthreats to the court or individual justicesfrom politicians.

With some of the most important decisions coming by June 2022, there will be plenty of time to weaponize the opinions for the midterm elections.

Former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft once observed thatpresidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever. That may be reassuring to some justices as the Supreme Court enters one of the most existential years of its history.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

Go here to read the rest:
Buckle up! 2022 is going to be a big one for the Supreme Court | TheHill - The Hill