Category Archives: Second Amendment

Barton Shively, a former Marine from central Pennsylvania, had been living at home awaiting trial in the nearly year and a half since he was charged with assaulting police at the US Capitol on Jan. 6. That changed Monday, when a judge ordered him jailed after probation officers reported that hed reached for a loaded shotgun which he wasnt allowed to have during an unannounced home inspection.

Besides the 12-gauge shotgun, the probation officers saw in plain view hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a sword, knives, and body armor as they walked around Shivelys home, according to an order from US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Shivelys motion toward the shotgun prompted one of the probation officers to draw his own weapon, the order stated. Shively displayed an alarming lack of candor with the court officers monitoring his compliance with his release conditions, the judge wrote.

Shively isnt the first person charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack to get in trouble for having guns when theyre not supposed to. In cases where judges found that defendants charged with storming the Capitol violated pretrial release conditions, unauthorized access to firearms has been a common issue.

Most of the nearly 800 people charged in connection with Jan. 6 have been allowed to go home after making their first appearances in court. Theyre required to follow rules set by the judge while they wait for a trial or try to negotiate a plea deal; a prohibition on firearms and other weapons is often a standard condition. Under federal law, the bar is supposed to be high for a judge to put a person in jail before theyre convicted of a crime, even if theyre charged with violence or other serious felony offenses.

Thomas Robertson, a former police officer from Virginia charged with interfering with law enforcement at the Capitol, was ordered to report to jail last summer after prosecutors alerted the judge that Robertson had been trying to order firearms online and had a loaded assault rifle in his home; he hasnt faced any additional charges in connection with that. A jury last month found Robertson guilty of obstructing Congress, interfering with police, and other crimes in connection with the Jan. 6 attack; hell remain in jail until hes sentenced.

Not all gun-related violations automatically mean jail. In another Jan. 6 case, a judge accepted a deal that defendant Patrick Montgomery reached with prosecutors for home confinement after he used a handgun to kill a mountain lion. But cases like Shivelys illustrate the potentially high stakes of breaking the rules.

Mindful of the consequences of violating court orders, a few Jan. 6 defendants have argued this year to have judges officially reinstate their ability to access firearms. Defense lawyers have invoked the US Supreme Courts expansive interpretation of gun rights under the Second Amendment, as well as arguments specific to their clients.

Tina Logsdon and Loruhamah Yazdani-Isfehani, each facing misdemeanors for being in restricted areas at the Capitol, raised similar concerns about wanting to be able to protect themselves and the children in their homes when they moved to have their firearms restrictions lifted; their cases arent related but they share a lawyer. Both women are licensed to have guns. Prosecutors didnt oppose the requests as long as they were limited to a personal firearm for protection and a general weapons ban otherwise remained in place. Judges signed off.

Another defendant, Stephen Horn, successfully argued to get his firearms access back over an objection from the prosecutor. Horn is also charged with misdemeanors in connection with Jan. 6 and has a gun license, and his lawyer argued that a pretrial ban was punishment without due process of law. The prosecutor broadly defended judges authority to impose pretrial limits on firearms access and argued that Horn was already under the least restrictive release conditions. US District Judge Timothy Kelly sided with Horn in March, with the condition that he report whatever kind of gun he planned to have to the court officer overseeing his pretrial compliance.

Last month, US District Judge Trevor McFadden agreed to lift a firearms restriction for Jenny Cudd while she spends the next two years on probation after pleading guilty to illegally entering the Capitol. Cudds lawyer argued that she needed protection because shed been threatened and harassed Cudd is one of the most high-profile defendants and that the judge should have to make a specific finding that a ban was necessary and related to the nonviolent crime she admitted committing. The prosecutor opposed the request.

Not all requests have been successful. US District Judge Royce Lamberth last month denied Glenn Brooks motion to remove a firearms ban from his pretrial release conditions. Brooks had argued that he wasnt charged with violence at the Capitol, but Lamberth noted there was evidence that Brooks sent texts in the days after Jan. 6 that referenced civil war and being the 2nd Amendment side with guns and tactics, suggesting an indicia of violence. Brooks argued that he needed a gun for protection in his job as a general contractor and for when he made judge-approved trips to Haiti to do humanitarian work.

Lamberth wasnt persuaded that Brooks needed a gun as a general contractor, and wrote that if Brooks believed he needed a gun to visit Haiti, he is welcome to simply not visit Haiti.

Meanwhile, Shively the man who probation officers say reached for a loaded shotgun last week will stay in custody while his case goes forward. He doesnt have a trial date. As of February, he was open to plea talks with prosecutors, according to his docket. His attorney, Edward Ungvarsky, declined to comment.

Shively contacted the FBI to self-surrender just over a week after the Jan. 6 attack after learning his photograph had been on the news, according to his charging papers. Hes accused of pushing, punching, and kicking at police officers on Capitol grounds and faces multiple felony charges. In a voluntary interview with the FBI before he was officially charged, he admitted having physical confrontations with police, explaining, I got caught up in the moment. He was granted pretrial release but had to follow the rules of home detention, which meant he could only leave home for work, medical appointments, religious services, meetings with his lawyer, and a handful of other approved reasons.

Late last month, with the support of his probation officer and the prosecutor, Shively asked Kollar-Kotelly to approve having his ankle monitor removed. Ungvarsky wrote at the time that Shively had been diagnosed with cancer and the monitor would interfere with his treatment. The judge granted the request.

See the article here:
A Jan. 6 Defendant Is Going To Jail For Having A Loaded Shotgun And A Sword As Others Push To Get Their Guns Back - BuzzFeed News

Justice Alito, one of two Supreme Court nominees by President George W. Bush, has turned out to be one of the most certain conservative votes on the Court. Alitos draft majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson wasreleased by Politico last weekshining a spotlight on the very real possibility that the Court will overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established inRoe v. Wade.

But who is this Justice, confirmed to the Court by a vote margin of 58-42, that began his tenure on the Supreme Court on the last day of January in 2006?

One way to understand Justice Alitos behavior on the Court is through examining his authorship of majority opinions in cases decided by a single vote where no liberal justice sat in the majority.

This has happened 30 times one time in 2005, three times in 2006, one time in 2007 and in 2008, three times in 2009, two times in 2011, five times in 2012, two times in 2013, two times in 2014, one time in 2015, four times in 2017, one time in 2018, two times in 2019, and two times in 2020.

We can compare this to Justice Roberts track record in similar decisions. He was also confirmed in 2005 (a few months earlier than Alito) and authored 23 majority opinions with the same vote arrangement of conservative v. liberals. Here is a breakdown of Alitos 30 decisions:

The case in 2005 wasArlington School District Board Of Education v. Murphywhich held that winning cases under the educational Individuals with Disabilities Act did not authorize reimbursement of expert fees.

In 2006 he authored the majority opinion inHein v. Freedom from Religion Foundationwhich held that citizens do not have standing as taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause challenges against Executive Branch programs that are funded by appropriations for general administrative expenses.

In 2006 he also authored theLedbetter v. Goodyear Tiredecision which held that current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination. For a timely claim, one would have needed to file within 180 days of a discriminatory decision.

The third 2006 decision was inNational Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlifewhich upheld the Fish and Wildlife Services determination that the Endangered Species Act applies only to discretionary actions of federal agencies.

The case in 2007 wasDavis v. FECholding that the Millionaires Amendment to the 2002 campaign finance law contribution limits violated the First Amendment.

2008s case wasHorne v. Floresholding lower courts err in their analysis under Rule 60(b)(5) regarding Arizonas position that changes in education law altered the foundations of prior court rulings which held that relief from such judgments was warranted.

In 2009 the first decision was inStolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds, a precursor case to Alitos decision in Janus, holding that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

The second 2009 decision was in the case ofMcDonald v. Chicagoholding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

The final 2009 decision,Perdue v. Kenny A., held thecalculation of an attorneys fee based on the lodestar methodmay be increased due to superior performance in extraordinary circumstances (specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been enough to attract competent counsel).

The first 2011 case wasChristopher v. SmithKline Beechamholding that pharmaceutical sales representatives are outside salesmen under the Fair Labor Standards Act so that the Court did not have to defer to the Secretary of Labors interpretation of that statute.

In 2011sFAA v. Cooper the Court held that the Privacy Acts actual damages provision only allowed Cooper to recover for proven pecuniary or economic harm and not emotional distress (here the Social Security Administration shared his medical records showing he was HIV positive with the FAA).

One 2012 decision wasKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.holding the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected to the land use and approximately proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.

The second 2012 decision wasClapper v. Amnesty Intl.Here the Court held that journalists and others did not have standing under Article III to challengeFISAmonitoring procedures outside of the US because no injury occurred.

In 2012sVance v. Ball Statethe Court held for the purposes of liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, the definition of a supervisor is limited to a person empowered to take tangible employment action against the victim.

Next in 2012sSalinas v. Texas the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who decide to remain mute during questioning and that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection.

Also in 2012 inMutual Pharm. v. Barlettthe Court held state law design-defect claims regarding a drugs warnings (which are stronger than federal law guidelines) are pre-empted by federal law which prohibits generic drug manufacturers from independently changing FDA approved drug labels.

The next case was 2013sBurwell v. Hobby Lobbyholding Congress intended forRFRAto treat religious corporations as people since they are made of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends so that they do not need to provide contraceptive coverage under theACA.

In 2014 the Court ruled inGlossip v. Grossthat there was no evidence that the use ofmidazolamas the initial drug in an execution was much more likely to cause severe pain (as opposed to the accuseds argument that it would do so), compared to alternatives, violating the 8th Amendment.

Next in 2014 wasDavis v. Ayalaholding habeas petitioners are not entitled to relief unless they establish the alleged error resulted from actual prejudice and that the deferential Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) standard applies to a federal habeas petition to review the state courts decision.

Alitos 2015 opinion in a case decided by a single vote came inRJR Nabisco v. European Community.This decision held provisions of RICO apply extraterritorially because the text clearly defined certain racketeering offenses as ones that can occur outside of the US if they affect commerce involving the US. This decision came down to a 4-3 vote due to Justice Sotomayors recusal and Scalias death.

In 2017sHusted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst.the Court upheld an Ohio voting law that clears the states voter rolls of individuals who have died or relocated (those that dont vote for four years and do not respond to letters confirming their registration) as not violating federal voting law.

2017sAbbott v. Perezupheld the Texas legislatures presumption of good faith and that the district court improperly reversed the burden of proof in requiring the state to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting a new districting plan.

In 2017sJennings v. Rodriguezthe Court held US Code Sections 1225(b), 1226(a) and 1226(c) ofTitle 8do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention

In the last 2017Janus v. AFSCMEthe Court held Illinois extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violated the First Amendment overturning the Courts precedent inAbood v. Detroit Bd. of Education.

2018sNielsen v. Preapoverturned a 9th Circuit decision holding that aliens deportable for specified crimes are not subject to8 U. S. C. 1226(c)(2)smandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail.

In 2019sHernandez v. Mesathe Court held that theBivensimplied cause of actionagainst federal government officials who have violated the plaintiffs 4th Amendment does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting by a federal law enforcement officer.

Also in 2019, the Court inKansas v. Garciaheld theImmigration Reform and Control Actneither expressly nor impliedly preempts Kansass use of information provided on a federal Form I-9 in its application of state identity-theft and fraud statutes to the non-citizens.

In 2020 the Court inJohnson v. Guzman Chavezheld that Section 1231, not 1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal which means DHS does not need to wait for the alien to seek or exhaust judicial review of that order before removal.

The other opinion in 2020 was inBrnovich v. DNCwhich held neither Arizonas out-of-precinct policy norH.B. 2023violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose so that they do not impose burdens on voters that exceed the usual burdens of voting, and any racial disparity in burdens is small in absolute terms.

Now a comparative look at these decisions. Based on theUS Supreme Court Databaseissue coding, the issues that came up in more than one of these cases include deportation, attorney fees, federal preemption of state legislation, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and governmental liability.

According to the Databases more general issue coding nine cases dealt with civil rights, four with economic activity, four with criminal procedure, three with unions, two with judicial power, two with the First Amendment, two with federalism, two with attorneys, one with privacy, and one with due process.

Alitos majority opinions decided by a single vote altered prior precedent twice in Janus and McDonald. He also held laws unconstitutional four times in the 5-4 decisions with only conservative justices in the majority and where he was the majority author in Davis v. FEC, Harris v. Quinn, Janus, and McDonald.

So far in the 2021 term Alito authored an 8-1 decision inCameron v. EMW Womens Surgical Centerreversing a 6th Circuit decision denying the Kentucky attorney generals motion to intervene on the commonwealths behalf in litigation concerningKentucky House Bill 454which regulates the abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation.

He also authored a 9-0 opinion inFBI v. Fazagawhich held Section 1806(f) of FISA providing a procedure under which a trial-level court or other authority may consider the legality of electronic surveillance under FISA does not displace the state secrets privilege.

If we move the scope of this analysis out to view decisions made by a single vote where Alito was in the Courts majority versus when he was in dissent the graph shows the following:

Alito participated in 225 cases decided by one vote through the 2020 term. He was in the majority more often than in dissent in 12 terms, in dissent and the majority an equal number of times in three instances, and was in dissent more frequently than in the majority only in the Courts last term 2020.

If we break these cases down by the Supreme Court Databases issue coding and look at all issues where Alito has voted in decisions by one vote that occurred in more than one case we find the following:

Based on this graph we see that Alito was in the majority more frequently than in dissent for six issues death penalty, search and seizure, campaign finance, liability in civil rights act cases, natural resources, and cases dealing with judicial review of agency decisions; he was in dissent and majority an equal number of times in three of these areas federal preemption of state laws or regulations, criminal sentencing, and standing cases; and was in dissent more often than in the majority in two case areas habeas corpus and state jurisdiction in Indian law decisions.

Looking at the 5-4 decisions overturning precedent where Alito was in the majority, we find 11 decisions along with the two majority decisions where he authored majority opinions (in Janus and McDonald described above). These include:

On the other side of the coin, Alito was in the majority with four liberal justices with the rest of his conservative colleagues in dissent only one time. This was in the Courts 2019Gundy v. United Statesdecision. Alito concurred with the majority opinion here which held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)s delegation of authority to the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. 16913 does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Alitos vote of concurrence though was tempered in that he expressed he would like to revisit the Courts approach to nondelegation but under the Courts then present jurisprudence, he found no reason to invalidate SORNAs delegation of authority in this provision.

If we move the scope out to cases decided by one vote where Alito was in the majority with three of the Courts liberal justices we find in the first case he was in the majority with Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer along with Justice Kennedy inZuni Public School District No. 89 v. Dept. of Education. This decision held that the Federal Impact Aid Program under20 U.S.C. Section 7709permits the Secretary of Education to identify the school districts that should be disregard[ed] by looking to thenumber of the districts pupilsas well as to the size of the districts expenditures per pupil.

The same majority inOregon v. Ice heldthat the Sixth Amendment does not prevent states from assigning to judges rather than to juries fact-finding responsibilities necessary to imposing consecutive sentences on criminal defendants.

Justice Alito sided with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer along with Justice Thomas inDolan v. United States. This decision held that a court, which has missed the 90-day deadline still has the power to order restitution, at least under certain circumstances.

After the 2010 term, Justice Alito was in the majority with three liberal justices only one time. This was in the 2014 decisionYates v. United States. That decision authored by Justice Ginsburg held that for the purposes of18 U.S.C. 1519, which imposes criminal liability on anyone who knowingly . . . destroys . . . any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States, a tangible object is one used to record or preserve information.

These decisions where Alito was in the majority along with three liberal justices appear relatively low stakes compared to Alitos other decisions made by a single vote. This sheds additional light on the fact that not all Supreme Court cases decided by one vote are of equal importance. This set of cases, however, does show the Courts business in its most contentious decisions and conveys instances where the justices tend to split along these lines. This also might help point both at how we might expect Alito to vote in such decisions in the future, and where the Courts majority may lie on such contentious issues now that a 6-3 conservative majority sits at the helm of the Court with Roberts as the most likely vote to occasionally flip alongside the Courts three more liberal justices.

Read more at Empirical SCOTUS

Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. For more information write Adam atadam@feldmannet.com.Find him on Twitter:@AdamSFeldman.

Excerpt from:
The Justice Behind The Dobbs Draft Opinion - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law

Nrupathunga University, which was inaugurated earlier this month by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, has not met the requirements to be given the university status, alleged students. Meanwhile, the vice-chancellor of the university, which was bifurcated in 2020 from the Government Arts and Science College through an amendment in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, said that meeting requirements such as land, academic council, syndicate and research committee is work in progress.

Heres a breakdown of what the controversy is all about.

How did the college get the university status?

The Government Arts and Science College on Nrupathunga road is one of the oldest and most prestigious colleges in Bengaluru. It is not far from Maharani Cluster University and Bengaluru City University (earlier Central College). In 2020, the Government Science College, which was bifurcated alongside the Government Arts College, was upgraded to a unitary university, and named Nrupathunga University, after the approval of Governor Vajubhai Vala through the Karnataka State Universities and Certain Other Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It was given the university status after the state government recognised its contribution to society for 94 years, institutional values, academic excellence, research publications, NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) accreditation and students performance among other criteria.

What is the controversy?

Students alleged that the college had committed many violations, including that of the University Grants Commission (UGC) land rule. Narendra N, a 2020 graduate from the Government Science College, alleges that it does not meet any legal requirements to be given the university status. Through RTI replies we have come to know that the university does not have a hostel within 2 km radius, no academic council, no research committee, no syndicate and moreover is in violation of the UGC land rule which demands at least 25 acres of own land to set up a university. The Science College has hardly 5 acres as per the survey but it submitted a fake document showing 10 acres to get the university status. If the college is not meeting any of these requirements, on what grounds did the state government set up the university? asks Narendra, a National Students Union of India (NSUI) member who wants the college to be stripped of the university status. He also led a student protest opposing the increase in admission fees for bachelors in computer science from Rs 10,000 to Rs 21,000 and that for bachelors in science from Rs 4,000 to Rs 10,000 for the current academic year.

What does the university say?

According to vice-chancellor Srinivas Balli, the university is now working towards setting up an academic council, research committee, syndicate, and hostel facilities to meet the university requirements. The works for constituting academic bodies and other facilities are underway. We have written to the state government to fast-track the process and appoint nominees to meet the university criteria. In fact, all colleges undergo the same process once they are accorded the university status and we are no different. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has delayed certain decision making. Moreover, after we got the university status, we have not been given any grants from the government. Hence, we have increased the admission fees to support the laboratory expenses, medical checkups and food distribution, says Balli, who adds that talks are on with the government to also set up a hostel near the university to accommodate students.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

What does the act say?

According to the Karnataka State Universities and Certain Other Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, the vice-chancellor must make arrangements for constituting the syndicate, academic council and other authorities of the newly established university within six months from the date of establishment or a period not exceeding one year.

Visit link:
Explained: Why is Bengalurus Nrupathunga University in thick of controversy - The Indian Express

Editorial toon presents false COVID reality

I take issue with the political cartoon in your issue of May 4 (Frank Shiers cartoon, Sequim Gazette, page A-10). I believe that it is seriously in error. I understand that it depicts a conservative Republican view of our governor, and although I believe that he is doing a great job, I respect the rights of others to disagree. My concern is that it states that the COVID crisis is over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On the same editorial page, Bertha Cooper details the local situation concerning COVID and it is not good. New cases are on the rise and the virus continues to mutate. Any reliable map of COVID cases statewide show Clallam is not doing well to contain the virus.

Like everyone else, I am tired of the masking and distancing. I understand why venues are opening and large events are starting to happen. But Facts are facts, and more and more people are getting COVID. For some its a mild flu-like sickness, the long COVID is causing serious problems even for some of those folks. TO state otherwise is simply wrong.

Emma Amiad

Sequim

Be careful what you wish for

I have lived in a U.S. Democracy for 88 years; I grew up in a poor family in the Great Depression, but have enjoyed my U.S. Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections of the Rule of Law.

Now it seems, there are U.S. citizens who apparently want an autocratic government. Be careful what you wish for! If you dont like your situation in the U.S. now, wait until you have no constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and no rules of law except those of the autocrat. Violations of autocratic rules can lead to imprisonment (or worse) without a trial.

In an autocratic government, there are no Constitutional rights including no Second Amendment gun rights. Do you see citizens in Russians, North Korea or China, et al, openly carry weapons on the streets? No!

Each U.S. citizen has a right to vote to elect (choose) his/her desired local, state, and national leaders while Putin, Un and Xi are presidents for life. They make the rules, enforce their rules, and live lives of the privileged rich. Their supposed used-to-be favorites can be murdered, imprisoned, or exiled for any reason (especially lack of loyalty), including not being loyal or disagreeing on any subject deemed necessary or criminal by the ruling president.

Putin and Russian Ukraine war protesters are glaring examples! Before you think or hope Trump or any other U.S. wannabe autocrat will benefit you and your lifestyle, be careful what you wish for! It can be a terrible, long lasting mistake!

Richard Hahn

Sequim

Across the horizon

Driving cross-state on my annual Spring journey home to NE. Washington, I explored new routes through the rolling agricultural hills north of Reardan. Drifting thoughts while traveling over the beautiful up and down billowy-cloud horizon near Odessa, brought to mind Odessa, Ukraine, and the similarities of our two countries breadbasket regions which feed so many earthlings.

As Putins ruthless, genocidal attack (like Stalins in the 1930s-40s) on Ukraine, to force toxic autocracy across the landscape of that new democracy, another striking resemblance with our country emerges: the far-right infestation of the Republican Party. Both seek to control, and eliminate, enemies who dont adhere to their homogenous stricture. Environmental protection, voting rights for all eligible citizens, educated professionals who speak out, LGBTQ, womens decisions about reproduction, Medicare and Social Security, books and fact-based information, whistleblowers, investigative journalists, workers protections, small businesses with integrity, nonpolitical civil, judicial, and military services, fair trial by jury, etcetera, are targeted.

The Columbia River takes a wide, scenic curve at Brewster, carving fertile terraces superb for orchards. The rivers cold, still water is an entrancing mirror of blue sky, high plateau rocky ridges, yellow-gold banks. Migrant worker neighborhoods are common.

How such remarkably diverse places can be misused to seed anti-democracy, baleful sentiments of antipathy in their human inhabitants are beyond belief.

Ah ~ myriad bird song at dawn.

Gayle Brauner

Port Angeles

See more here:
Letters to the Editor May 11, 2022 - Sequim Gazette

HARRISBURG When Democrats head to the polls on May 17 for Pennsylvanias 2022 primary election for governor, there will be just one choice on the ballot.

Republicans will face a much different situation, with nine candidates and still no clear frontrunner.

Tom Wolf, a Democrat first elected in 2014, is unable to run for re-election due to term limit restrictions. In this vacuum, Republicans have an opportunity to win the executive branch, which would leave them in control of the governors office as well as the legislature.

Wolf has often served as a foil to the GOP-majority General Assembly during his tenure, vetoing efforts to rewrite the states Election Code, roll back environmental policies, and further restrict abortion access. Many GOP candidates have vowed to sign such legislation.

Democrats have a voter registration edge over Republicans in the state, though that 500,000-plus advantage has been shrinking. While Wolf easily won re-election in 2018, close gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last year have political watchers expecting a tight race here.

Heres what you need to know about the 2022 primary governor election before going to the polls:

Elected attorney general in 2016, Shapiro has been involved in Pennsylvania politics since 2004, first as a state representative, then as a county commissioner in Montgomery County. As Pennsylvanias top prosecutor, Shapiro investigated sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the Catholic Church and pursued cases relating to the opioid epidemic.

Shapiro has listed defending voting access, maintaining abortion rights, and rebuilding infrastructure as major tenets of his campaign.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? No. Shapiro has said he would reject any effort to repeal the law known as Act 77.

Endorsements: Pennsylvania Democratic Party, AFL-CIO

Barletta started his political career in Hazleton on the city council in 1998 and then as mayor in 2000. In 2010, Barletta was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for eight years. He unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2018. Without providing specifics, Barletta is running on a myriad of issues including strengthening the economy, school choice, and oil and natural gas production; limiting access to abortion; and addressing illegal immigration.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Barletta has called Act 77 unconstitutional and believes the state needs signature verification and stricter voter ID requirements. During Republican attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Barletta was included on a list of alternate Republican electors for Trump.

The language of the Pennsylvania document clearly states that this was done in case it was later determined that different electors were needed, a Barletta campaign spokesperson told The Citizens Voice.

Endorsements: Oil & Gas Workers Association, state Rep. Barb Gleim, state Rep Aaron Kaufer

Corman replaced his father as a state senator in 1999. He served as the state Senate majority leader from 2015 to 2020, and hes been the Senate president pro tempore since 2020. His vague platform includes improving education, election security, jobs, policing, and defending freedoms.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Corman voted for Act 77, but following the 2020 election, hes supported its repeal and called for stricter voter ID requirements and third-party audits. Corman directed his chamber to conduct a full forensic investigation of the 2020 election, an idea fueled by baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

Gale became a Montgomery County commissioner after being elected in an upset in 2015 with virtually no political experience. Gale labels himself an outsider and considers the Pennsylvania Republican party insufficiently conservative. In particular, he has criticized the Republican establishment, including his opponents Lou Barletta and Doug Mastriano.

Gale calls himself staunchly pro-life, and said one of his top priorities is ousting Republicans he considers insufficiently conservative.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. He also wrote in the Times Herald, a Montgomery County paper, that any elected official who voted in favor of Act 77 should should be disqualified from holding office.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

Gerow, a prominent Republican political strategist, began his career working for Ronald Reagan. Since then, Gerow has worked as a lobbyist and consultant, opening his own public communications firm. He currently serves as the vice-chairman of the American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Gerow has called himself a Ronald Reagan Republican, saying that he is best positioned to bridge the gap between the traditional Republican party and the increasingly radical wing of his party.

His election platform has focused on promoting economic growth through traditional conservative fiscal policies of reducing taxes and regulation and wants to promote the states energy industry.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. When Commonwealth Court struck down Act 77 as unconstitutional (a ruling being appealed in the state Supreme Court), Gerow called it great news for election integrity and the prevention of voter fraud and ballot harvesting. Gerows name was also listed on a certificate to assign Pennsylvanias Electoral College votes to Trump, should a court challenge have succeeded.

Endorsements: U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson; Michael Regan, son of President Ronald Regan; former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich; Matt Schlapp, executive director of CPAC; former U.S. Rep. Bob Walker; state Rep. Jerry Knowles; former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich

Hart has served as both a member of Congress and as a state senator representing Allegheny County. She has said that her success in areas that had majority Democratic registration speaks to her electability. Hart has been working as a lawyer for the past 14 years and is currently an attorney at Hergenroeder Rega Ewing & Kennedy, a law firm based in Pittsburgh.

Harts campaign has focused on deregulating corporations and lowering taxes, expanding the natural gas industries, and implementing more restrictive abortion laws.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Maybe. Hart told the Capital-Star she personally doesnt like no-excuse mail voting, but would need to do more study before committing to a repeal.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

A retired Army colonel, Mastriano began serving as a state senator in 2019 and has been called a Christian nationalist, a label he rejects. However, he has often shared Islamophobic posts on social media, the New Yorker reported.

Mastriano has highlighted anti-abortion policy, fiscal conservatism, and Second Amendment rights as central tenets of his campaign. He led many anti-shutdown rallies during the early months of the pandemic.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Mastriano has propagated false claims of widespread election fraud. He has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee over his communication with the Trump White House during attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He was also seen near the Capitol on the day of the insurrection.

Endorsements: Michael Flynn, former national security advisor to Trump; state Rep. Rob Kauffman; state Rep. Stephanie Borowicz; conservative commentator and U.S. Senate candidate Kathy Barnette; Gun Owners of America

McSwain is a former Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, where he had a contentious relationship with its elected officials.

If elected governor, he has promised to focus on stimulating the economy and energy production, improving access to education, limiting access to abortion, dealing with the opioid epidemic, and bringing back law and order.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. McSwain says no-excuse mail voting caused confusion and delayed the election results (something that can be blamed, in part, on the states lack of robust pre-canvassing time).

Endorsements: Sean Parnell, a former candidate for U.S. Senate who dropped out after he lost custody of his children in a case that also revealed allegations of domestic abuse; state Rep. Kathy Rapp; Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs; Republican State Committee of Chester County.

White is the owner of an heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company and a former Delaware County Council member. Hes campaigning as a political outsider and someone with real world experience.

In a press release announcing his candidacy, he called for allocating more funding to police, lowering taxes, and railed against critical race theory, an academic framework to study race in society and law that has been co-opted by right-wing activists as indoctrination by progressives, and kids failing in schools. On his website, White listed protecting Second Amendment rights, limiting access to abortion, and preventing transgender women from competing in womens sports as priorities.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. White has said that no-excuse mail voting is a disaster.

Endorsements: State Sen. Dan Laughlin, former Trump Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, Butler County GOP.

Zama is a cardiothoracic surgeon who lives in the Poconos and immigrated to the United States from Cameroon as a teenager on a student visa. With virtually no political experience, Zama believes his independence from the political establishment will distinguish him from the other candidates.

Zamas campaign has centered on education and health care, two things he says he has personally benefited from after immigrating to the United States.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Zama has said he supports its repeal and would want to set up a commission to look more deeply into the topic.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

WHILE YOURE HERE... If you learned something from this story, pay it forward and become a member of Spotlight PA so someone else can in the future at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer in partnership with PennLive/The Patriot-News, TribLIVE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and WITF Public Media. Sign up for our free newsletters.

HARRISBURG When Democrats head to the polls on May 17 for Pennsylvanias 2022 primary election for governor, there will be just one choice on the ballot.

Republicans will face a much different situation, with nine candidates and still no clear frontrunner.

Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat first elected in 2014, is unable to run for re-election due to term limit restrictions. In this vacuum, Republicans have an opportunity to win the executive branch, which would leave them in control of the governors office as well as the legislature.

Embed #1

Wolf has often served as a foil to the GOP-majority General Assembly during his tenure, vetoing efforts to rewrite the states Election Code, roll back environmental policies, and further restrict abortion access. Many GOP candidates have vowed to sign such legislation.

Democrats have a voter registration edge over Republicans in the state, though that 500,000-plus advantage has been shrinking. While Wolf easily won reelection in 2018, close gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last year have political watchers expecting a tight race here.

Heres what you need to know about the 2022 primary governor election before going to the polls:

>> READ MORE: See how much money the GOP candidates for governor have raised

Democrat

Embed #2

Josh Shapiro | Website

Elected attorney general in 2016, Shapiro has been involved in Pennsylvania politics since 2004 first as a state representative, then as a county commissioner in Montgomery County. As Pennsylvanias top prosecutor, Shapiro investigated sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the Catholic Church and pursued cases relating to the opioid epidemic.

Shapiro has listed defending voting access, maintaining abortion rights, and rebuilding infrastructure as major tenets of his campaign.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? No. Shapiro has said he would reject any effort to repeal the law known as Act 77.

Endorsements: Pennsylvania Democratic Party, AFL-CIO

Read more:

Bloomberg: Theres Exactly One Democrat Running for Governor of Pennsylvania

Capital-Star: Josh Shapiro on the death penalty, climate, and Harrisburg

New York Times: In Pennsylvania Governors Race, Josh Shapiro Focuses on Voting Rights

>> WATCH LIVE: Spotlight PA hosts GOP gubernatorial debate April 19

Republicans

Embed #3

Lou Barletta | Website

Barletta started his political career in Hazleton on the city council in 1998 and then as mayor in 2000. In 2010, Barletta was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for eight years. He unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2018. Without providing specifics, Barletta is running on a myriad of issues including strengthening the economy, school choice, and oil and natural gas production; limiting access to abortion; and addressing illegal immigration.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Barletta has called Act 77 unconstitutional and believes the state needs signature verification and stricter voter ID requirements. During Republican attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Barletta was included on a list of alternate Republican electors for Trump.

The language of the Pennsylvania document clearly states that this was done in case it was later determined that different electors were needed, a Barletta campaign spokesperson told The Citizens Voice.

Endorsements: Oil & Gas Workers Association, state Rep. Barb Gleim, state Rep Aaron Kaufer

Read more:

Capital-Star: Capital-Star Q+A: Lou Barletta thinks second times the charm in GOP governors run

City & State PA: Lou Barlettas seeking a political comeback as Pennsylvania governor

Embed #4

Jake Corman | Website

Corman replaced his father as a state senator in 1999. He served as the state Senate majority leader from 2015 to 2020, and hes been the Senate president pro tempore since 2020. His vague platform includes improving education, election security, jobs, policing, and defending freedoms.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. Corman voted for Act 77, but following the 2020 election, hes supported its repeal and called for stricter voter ID requirements and third-party audits. Corman directed his chamber to conduct a full forensic investigation of the 2020 election, an idea fueled by baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

Read more:

Inquirer: Jake Corman on his run for Pa. governor, Trumps influence on the primary, and the 2020 election

WGAL: One-on-one with Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Jake Corman

WHYY: A Pa. state lawmaker hasnt become governor in 70 years. Jake Corman hopes to be the exception

Embed #5

Joe Gale | Website

Gale became a Montgomery County commissioner after being elected in an upset in 2015 with virtually no political experience. Gale labels himself an outsider and considers the Pennsylvania Republican party insufficiently conservative. In particular, he has criticized the Republican establishment, including his opponents Lou Barletta and Doug Mastriano.

Gale calls himself staunchly pro-life, and said one of his top priorities is ousting Republicans he considers insufficiently conservative.

Supports repealing Pa.s no-excuse mail voting law? Yes. He also wrote in the Times Herald, a Montgomery County paper, that any elected official who voted in favor of Act 77 should should be disqualified from holding office.

Endorsements: Spotlight PA could not identify any endorsements.

Read more:

Capital-Star: Capital-Star Q+A: RINO hunter Joe Gale wants to make sure conservatives are energized for 2022

Philly Voice: Suburban politician, who called BLM a hate group and COVID-19 lockdowns un-American, will run for governor

WHYY: Montcos Joe Gale announces bid for governor, denounces Pa. Republicans as lousy

Embed #6

Charlie Gerow | Website

Read the rest here:
Guide to the Democratic and GOP candidates for governor - Gettysburg Times

NATCHEZ An event known as Gathering of the Great Armies Juneteenth National Black Unity Convention is scheduled June 17 through 19, parts of which will take place in Brookhaven, Jackson and Natchez.

Nick Bezzel, who is founder of the Elmer Geronimo Pratt Gun Club based in Austin, Texas, said for Natchez, the group plans to hold a town hall meeting on June 17 at a yet to be determined location, and on June 19, will gather at the Devils Punch Bowl to remember and pay homage to the former enslaved people who died there.

We have an extensive list of things we plan on doing Juneteenth weekend, Bezzel said. Our plan is to continuously go to different locations where certain atrocities occurred that affected Black people.

Bezzel said the Devils Punch Bowl, located on Cemetery Road past the Natchez City Cemetery, was the site of a concentration camp where 20,000 newly freed people were left to die.

This is one of our ways to bring these things to light, to make sure people are aware of what happened and to pay our respects to the people who died there, a way to honor these people who lost their lives there, he said.

The events taking place in Mississippi will also include a meeting of rival street tribes, also known as gangs, which he said will end with the groups agreeing on a peace treaty.

We understand some things are taking place in Mississippi communities and we will address those by having these groups to come together, air their grievances in a peaceful manner and in the end agree to a peace treaty, Bezzel said. Our aim is to get these street tribes to stop the violence toward one another and then to help these groups move forward in a different direction.

Much of the crime that takes place in any community is typically rooted in economic impoverishment.

People who commit crimes typically lack the finances to live a decent life. They turn to the streets to make money, which typically leads to violence, he said. What we can do is find ways to employ these street tribe members so we can reduce the amount of violence that takes place.He said different organizations throughout Mississippi have been working to arrange this sit-down meeting among street tribe leadership in Jackson on June 18 from noon to 8 p.m.

These organizations have been able to reach out to the street tribes and they have confirmed they have agreed to come together. We plan to leave with a cease fire and come together with a treaty that will greatly curb the violence that you see as well as empower them economically, Bezzel said.

Several groups have partnered with the Elmer Geronimo Pratt Gun Club to put together the weekends events in Mississippi, including the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, Mississippi on the Move, Youth Against Gang Activity, New Black Panther Party, Anubis and the Black Liberation Movement.

More information about the Juneteenth events in Mississippi can be found at egpgunclub.com. That website includes an email address for Bezzel and a phone number for those who need more information.

He said he expects about 1,000 people from outside Mississippi to come to the events, including those in Natchez. Most of them will be armed, he said.

I think you have to understand that the second amendment is there to protect our first amendment rights, Bezzel said. The first amendment gives us the right to peacefully assemble. The second amendment protects us from infringement.

What we have seen is, like in Minneapolis after the George Floyd murder, protestors would go out to peacefully protest they had their hands up and said, Dont shoot! More times than not, there would wind up being a physical altercation brought on by law enforcement who would do things like fire rubber bullets at the protestors. We became an armed buffer between the protestors and the police. When we have done so, not a single incident has occurred to those protestors.

We also think there is a negative stigma against Black people holding firearms. If people see a white person holding a gun, they think that person is a patriot, but if they see Black people with firearms, they assume they are up to no good. The second part (of arming ourselves publically) is showing Black people in a positive light with firearms. It helps to diminish those stereotypes and stigmas people have with seeing Black people with guns, Bezzel said.

After the remembrance service on Sunday at the Devils Punch Bowl, the group will move to Broadmoor Park at 2 p.m. for a Juneteenth celebration. That will involve food and drink vendors, a jumpy house and other activities for children.

We are trying to create a family atmosphere and bring together groups that dont typically associate with each other, he said.

The Black Unity Convention will begin in Brookhaven on Friday at 1 p.m. where Bezzel said the group will support DMonterrio Gibson, the FedEx driver who was chased and fired upon by white residents there, as he holds a press conference. The location of that press conference has yet to be finalized.

We want to make sure people understand that when we come to these places, we are coming to unify people. We are coming as a sign of solidarity. We want to build solidarity with these communities, Bezzel said. Anyplace we have ever been, there have been no acts of violence of any tension. People may think gun clubs coming into the area are coming to start trouble, but we always show respect to the people there. And the economic impact we have when we come to these places is very positive. We are able to inject finances where they are needed.

Link:
Black Unity events planned for Juneteenth weekend here - Mississippi's Best Community Newspaper | Mississippi's Best Community Newspaper - Natchez...

CASPER, Wyo. Though diminished in number from the previous cross-country venture earlier this year, a convoy of commercial trucks, cars, motorcycles, RVs, and a school bus is making its way through Wyoming en route to Washington D.C.

After staying overnight at the Casper Speedway, they will roll out at 5 a.m. to their next stop in Cheyenne at Big D Oil Company.

Right now, as small as we are, were powerful, organizer Marcus Sommers told Oil City on Sunday. The groups extensive outreach on social media, including livestreaming and YouTube updates, means they are as connected to the media as they are to their supporters, Sommers said.

The immediate concern, said Oklahoma trucker Tom Overwright, is to end the ongoing declaration of national emergency related to COVID-19 pandemic.

Some language in the groups brochure attributed to the National Emergencies Act of 1976 was actually from a 1973 Senate subcommittee report describing the powers in aggregate. The Brennan Center published a report in 2018 parsing the each the 136 powers granted, many of which require Congressional approval.

Nevertheless, the long-term aim is to reverse a perceived consolidation of powers from states to the federal government, and the concerns range from energy policy to the Second Amendment.

The mandates are just the straw that broke the camels back, said Trucker G. He wants President Joe Biden to open up domestic energy production, saying the average American is being squeezed by high gas prices.

Fuel prices go up, I have to charge more to haul these loads. I charge more, food prices go up, which means your wages go down, he said.

Sommers describes the group as apolitical: We have left, right, Christians, Pagans. At some point in time, throughout the convoy, theyve all been with us.

Former Platte County trucker SweetBits agreed: Its a kaleidoscope of society, which is great, and thats what draws me to it.

Sommers said the group has no plan for its arrival in D.C.; the trip is about maintaining visibility for the cause.

Its not fun, Sommers said. I havent been home in four months. In addition to financial support, he says theres more that able-bodied people could be doing to support the cause, even if they dont participate directly.

We need more people that get involved in school districts, townships, county positions, whatever it takes, Sommers said. Get in your local political field, whatever is available there.

The group aims to have chapters in every state, and SweetBits and Overwright said the long-term plan is educating their supporters on how to effect change in representative republic.

People are too distracted, Overwright said. They got their football games, their basketball games, they got their work. People dont know whats going on with their government, and everybody Ive talked to said theres nothing they can do to change it. Because they were never taught how to change it.

Link:
Convoy protesting federal policy rolling through Wyoming on second trip to Washington D.C. - Oil City News

There are two things non-Americans can almost never understand about America and should probably never speak about. The first is guns. If you have a British accent and arrive in America, or talk about America, you should be very careful before opining on the Second Amendment.

It isnt a precise analogy, but you might compare it to an American arriving in Britain and suddenly talking about the rights and wrongs of hereditary monarchy. There are lots of reasons why countries end up with the institutions they have. And though Her Majesty the Queen is clearly responsible for fewer fatalities each year than Americas right to bear arms, the Second Amendment is as much a centrepiece of American democracy as the monarchy is of our own. Outsiders might find it barmy, and aspects of the Second Amendment maybe are (notably some of the arms that people are now able to bear). But that is the settlement Americans have and it is probably for the best for outsiders to keep their wonderment to themselves.

The other issue that outsiders find most unfathomable about America is the culture war about abortion. There is a reason for that. In countries like our own the abortion debate is essentially over though abortion has come a long way since it was first made legal in Britain. In 2020 there were almost 225,000 abortions in England, Scotland and Wales. That is the highest number on record, exceeding even the previous peak of 2019. That 2020 figure is almost ten times the number carried out in the year after abortion became legal in this country.

Back then most of the cases were justified on the grounds of risk to the physical or mental health of the mother. I suppose it is possible that the number of women in the UK facing physical or mental risk from allowing their pregnancy to go to full term has gone up tenfold. More likely is that abortions have become easier to acquire and less troublesome to perform. The specific grounds for abortion laid out in the 1967 Act long ago spilled out. But few people in Britain seem much exercised by this.

Catholics are, of course. Or at least most of them are. But outside of that minority most of the country seems to have made its peace with the idea of a quarter of all pregnancies in the UK being terminated. One reason is the undoubted strength of the argument that abortion should be available to women who have been raped or otherwise forced into pregnancy. That this constitutes a tiny percentage of the relevant cases is ignored. Then there is the claim that if abortions were made less available women would go for dangerous backstreet operations. This is the spectre of Vera Drake and other movies. Women in Ireland coming over to the UK when abortion was illegal in the Republic are another memory. So what started as something permitted in very specific circumstances has become another means of contraception in the UK.

Even if this makes you queasy, almost nobody in Britain of any political stripe knows what to do about it. If they venture an opinion, they are shouted down very firmly.

Personally, although I find the American abortion debate unsettling I also find it rather impressive. Many British and European people think it is a sign of American backwardness, as though the country must, by definition, catch up with us at some stage. I tend to think otherwise. Whatever the to-and-fro of the debate, the fact that America still regards abortion as a serious moral issue seems to me to be a demonstration that America is still a serious moral country. It recognises that here is one of the great moral issues: the question of life, and the encouragement or otherwise of its cessation. It is not settled on the matter, nor does it imagine there is a clear direction of moral travel directed by the passage of time.

So this weeks leak from the Supreme Court came as a bombshell. The possibility that Roe vs Wade may be overturned has sent left-wing America into a panic. Within minutes of the draft judgment being leaked there were crowds outside the Supreme Court screaming about fascism.

In fact, the detail of the judgment is worth lingering over for more than a moment. What Judge Alito says is that it is not clear that the constitution permits a right to an abortion, and that the right effectively mandated by the courts 50 years ago may be unconstitutional. In America this is a big issue on its own. If the public votes for something, either at state or national level, that is one thing. But should the Supreme Court engage in political interpretations of the constitution? Many Americans think not.

As usual the debate has now been seized by the spectrums shoutiest ends. On one side some conservatives are salivating at what could be the biggest setback American liberals would have had in a generation. On the other are people like attorney-general Letitia James,who told a demonstration on Tuesday that when she chose to have an abortion she walked proudly into Planned Parenthood. And I make no apologies to anyone. As Mary Wakefield wrote here some years ago, there is often something discordant in the pro-abortion argument. A kind of glee. Why walk proudly into an abortion clinic? Surely under any circumstances it is a situation that is sad, to say the least?

All such nuance will be lost in the coming days. One of Americas most simmering culture wars has just been turned up to the highest heat. Both sides will now try to wound the other very deeply. They will taunt each other. They will exaggerate and lie about each other. And in the process they will forget the majority in America who do not want to deny abortions to all American women, but who have doubts about second and third trimester abortions, and are certainly not on the abortion-celebrating train. Buckle up, America. This is going to be one ugly ride.

Original post:
What America gets right about the abortion debate - The Spectator

The fallout from the leak of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alitos draft opinion, which could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, continues to fall out. In the wake of the leak there are two distinct conversations which the country should lean into.

The national debate over possible ramifications of such a ruling should foster crucial conversations in society about life, choice, womens health care, moral relativism, family, social safety nets, adoption and at-risk youth just to name a few. Unfortunately, the result of the leak has been the fomenting of anger and angst, fear and frustration, false-choices and contempt, political rancor and partisan rhetoric rather than the fostering of deeper dialogue.

There should also be a conversation relating to the leaked draft opinion and the need for integrity, trust and restraint in institutions and individuals.

Separating the leak itself and the opinion draft content and possible implications is important for this conversation.

Trust is the coin of the realm in the Supreme Court. Leaks, controversy and clicks are the currency of far too many politicians, partisans and media organizations.Assessing which coin and currency is of greater value to American society will determine whether or not our future freedom hangs in the balance.

Many have focused on the repercussions of overturning Roe in order to justify the leak. (From early assessment it appears the leak likely came from one of the clerks.) Others have jumped on the bandwagon that the clerk was brave to leak the document and Politico was right to publish it.

The Deseret News convened a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., for just such a conversation. Staff writer for The Atlantic, McKay Coppins, emphatically stated, This is a no-brainer, that you publish that story as a journalist. His comments drew approving nods from the other two members of the panel, according to a Deseret News article about the event. The panel then continued its conversation on journalism ethics.

Poynter, the journalism think tank, had this to say about Politico: When confronted with an unprecedented leak like this, news consumers are understandably skeptical in this era of mis- and disinformation. When journalists behind the work dont signal that they have gone through an ethical process, consumers may conclude that ethics dont matter to journalists.

Coppins stated that a concern for protecting institutions journalists cover would have negated some of the most important exposes of the past half-century, such as Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.

To be clear, writing a first draft opinion is NOT a national security breach or cover-up, nor is it an investigable or impeachable offense. Therefore, there was no legitimate reason to undermine the credibility and moral authority of the High Court by circulating a leaked draft.Writing such drafts, for and against every single ruling, is the job of members of the Supreme Court. The court is the last civil institution which maintains a positive balance of trust from the American people.The price of the trust withdrawals from societys bank account by the leaker and Politico will prove most costly.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak a singular and egregious violation of trust. Roberts inferred that it was not an act of bravery, but of betrayal to the branch of government where such trust truly is the coin of the realm.

There are lessons from Watergate that do apply to this case. Several years ago, I interviewed legendary journalist Bob Woodward a number of times in preparation for an event, sponsored by the Deseret News, I would moderate at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The event was entitled, Integrity and Trust.

Three words Woodward repeated to me countless times during the course of these interviews and from the stage at the Newseum, still echo in my mind as a lesson for today: Restraint always works.

Woodward shared how he and his partner regularly wanted to run the Watergate story early in their investigation. Their editor reiterated the need for more work, more investigation, more sources, more dialogue rather than rushing.

Just because you can do something, doesnt mean that you should. Restraint always works.

Neither the clerk who leaked the document nor Politico who ran it showed restraint or proper consideration for anything or anyone beyond their own interest.

Politico noted, without truly acknowledging, that this was the first time in our nations history that an opinion of theSupremeCourt had been leaked and published before a ruling had been rendered. That precedent suggests restraint matters and trust is vital to judicial discussion.

It should be noted that not only has the Supreme Court not rendered a decision in the leaked opinion case, but also that the Supreme Court still has other crucial cases to decide over the next six weeks including rulings on religious liberty, affirmative action, prayer and the Second Amendment. Absent trust, it will be extremely difficult to have candid conversations and rigorous debate between the nine justices. Justices are likely to be less candid, more guarded, less open-minded and more defensive with the cloud of a comment ending up as a headline the next day in the media.

Sadly, a void in trust actually prohibits persuasion and enlightenment from occurring. Our judicial system demands such trust and such conversations to occur inside the court and between the justices.

It matters where this lack of restraint and undermining of trust leads America. It worries me greatly. We have stressed-tested our democracy in civil war, economic collapse, race riots, assassinations, world wars and pandemics but we have never tested our democracy in the absence of trust. Trust in institutions, trust in leaders and trust in each other are required for a constitutional republic to continue to endure.

With instant access to information and the ever-accelerating race and rush to judgment, we often fail to remember that restraint always works. The national media, political pundits and each of us as individual players on social media could benefit from a little more restraint.

There is another lesson from Watergate that could be rightly applied to both the leaker and Politico. Woodward spent years frustrated with the answers he received from President Gerald Ford about the closing chapters of the Watergate scandal.Woodward was convinced for more than 25 years that the pardon Ford granted Richard Nixon was the final act of corruption and collusion.Surely Ford had made a deal with Nixon a pardon for the presidency. Yet, Woodwards reporter instincts caused him to feel that Ford wasnt telling the whole story.He was right.

After meeting with Ford regularly over a period of months Woodward asked the former president one more time why he had pardoned Nixon.Ford responded, Why do you keep asking me that?Woodward replied, Because I dont think you have really answered the question.

The aging Ford then laid out how he had completely rejected any thought of gaining the presidency in exchange for a pardon. He wasnt about to buy into that historically bad bargain of selling his soul for power. Instead, Ford described his internal thought process of assessing the state of the nation.The country was exhausted and filled with distrust toward the government.Ford recognized that if Nixon were jailed and tried it would lead to several more years of conspiracy theories, angst, anger and frustration.He feared that the important work of the country would remain undone and the distraction of such a trial would further fracture the nation.

Woodward said to me that his view of Ford flipped 180 degrees that day. He saw Fords decision to pardon Nixon not as corruption, but as the ultimate act of courage and selflessness.

Ford asked himself the right question. He didnt ask, What is best for me? Instead, he asked, What is best for the country? He seemed to recognize in a very real way the need for the nation to move forward.Ford also knew such a decision would be the worst thing for his own political power. He was absolutely correct, it was good for the country and bad for him.Fords popularity plummeted from 71% down to 49% almost overnight and he lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter.

Most historians, regardless of political persuasion, agree that Fords ending the long night of darkness for the country was the best thing for the country.

As a country we continue to be plagued by palace intrigue, scandals, political back-stabbing and partisan power struggles.If only government workers, media companies and elected officials would ask, What is best for the country? before launching us headlong into the black hole of distrust.

Absent restraint and a willingness to ask what is best for the country, we will deplete Americas already diminished coin of the realm account of trust. Such a bankruptcy of trust will put the nation in real peril.

The bigger crisis for the country is that the distrust perpetuated by institutions of government, large organizations, political leaders, individual actors and the media has begun to fray the fabric of trust in our communities and even in our personal relationships.

Restraint always works. Asking what is best for those you lead or serve or love will make the nation rich in the coin of the relationship realm that matters most TRUST.

Excerpt from:
The Supreme Court leak: Can the High Court be trusted?| Opinion - Deseret News

Anyone expecting Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksons confirmation hearing to be a firework show when it came to gun rights was disappointed. President Joe Bidens nominee answered questions posed by probing U.S. senators, but some of those answers gave reason for pause.

Although Judge Jackson noted the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, her full testimony was revealing. Judge Jackson demurred on questions surrounding concealed carry, spoke of the importance of Court precedent and refused to define her judicial philosophy.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right? Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.

Sen. Grassley pressed further asking the judge to describe how she would decide what a fundamental right is under the Constitution. Judge Jackson pointed to Court precedent that serves as a guide for how justices would discern fundamental rights. She added that those precedents set the standards for determining if rights are fundamental, including the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause as it applies to liberty and personal autonomy.

Thats the tradition of the Court for determining if something is fundamental in that way, she added.

Click here to read the entire article at NSSF.org.

Read more here:
Judge Jackson Affirms Second Amendment Rights But ...