Category Archives: Second Amendment

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

Last month, you and I witnessed a historic day in our decades-long fight to stop rogue states and local governments from effectively denying law-abiding Americans their Second Amendment rights.

On Nov. 3, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by NRAs affiliated association in New York, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. At issue in the case is whether the state of New Yorks current policy of denying carry permits to law-abiding Americans unless they can prove some arbitrary special need for self-defense is constitutional.

And, of course, you and I know it is not.

So how did we get here?

Recall that in its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The anti-gun lobby claims that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public will turn the streets into some fantastical wild west scene.

Two years later, in its McDonald v. Chicago decision, the Court ruled that states and localities are required to respect that individual right.

However, in the years since McDonald, some state and local anti-gun politicians across the country have put into force myriad anti-carry restrictions that make it virtually impossible for their law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. And legal challenges to those restrictions have fallen on deaf ears in lower courts.

But New Yorks restrictions are particularly egregious.

Regular, law-abiding citizens have almost no chance at receiving a carry permit. However, if youre a billionaire, a celebrity, a sports star or someone with the right political connections, youre likely to get your permit.

New York has created a permitting system that essentially transforms its citizens Second Amendment rights into mere privileges reserved only for elites.

Of course, the anti-gun lobby is trotting out the same, tired, universally disproven fear tactics with respect to this case. They claim that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public will turn the streets into some fantastical Wild West scene.

Indeed, disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo chastised the Supreme Court for even deciding to hear the case, saying the streets of New York are not the O.K. Corral.

The idea that law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for personal security is somehow dangerous is ludicrous on its face. It has been thoroughly debunked by many decades of human behaviorthe greatest laboratory of all time. To argue about what evil-doers may do is pointless. Criminals dont follow the lawlaws dont deter themand thats a proven fact.

When, decades ago, NRA first embarked on our state-by-state mission to restore the right to carry, I was on the front lines of this political battle. I sat through the hearings. And the anti-gun arguments were hearing now are the same they used back then. That law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights are to be feared.

In reality, Americans who possess carry permits are among the safest, most law-abiding people on the planet. Every statistic bears this out. And every law-abiding American is entitled to the fundamental, constitutional right to bear arms for personal safety and self-defense.

The anti-gun lobby may be right about one thing: Public safety is absolutely at the core of this case. However, its about improving public safety by restoring the right to self-defense to good, law-abiding Americans. The same right that the New York State government has unconstitutionally denied its citizens.

The rest is here:
Standing Guard | Thanks To NRA Members, The Second Amendment Gets A Big Day In Court - America's 1st Freedom

click to enlarge

Photo: Flickr / Gage Skidmore

Second Amendment absolutist David Barton speaks at a Nevada Courageous Conservatives rally with U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Glenn Beck.

Private citizens have the right to stockpile nuclear weapons under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Or so says David Barton, the former vice chair of the Republican Party of Texas and director of Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential super-PAC. Here's Barton's unedited quote on the WallBuilders podcastearlier this month:

We can see the bumper stickers now: "Don't start no nuclear conflagration, won't be no nuclear conflagration." "Nukes don't kill people, people kill people." "The real problem is not nuclear arms, but mental illness." And so forth.

Must we repeat the well-worn clich that the Constitution is not a suicide pact? Well, yes. Evidently we must when dealing with well-respected figures in today's GOP. If the logical conclusion of your interpretation of our founding documents makes the preservation of human civilization functionally impossible, it may be time to rethink that interpretation. And if you're a gun enthusiast reading this who cannot, right now, come up with a reason why what Barton said above is indubitably batshit, maybe consider sitting the next few elections out.

The underlying principle of his facially absurd stance is far from a fringe belief exclusively professed by survivalists eating insects out in the woods somewhere. It's repeated often by potty-trained Republicans: "Whatever weapon the federal government has, I should have a right to have as well."

That notion would void the National Firearm Act of 1934 and subsequent addendums, removing any legal distinction between military and civilian weaponry. Gatling guns, Tommy guns, grenades, mortars, landmines, rocket launchers, tanks, Tomahawk missiles, Kamikaze UAVs, radiological bombs all could be for sale at your local gun shop.

Wouldn't you love to be the police officer tasked with enforcing a warrant in such a libertarian paradise?

Barton would even overturn late Justice Antonin Scalia's precedent in the 2008 Heller decisionthat enshrined in law an individual's right to own types of firearms that are "in common use at the time" and explicitly upheld the prohibition of uniquely "dangerous and unusual weapons."

"The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," according to the decision.

For most of us, purchasing nukes is not only unusual but slightly cost-prohibitive. So, the upshot of Barton's bad strict constructionist take on the Bill of Rights would mean allowing shadowy hedge funds to effectively become nuclear powers. Billionaires as a class have increased their coffers by more than $2 trillion during the pandemic. That could fund quite the arsenal. If you enjoy oligarchy now, wait until it goes thermonuclear!

Self-defense from home invasion, hunting and recreation seem like three non-fruitcake reasons to argue for gun ownership, but alas, gun fanatics, following the marching orders of the National Rifle Association, feel the need to add a fourth: the ever-looming armed rebellion against tyranny, which will necessitate going toe-to-toe with the most technologically sophisticated and powerful military in history.

This is typically the point in the conversation when the example of Vietnam's pyrrhic victory against French and American colonialism gets trotted out as proof that a low-tech guerrilla insurgency can check the U.S. Armed Forces. First off, both China and the Soviet Union provided military aid to the North Vietnamese, who had possessed submachine guns and anti-tank RPGs to arm the Viet Cong. Neither of those are currently legal for your uncle's cosplay militia to pick up at Walmart.

The great irony here is that it's the rabidly pro-gun cadres who pose the most pressing threat to U.S. democracy today. That's a point raised by Ryan Busse, a former firearms executive and author of Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry that Radicalized America. He detailed the danger during a recently appearance on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah:

Theres a couple different flags that we saw on Jan. 6. We saw Trump and American flags, and then the other flag we saw were the Come and Take It AR-15 flags. Right-wing political radicals in this country now use guns as the central symbol of their identity. Its a dangerous thing. This is authoritarianism at its formative stages. There are millions of responsible gun owners in this country who love to shoot with their kids and hunt and do all the things that I love to do, and believe in the right to self-defense. But this idea that guns are somehow the symbol of some right-wing political movement thats dangerous 1936 Germany stuff. Its frightening.

More than 300 U.S. residents are shot daily, and more than 100 of us die from those wounds, while the number of mass shootings has increased dramatically since Columbine. It's worth talking about common-sense proposals such as closing the private sale exemption, instituting universal background checks, learning from successful gun control measures adopted by free societies elsewhere and enforcing laws already on the books intended to prevent domestic abusersfrom packing.

But in order to have a rational discussion on this controversial topic, it's vital that the prospect of mushroom clouds periodically dotting the landscape of our residential communities be a non-starter and that any credibility still held by high-caliber wackos like Barton be judiciously bought back and safely disposed of.

This essay was originally published by CityBeat sister paper San Antonio Current.

Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get the latest on the news, things to do and places to eat delivered right to your inbox.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

More here:
Guest Commentary: The Rabid Right Believes the Second Amendment Has No Limits Not Even Nukes - Cincinnati CityBeat

Kyle Rittenhouse, the man who was acquitted of homicide charges after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third, was hailed at a hero to millions when he appeared before a group of young American conservatives.

Speaking at an event in Phoenix, Arizona, organised by Turning Point USA, a conservative student movement for freedom, free markets and limited government, the 18-year-old received rapturous applause and cheers.

Charlie Kirk, the founder of the influential student group, said Mr Rittenhouse had not only not done the wrong thing, but he had done the right thing.

We must say that he did everything right that night, that Kyle acted properly and morally and lawfully when someone tried to kill him, he said.

He added: Kyle did the right thing. And he should be applauded.

In the weeks since the teenager was cleared of all charges over the shooting of three white men, two of them fatally, amid protests for racial justice, Mr Rittenhouse has become something of a hero for many on the right, and defenders of the Second Amendment of the US constitution, which the US Supreme Court has found to give individuals the right to bear arms.

The young man had been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, after the shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the summer of 2020.

The largely white jury deliberated for 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing him not guilty on all counts. While the news was a shock to some, those watching the trial said under Wisconsin law, the young man has a strong chance of arguing that he had acted in self defence. He did precisely that.

Mr Rittenhouse did not have to take to the witness box to defend himself but he choose to do so. He was asked about why he made that decision.

Sarah Palin says 'over my dead body' will authorities make her have a covid vaccine shot

I wanted to tell my story. I wanted to tell the world what happened in Kenosha, the truth, unlike what the prosecution tried to say he said. That's why I took the stand.

In addition to Mr Kirk, Mr Rittenhouse appeared with right wing radio host and podcaster Jack Posobiec, Drew Hernandez, and journalist Elijah Schaffer, of the conservative network, Blaze TV, who filmed a lot of the video showing Mr Rittenhouse shooting the three individuals.

Mr Rittenhouse was asked about his interactions with prosecutor Thomas Binger, from the Kenosha County District Attorney's Office.

He was also asked about the admonitions given to the prosecutor by the judge, and whether the prosecution was trying to throw the case.

Absolutely. I think so, he said. I thought they knew they were losing and they wanted a mistrial.

Asked what he thought had been driving the prosecution, he said: I think my trial was an example of them trying to come after our Second Amendment rights, a right to defend ourselves, and to take our weapons.

Joe Biden last year linked Mr Rittenhouse to white supremacists, though they there is no evidence to support that. The young man has asked the president for an apology.

On Monday, Mr Kirk praised Mr Rittenhouse for withstanding such pressure. He said: You held it all together. Youre a hero to millions.

Excerpt from:
Kyle Rittenhouse cheered as hero to millions as he claims homicide trial attempt to come after 2nd Amendment - The Independent

Mississippi had actually filed its abortion appeal in the previous term, in June 2020, when Justice Ginsburg was still alive, but it wasnt until nearly a year later, this past May, that the court agreed to hear it. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, met none of the usual criteria for deciding whether to hear a case: In overturning the states ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit simply applied binding precedent, and there was no dispute among the lower federal courts for the Supreme Court to resolve. What the case offered was a vehicle the newly empowered anti-abortion supermajority was waiting for.

The decision to hear the New York gun case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, came after years during which the court sidestepped multiple opportunities to expand on the Heller decision, to the frustration of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who had taken to complaining that their colleagues were turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right. Their protests finally bore fruit in March of this year, when the court accepted an appeal filed by a National Rifle Association affiliate.

The grant of review in the Maine religious schools case came at the very end of the last term. The grant itself was no surprise; the case is tailor-made to complete a project that Chief Justice Roberts has approached incrementally with the clear goal of enabling religious institutions to enjoy the same public benefits as secular institutions.

His mentor and predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, had a similar goal but lacked the votes, or perhaps the will, to see it to completion. One of his last major opinions, Locke v. Davey in 2004, held that while a state could choose to subsidize religious education, it was not required by the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause to do so. There needed to be play in the joints, Rehnquist wrote, connecting the First Amendments two religion clauses, one that protects the free exercise of religion and the other that prohibits religious establishment by the government.

The new case would transform the permissive into the mandatory, asking the court to rule that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a program that, in school districts too small to have their own high schools, offers tuition reimbursement to parents who choose to send their children to a private school.

The line Maine drew for its tuition program was based on the states concern that to channel public money to the coffers of parochial schools that provide religious instruction, even though it is a program that relies on parental choice, would violate the Establishment Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the exclusion on the ground that the programs purpose was to duplicate, for children lacking access to a local public high school, the religiously neutral education that a public high school offers. During the oral argument, the conservative justices seemed unable to grasp that simple proposition. They insisted to the states lawyer, Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub, that some kind of rank anti-religious discrimination was afoot.

Mr. Taub readily agreed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh that a state could not subsidize tuition at the schools of one faith while withholding the subsidy from schools of other religions; that would be discrimination, obviously. But Justice Kavanaugh wanted more. Our case law suggests that discriminating against all religions, as compared to secular, is discriminatory just as it is discriminatory to say exclude the Catholic and the Jewish and include the Protestant, he told Mr. Taub. While the courts recent precedents may suggest such an equal-footing principle when it comes to public education, they arent quite there yet. They soon will be. The Establishment Clause, long understood as a barrier to taxpayer subsidy of religious education, was almost completely absent from the argument. Its absence will be more than rhetorical if the challenge to the Maine program succeeds.

Link:
Opinion | Trump Weaponized the Supreme Court - The New York Times

The UP government is all set to make amendments to the School Bus Rules, 2019 very soon for greater safety of school children who travel by buses.

Lucknow: The life of all school buses in Uttar Pradesh may be capped at 15 years in a move that may come as a relief to transporters who are plying buses to ferry school children, as per people in the know of things.

The state government, according to them, is all set to make an amendment in this regard, besides making some other amendments to the School Bus Rules, 2019 very soon for greater safety of school children who travel by buses. The proposed amendments will be put before the Cabinet within a week or two, they said.

One amendment proposal seeks to fix the age limit for all school buses at 15 years after which they would not be deemed fit to ply on the road. The present rules cap life of buses owned and operated by schools (educational institutions) at 15 years and those that are owned by individuals/private operators and used to transport school children on a contract permit, at 10 years.

The idea behind keeping lower age limit for school buses owned by those other than school managements was that such buses become unfit sooner because they ply more than school-owned buses that operate only for the limited purpose of ferrying children, said a senior transport official. But transporters had been demanding an increase in the school bus age limit for long, he added.

The second amendment proposal is for increasing the number of fire extinguisher cylinders to two from one in school buses. Under the current rules, each school bus is supposed to have one 5kg cylinder installed inside it. There is a proposal for installing two such cylinders of 2 kg each at two different places in every school bus for greater safety, the official said.

The government will also adopt Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) for windows and gates of school buses through yet another amendment and also insert a fresh provision, allowing school buses to carry children one and a half time their seating capacity .

As per a Supreme Court ruling, a school bus can ferry children up to one and a half times its seating capacity, considering the fact that many children travelling in a school bus may be less than 12 years and now we are putting this provision in school bus rules also for clarity, the official said. He said school buses rules were framed and notified in 2019 and some amendments were being made after a lot of discussion with stakeholders.

Get our Daily News Capsule

Thank you for subscribing to our Daily News Capsulenewsletter.

See the rest here:
Life of all school buses in UP to be capped at 15 yrs - Hindustan Times

The sixth annual Magpul Wyoming Governors Match, presented by Vortex Optics, will be held July 28-31 in Casper, Wyoming, at the Stuckenhoff Sport Shooters range. The Wyoming Office of Outdoor Recreation along with the Casper Shooters Club are bringing this nationally recognized shooting sports competition back to Wyoming.

I look forward to attending this exciting event each summer, said Governor Mark Gordon. This annual shooting match is one way we recognize the importance of the safe and proficient use of firearms while also honoring Wyomings forever commitment to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

Competitions like the Governors Match require shooters to hit a series of targets at varying ranges and positions with their firearm as they move through a course of fire. They are scored based on a combination of time and accuracy.

Casper Shooters Club is proud to host the 2022 Magpul Wyoming Governors Cup, said Brian Shain, Vice President of the club. This event will be a USPSA sanctioned pistol/rifle match featuring 10-12 stages and will attract shooters from all over the country allowing us to show off the great State of Wyoming.

The Governors Match will be a community based event that allows members of the public to be able to watch some of the worlds best shooters in action. Organizers hope to attract several hundred participants to Casper for a long weekend, and members of the local community are excited to welcome these visitors again.

The Magpul Governors Match is a fantastic event and I am thrilled that Casper will be hosting in 2022, said Representative Art Washut (R-Casper). The City of Casper and Casper Shooters Club have been working diligently to improve the range facility and their efforts have been rewarded! The Wyoming Office of Outdoor Recreation has been an integral part of this match for many years. I am confident that the 2022 match will exceed all expectations.

The last two matches were challenged by both the pandemic and ammunition shortages, but the event coordinators are hoping for a big turnaround this year.

Were excited to bring the match back to Casper in 2022, said Chris Floyd, Manager of the Wyoming Office of Outdoor Recreation. The local club brings a lot of enthusiasm to the event and we look forward to working with them to help make it a success.

More detailed information about the 2022 Governors Match will be released in the coming months. Visit the website for up-to-date information.

See more here:
Magpul Wyoming Governor's Match Returns to Casper in 2022 - ShortGo

More to it than misinformation

Re: "Lies on vaccines are killing people in less educated parts of California" (Column, Dec. 14):

One does not need a college degree to see that many, if not all, of these misinformation stories are just plain ludicrous.

Common sense will see through the lies. There appears to be much more behind people's reluctance to get vaccinated than the misinformation. What about the college-educated people who refuse vaccinations? How about medical professionals?

It is shortsighted to categorize the unvaccinated as uneducated. A more comprehensive study might shed some light on why otherwise reasonable people choose not to get vaccinated.

Robert D. Jackson, Palm Desert

I am quite puzzled by the media's big coverage of Officer Kim Potter relating to the "accidental shooting" of Daunte Wright in Minnesota.

Wright was trying to get away from the police as they were trying to detain him. He also had a warrant out for his arrest.

Potter knew she made an error, pulling out her gun instead of her Taser, and admitted same. Yet she is being tried by the media.

Now, Alec Baldwin took a gun pointed at an employee and "accidentally" did not check to make sure it was not loaded, fired and killed an innocent lady and wounded a man.

He is blaming everyone else for his crime, and he is getting a pass from the media. Now, this same Alec Baldwin who is against the Second Amendment, but makes a living using guns in movies, then shoots an innocent person. What a hypocrite.

Ed Manske, Palm Springs

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: There must be more behind vaccine refusal than just misinformation

Read the rest here:
There must be more behind vaccine refusal than just misinformation - Yahoo News