Sunday, June 28th open thread: ‘Screaming for Anarchy’
This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here are Street Bulldogs and “Screaming for Anarchy”
We have seen the not so subtle media bias when it comes to the coverage of the small groups of people who were protesting the house arrest orders compared to the coverage of the much larger Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests, which led to the takeover of a portion of Seattle, in regards to the potential spread of COVID-19.
There is no need to go into that here, it has been well-covered already, but it is interesting to note that politicians have also shown a bias in how they have reacted to the two scenarios. But the politicians’ hypocritical reactions to different issues during this pandemic is not limited solely to these protests, it also relates to how they have handled the crisis and gatherings in general.
Back in April Bill de Blasio threatened to arrest people if they attended the funeral of a beloved religious leader and in March he threatened to “permanently” close houses of worship. While restricting this first amendment protection, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo came out in favor of the recent George Floyd protests even though there is a ban on large gatherings. This double standard did not go unnoticed and several religious leaders filed a lawsuit. Yesterday a judge ruled that Andrew Cuomo and Bill deBlasio exceeded their authority by limiting church services while letting the protests go on unchecked. Here is more:
A federal judge said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Letitia James, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “exceeded” their executive limits by limiting worship services and condoning mass protests as the state continues to reopen from coronavirus restrictions.
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction Friday on behalf of two Catholic priests — Steven Soos and Nicholas Stamos — and a trio of Orthodox Jewish congregants — Elchanan Perr, Daniel Schonborn, and Mayer Mayerfeld — in Brooklyn, represented by the Thomas More Society.
They filed the suit in the Northern District of New York after mass protests and looting occurred in the Big Apple following George Floyd’s police-related death in May.
De Blasio had “simultaneous pro-protest/anti-religious gathering messages” when he “actively encouraged participation in protests and openly discouraged religious gatherings and threatened religious worshipers,” Sharpe said in his federal order.
“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” the judge added. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”
And here is more about another example of the hypocrisy:
“Suddenly, the limit on ‘mass gatherings’ was no longer necessary to ‘save lives,’” Ferrara said in a statement to Fox News. “Yet they were continuing to ban high school graduations and other outdoor gatherings exceeding a mere 25 people.”
He added, “This decision is an important step toward inhibiting the suddenly emerging trend of exercising absolute monarchy on [the] pretext of public health. What this kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom for me, but not for thee.”
Okay, back to the original decision. If I am reading this article correctly this is not a straightforward victory for religious freedom, the judge did not rule the State governments cannot restrict the freedom of religion but rather that all restrictions on our freedoms have to be equally restrictive. In other words if you are going to violate one right you must violate them all.
But still it is a victory at a time when we desperately needed one to help stem the tide of authoritarianism that is creeping across the nation with the approval of the people…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Appeals Court freezes $2 billion in border wall funding
Back and forth we go on Donald Trump’s battle to reallocate some defense monies to build the border wall. When last we left this fiasco the Supreme Court reversed a freeze a lower court put on $2.5 billion.
The Supreme Court decision allowed the President to begin spending the $2.5 billion while the lawsuit made its way through the court system. Well, that lower court has now made its decision and not surprisingly the 9th Circuit Court has ruled against the President. Here is more:
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration in its transfer of $2.5 billion from military construction projects to build sections of the U.S. border wall with Mexico, ruling it illegally sidestepped Congress, which gets to decide how to use the funds.
In two opinions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a coalition of border states and environmental groups that contended the money transfer was unlawful and that building the wall would pose environmental threats.
The rulings were the latest twist in the legal battle that has largely gone Trump’s way. Last July, the Supreme Court allowed the $2.5 billion to be spent while the litigation continued, blunting the impact of the latest appeals court action.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the Trump administration not only lacked the authority to authorize the transfer of funds, “but also violated an express constitutional prohibition designed to protect individual liberties.”
The vote on both rulings was 2-1 with judges appointed by former President Bill Clinton in the majority and a Trump nominee dissenting.
Much of the money has already been spent and this is sure to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which has largely ruled in the President’s favor on border wall spending.
And on and on it goes…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
It really is hard predicting which way the Supreme Court is going to rule on any given issue nowadays and here is the latest case in point; just last week the Supreme Court ruled against the President’s attempt to rescind the DACA program with John Roberts siding with the liberals, and then yesterday in a 7-2 decision with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voting with the conservatives the highest court in the land ruled for Donald Trump’s fast track deportation policy. Here is more:
The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major victory on a signature issue Thursday, ruling that asylum-seekers whose claims are initially denied by immigration officials have no right to a hearing before a judge.
The decision authorizes the Trump administration to fast-track deportations for thousands of asylum-seekers after bare-bones screening procedures.
Immigrants who make a claim for asylum must initially prove to immigration officials that they have a “credible fear” of persecution in their country of origin to proceed with the full asylum process. If they fail, they can be deported without ever having the opportunity to make their case in court.
He said that neither the right of habeas corpus nor the right to due process of law requires a hearing before a judge for those turned down in their initial asylum screenings. This framework, he said, was properly authorized by Congress in a 1996 law aimed at speeding deportations at the border.
While voting in favor of the policy in the one particular case before the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer did not agree with Samuel Alito majority statement because they felt it was too broad and that the decision should be limited to this one case.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Senate Democrats block police reform bill
In response to the George Floyd murder and the subsequent protests the Senate Republicans began to craft a police reform bill. This bill included the following reforms:
Among other things, the JUSTICE Act creates a federal system to track police shootings, requires police departments to report no-knock warrants such as the horrific incident in which police officers shot Breonna Taylor, institutes a grant program to help police departments gain access to more body cameras, requires police training on alternatives to the use of force and de-escalation, makes lynching a federal crime, and reforms law enforcement hiring and education. The act also creates economic incentives for local police departments to ban chokeholds.
Despite demanding action on this issue Democrats in the Senate blocked the legislation, calling it unsalvageable even though the Republicans were going to allow Democrats to make amendments to the legislation.
Yet while the Democrats are calling this legislation “unsalvageable” according to the above-linked article it is not all that different from their own version of this bill which is in the House. If the Democrats were truly interested in reforming the police it would seem as if they should have at least debated and amended the Senate bill, and if passed something could have been worked out between the two versions of the bill when it went to conference committee. You know, the way things usually work…
What this shows us is simple, the Democrats are not interested in police reform. Or I should say, the Democrats are not as interested in police reform as they are in using police reform as a political issue during an election cycle or in assuring the Republicans cannot claim any type of victory on police reform before an election.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Back in April, after 35 or so authoritarian governors decided to shut down the economy by putting millions of Americans under house arrest, Donald Trump tried to stem the tide of self-destruction by banning some foreign work visas for 60 days.
With that Executive Order set to expire today it is being reported here that the President is preparing to extend and expand the visa ban until the end of the year. Here is more:
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order extending a freeze on green cards and barring most categories of foreign workers through the end of the year, the White House announced Monday.
The order extends restrictions originally enacted in April due to the coronavirus pandemic, which blocked most people from receiving a permanent residency visa, or green card. The new order also temporarily freezes H1-B visas for highly-skilled workers
The Trump administration is arguing the immigration restrictions are necessary to protect American jobs during a period of historic unemployment, the result of the country’s lockdown this spring to prevent the spread of Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
The executive order applies to H1-B visas, which allow U.S. employers to temporarily hire non-immigrant workers in specialty occupations; H4 visas for spouses of H1-B workers; L visas for temporary workers and most J and H2-B visas. J visas are for work-and-study-based exchange visitor programs and their spouses and dependents — au pairs are exempt, but professors and scholars are not — and H2-B visas for temporary non-agricultural workers.
According to the article it is estimated this will free up 525,000 this year. You already know how the Democratic leadership is going to react to this news, they are going to claim Donald Trump is using the COVID-19 crisis to implement his racist policies because, quite frankly, they are happy with the self-inflicted economic downturn.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
If you are not familiar with Folk Punk here is an introduction, I give you Ryan Harvey and his song “Peace, Justice, and Anarchy.” Enjoy:
It looks like Donald Trump’s immigration policies are 0-2 in the Supreme Court this week. Earlier in the week the Supreme Court refused to take up the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling on California’s sanctuary law, and yesterday the highest court in the land blocked the President from rescinding DACA.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot carry out its plan to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has allowed nearly 800,000 young people, known as Dreamers, to avoid deportation and remain in the U.S.
Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in the 5-4 decision, which deals a big legal defeat to President Donald Trump on the issue of immigration, a major focus of his domestic agenda.
Once again John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court. (When can we just start saying the five liberal justices on the Supreme Court were in agreement?)
Oddly enough the court did not rule that Donald Trump could not end the DACA program, the court just did not like his reason for wanting to do so.
Roberts wrote in the decision that the government failed to give an adequate justification for ending the federal program. The administration could again try to shut it down by offering a more detailed explanation for its action
We conclude that the acting secretary did violate” the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the decision to rescind DACA “must be vacated,” Roberts wrote. In his decision, Roberts called the Trump administration’s “total rescission” of DACA “arbitrary and capricious.”
The heart of Robert’s majority opinion held that Trump had broken the laws governing federal agencies when he ended DACA in 2017 because the memorandum that recommended its termination did not address crucial parts of the policy.
Critically, however, Roberts pointed out in his decision that it wasn’t necessarily unconstitutional for the Trump administration to terminate DACA, but the way it did so was.
So it is back to the drawing board. Basically it looks like the Supreme Court punted this issue and now we will have to wait to see if Donald Trump decides to try again this close to when the election is scheduled to take place.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
California’s sanctuary law, which forbids local police from helping Federal immigration agents, was being challenged in the courts. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that there is nothing in California law which requires local police to assist Federal officers and upheld the law.
The Trump administration challenged the decision and yesterday the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major setback to his immigration policy by refusing to hear the appeal. Here is more:
California’s “sanctuary” immigration enforcement law will not go before the U.S. Supreme Court, handing California a capstone victory in an ongoing clash with the federal government.
The high court on Monday turned down the Justice Department’s request to review a federal appeals court decision that largely upheld three California laws. One of the laws passed soon after Donald Trump became president, Senate Bill 54, partitions local law enforcement from federal immigration authorities, protecting arrested immigrants and low-level offenders from deportation.
The federal government asked the Supreme Court to review SB 54. The court announced Monday that it declined that review, though Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have heard the case.
The story says only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have agreed to hear the case, but here we find out that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch refused to hear the appeal so I am guessing this decision was handed down by the whole court and not just a panel. And of course that means John Roberts strikes again…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Donald Trump to sign police reform Executive Order
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder the Democrats who do not want to defund the police have been preparing police reform legislation but apparently they are not moving fast enough for Donald Trump because according to this story he is going to sign an Executive Order on police reform tomorrow. Here is what is included in his decree:
- Creating credentialing and certification programs in every police department across the nation
- Information sharing — create a national database that can track officers with excessive use of force complaints so they can’t skip from department to department
- Incentivize co-responder programs — have mental health experts accompany officers on responses to non-violent calls involving homelessness, addiction, and other mental health issues
You know how I feel about Executive Orders, I believe the President should let the Congress go through the process and then decide whether or not to sign the police reform legislation when and if it makes it to his desk.
However, we know if Donald Trump waits for the Congress to do its job the Democrats in this very same Congress will claim he is fiddling while America burns, even though they will be the ones who do not get it to his desk. But of course he is damned if he does because I can already predict they are going to claim it does not go far enough.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 