RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/506562-in-rueful-praise-of-elena-kagan-the-little-sisters-ruling

I wish she were on my side.

Conservatives ruefully jest that, while John Roberts may hold the lofty title of Chief Justice, he’s really just another seat on the Kagan Court. In Wednesday’s much-anticipated ruling on a religious liberty challenge to the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate, Justice Elena Kagan again demonstrated that she is not just the Supreme Court’s center of gravity. She is its master tactician.

And how she must be chortling, while the Trump administration celebrates as if the 7-2 majority decision were not just a win but a rout in favor of the Constitution’s guarantee of free religious exercise. Justice Kagan knows better. If you scratch beneath the surface, religious liberty is actually losing, albeit in slow motion. Thanks to Kagan’s strategy, there are lots of innings left to play, and her team is much better suited to the long game.

When the hangover ends, conservatives will remember Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania as the case in which the court choked. Don’t be deceived by the 7-2 vote, in which the court’s putative conservative bloc of five justices was joined by Kagan and her fellow progressive, Justice Stephen Breyer. This seven-justice majority agreed only on a narrow holding, confined to a technical matter of statutory construction regarding the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA, or ObamaCare). 

That was not a vindication of liberty. On the core question, there were no more than four justices, and maybe just three, supportive of free exercise of religion. That’s why it’s a mirage of victory in what eventually will be a desert of defeat.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supreme-courts-rulings-on-trump-subpoenas-ho-hum/

A New York prosecutor may pursue the president’s financial information. Congress, though, must relitigate its case in lower courts.

The Supreme Court’s decisions Thursday on two separate cases involving subpoenas for the president’s personal financial information are legal defeats for the presidency. Politically, they are a win for Donald Trump.

Both opinions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and were ostensibly resounding 7–2 defeats for the president’s position. But there’s less here than meets the eye.

The State Grand Jury Subpoena One case involves a subpoena issued by a New York state grand jury conducting a criminal  investigation led by the office of Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney. That investigation is believed to be focused, at least in part, on the payment of hush money to women who claim to have had liaisons with Donald Trump about a decade before he became president, including how the reimbursement for those payments was allegedly booked by the Trump real-estate organization. The subpoena, issued to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, is believed to be sweeping, seeking voluminous financial information (including tax-return information), over a number of years.

The Court’s ruling against the president is emphatic. It was expected that the president would lose. This seemed obvious during the oral argument, when the Court focused intently on the fact that, while the president was making a broad immunity claim, he was not arguing that he had immunity from being investigated; just that he had immunity from complying with subpoenas — indeed, subpoenas addressed to a third-party agent of his, not to the president himself.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-cited-their-study-so-they-disavowed-it-11594250254?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/cultural-revolutions-start-year-zero/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

E very cultural revolution starts at year zero, whether explicitly or implicitly. The French Revolution recalibrated the calendar to begin anew, and the genocidal Pol Pot declared his own Cambodian revolutionary ascension as the beginning of time.

Somewhere after May 25, 2020, the death of George Floyd, while in police custody, sparked demonstrations, protests, and riots. And they in turn ushered in a new revolutionary moment. Or at least we were told that — in part by Black Lives Matter, in part by Antifa, in part by terrified enablers in the corporate world, the new Democratic Party, the military, the universities, and the media.

What was uniquely different about this cultural revolution was how willing and quickly the entire progressive establishment — elected officials, celebrities, media, universities, foundations, retired military — was either on the side of the revolution or saw it as useful in aborting the Trump presidency, or was terrified it would be targeted and so wished to appease the Jacobins.

This reborn America was to end all of the old that had come before and supposedly pay penance for George Floyd’s death and, by symbolic extension, America’s inherent evil since 1619. As in all cultural revolutions, the protestors claimed at first at that they wanted only to erase supposedly reactionary elements: Confederate statues, movies such as Gone with the Wind, some hurtful cartoons, and a few cranky conservative professors and what not.

But soon such recalibration steam rolled, fueled by acquiescence, fright, and timidity. Drunk with ego and power, it moved on to attack almost anything connected with the past or present of the United States itself.

Soon statues of General Grant, and presidents including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson were either toppled or defaced. The message was that their crimes were being white and privileged — in the way that today’s white and privileged should meet a similar fate. Or, as the marchers, who tried to storm Beverly Hills, put it: “Eat the Rich.” They were met by tear gas, and not a single retired general double-downed on his outrage at law enforcement for using tear gas against civilians. Did the BLM idea of cannibalizing the billionaires include LeBron James, Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and likely soon-to-be billionaire Barack Obama?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supreme-court-upholds-trump-exemptions-to-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate-for-now/

A victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor, but the case will drag on.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Trump administration’s exemptions to mandatory contraception coverage under Obamacare for employers with sincerely held objections. The ruling is welcome, particularly in its recognition that First Amendment religious liberty is not confined to identifiably religious organizations, such as churches, but to all Americans. Regrettably, however, the justices stopped short of a definitive ruling that would end the litigation, which the Little Sisters of the Poor have had to pursue for seven long years.

That explains the seemingly lopsided 7–2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the Trump administration had the authority under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) to issue the exemptions. Justice Thomas rejected the objecting states’ claims that the exemptions were not permitted under the ACA; and that, even if they were permitted, the administration had failed to comply with technical notice-and-commentary requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Interestingly, such technical APA flaws were Chief Justice John Roberts’s rationale for joining the Court’s four-justice left-wing bloc to invalidate the administration’s rescission of the Obama DACA decree — notwithstanding that the Obama administration had not complied with the APA in promulgating DACA.)

The Court’s ruling is fine as far as it goes. Nevertheless, Thomas reasoned that because the case could be decided based on the terms of the Obamacare statute itself, the Court need not reach the closely related question of whether the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), the Court had held that the contraceptive mandate unduly burdened the free exercise rights of closely held corporations with sincerely held religious objections.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16206/farrakhan-threats

For anyone who has followed Farrakhan’s hate-filled career — praising Hitler, calling Jews termites, calling Judaism a gutter religion, attacking gays — the content of any Farrakhan speech comes as no surprise.

Farrakhan — like Nazis and Communists — has a First Amendment right to tell his lies and spread his hate. But no media has an obligation to promote or disseminate his bigotry.

Nor does it demand silence from responsible Black and Muslim leaders, whose voices should be heard condemning Farrakhan’s devaluation of Jewish lives, gay lives, and the lives of people suffering from Covid-19.

Under the principles espoused in Brandenburg v Ohio and other leading cases, “advocacy” of violence is constitutionally protected but not “incitement ” to “Imminent lawless action.” The line between advocacy and incitement has not always been easy to draw.

In his July 4th hate-filled anti-American rant, Louis Farrakhan singled out this author for condemnation and threats for writing an article urging people to take a Covid-19 vaccine if a safe an effective one were developed.

The article also stated that mandatory vaccinations to prevent the spread of a highly contagious lethal disease was held constitutional by the Supreme Court and would likely be upheld by the current Court. This comment led Farrakhan to say the following:

“So Mr. Dershowitz, if you bring the vaccine and say you’re going to bring your army to force us to take it, once you try to force us, that’s a declaration of war on all of us. You only have this one life; fight like hell to keep it and fight like hell to destroy those whose heart and mind is to destroy you and take your life from you.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/07/bunch-lefty-thought-leaders-timidly-dissent-mob-daniel-greenfield/

If you expected a moment of courage from liberals, you’ll need to keep waiting because the Harper’s letter isn’t it.

It starts out, in the same fashion as any form of lefty  movement criticism of extremist must these days, with a condemnation of Trump and a warning that the “right” will exploit cancel culture. Except they don’t name it that.

“Resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting,” the letter argues. “While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.”

And then comes the, “we’re living under Stalinsim, but we’re nervous about saying so.”

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/07/a-reign-of-error/

What we think about things can be as important as the things themselves, because it forms our moral stance toward the world. But what if our thoughts are in error?

At the end of The Unheavenly City: The Nature and the Future of Our Urban Crisis (1968), Edward Banfield presents a prospect regarding race relations that seems to have been fulfilled since his tumultuous years and ours: a reign of error.

Let me set the stage. America had become the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, and the wealth was making its way to the lower classes also. Thus the main “accidental factor” that had locked Americans in a vicious cycle of white discrimination and prejudice on one side and low standards and attainments for blacks on the other would be largely alleviated. Such prejudice, said Banfield, writing during the years of urban riots, was already in decline.

By any reasonable criterion, he was correct about that decline. Consider, for one example, our nearly universal acceptance of interracial marriage. Such acceptance was unimaginable when “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” was nominated for the Academy Award for best picture of 1967, largely on account of its message (for a much superior and gut-ripping film on interracial marriage, racial animosity, and rank injustice, see 1964’s “One Potato, Two Potato”). More than 1-in-6 new marriages in the United States are interracial. That alone, I had once thought, would suffice to put those animosities to rest, as it had done between other embittered groups.