Supreme Court shows conservative effect in key coronavirus ruling

The Supreme Court’s new conservative majority showed its muscle on Thanksgiving Eve, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett playing a key role in reversing the court’s past deference to local officials when weighing pandemic-related restrictions on religious organizations.

All three of President Trump’s nominees to the court were in the 5-to-4 majority that blocked New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s restrictions on houses of worship in temporary hot spots where the coronavirus is raging.

The court’s most conservative justices distanced themselves from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Trump’s first nominee, went out of his way to say that lower courts should no longer follow Roberts’s guidance of deference, calling it “mistaken from the start.”

“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical,” Gorsuch wrote. Rather than applying “nonbinding and expired” guidance from Roberts in an earlier case from California, Gorsuch said, “courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause.”

“Today, a majority of the court makes this plain.”

The halt of Cuomo’s orders, which had been allowed to remain in place by lower courts, was the first evidence that Roberts may no longer play the pivotal role he occupied over the past couple of years. He had been at the center of the court, with four consistently more conservative justices and four more liberal ones.

Barrett’s replacement of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg means there are now five members of the court — a majority — more willing to move it quickly in a more conservative direction.

And pandemic-related restrictions on worship services have drawn the ire of the conservatives for months.

They were previously outvoted when Ginsburg was alive, as she and the other liberals joined with Roberts to leave in place restrictions in California and Nevada that imposed limits on in-person services at houses of worship.

In the cases involved in the court’s midnight order Wednesday, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Jewish organizations led by Agudath Israel challenged Cuomo’s system of imposing drastic restrictions on certain neighborhoods when coronavirus cases spike.

Under Cuomo’s plan, in areas designated “red zones,” where the virus risk is highest, worship services are capped at 10 people. At the next level, “orange zones,” there is an attendance cap of 25. The size of the facility does not factor in to the capacity limit.

The diocese said in its petition that the plan subjects “houses of worship alone” to “onerous ­fixed-capacity caps while permitting a host of secular businesses to remain open in ‘red’ and ‘orange’ zones without any restrictions whatsoever.”

And the Jewish organizations noted that Cuomo, a Democrat, had specifically mentioned outbreaks in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods when imposing the restrictions. “This court should not permit such remarkable scapegoating of a religious minority to stand,” the organizations said in court documents.

Cuomo attributed the court’s order to its more conservative majority. “I think that Supreme Court ruling on the religious gatherings is more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo told reporters. “It’s irrelevant from a practical impact because the zone that they were talking about has already been moved. It expired last week. I think this was really just an opportunity for the court to express its philosophy and politics.”

Technically, the court’s order blocks Cuomo’s restrictions from being reimposed while legal challenges continue. But the court’s unsigned opinion would appear to make the ultimate outcome clear.

Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the opinion said. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

The opinion was endorsed by Barrett, Gorsuch and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh, Trump’s second appointment to the court. It was mild compared with recent comments from Alito and the Gorsuch opinion, which no other justices joined.

Alito, who did not write a separate opinion, recently told the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society that the pandemic “has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.”

“It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right,” Alito said.

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for fellow liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said it was a strange time for the court to be offering relief.

“The number of new confirmed cases per day is now higher than it has ever been,” Breyer wrote, pointing to the growing national death toll and the outsize number of fatalities New York has suffered, which tracking by The Washington Post puts at more than 34,000.

“The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges,” Breyer wrote.

Sotomayor was more pointed in a separate opinion joined by Kagan: “Justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”

Roberts noted in his opinion that the rules might be unduly restrictive but said Cuomo has already eased them, essentially giving the churches and synagogues the relief they had requested.

“The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,” the chief justice wrote. “And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.”

Gorsuch disagreed.

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” he wrote.

Gorsuch’s solo opinion was at times scathing and sarcastic. He noted that Cuomo had designated, among others, hardware stores, acupuncturists, liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses not subject to the most strict limits.

“So, at least according to the governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians,” Gorsuch wrote. “Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

Gorsuch criticized Roberts for relying on one of the court’s 1905 precedents for his position that the court should defer to local officials during health crises.

The chief justice seemed taken aback. He said his earlier opinion in the California case asserted only that the Constitution chiefly leaves such decisions to local officials.

That, he wrote, “should be uncontroversial, and the [Gorsuch] concurrence must reach beyond the words themselves to find the target it is looking for.”

He also defended the liberal justices from Gorsuch’s tough words, even though Roberts did not join their dissents.

“I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as ‘cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,’ yielding to ‘a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,’ or ‘shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack,’ ” Roberts wrote, quoting Gorsuch’s opinion.

“They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”

Conservative religious organizations praised the court’s action.

“Governor Cuomo should have known that openly targeting Jews for a special covid crackdown was never going to be constitutional,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, which represented Agudath Israel. Covid-19 is the disease caused by the coronavirus. “The Supreme Court was right to step in and allow Jews and Catholics to worship as they have for centuries.”

But Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the court’s action was dangerous.

“New York’s temporary restrictions on indoor gatherings do not discriminate against houses of worship, and, in fact, treat them better than comparable non-religious gatherings,” Lieberman said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision will unfortunately undermine New York’s efforts to curb the pandemic.”

Cartoon – Price of Freedom

A B- for Canada, an F for the U.S. | The Seattle Times

Cartoon – Constitutional Rights vs. Civility

Saturday cartoon

Visualizing the State of Democracy, by Country

Visualizing the State of Democracy, by Country

Visualizing The State Of Democracy, By Country | The Daily Reformer

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/state-of-democracy.html

 

Visualizing the State of Democracy, by Country

View the full-sized interactive version of this infographic by clicking here

From Norway to North Korea, governing systems differ around the world. But has the world become more or less free in the past decade?

This visualization from Preethi Lodha demonstrates how democracy levels of 167 countries have changed since 2006. The original data comes from the Democracy Index, which is compiled annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Four Levels of Democracy

First, it’s important to understand the classifications made by the Democracy Index.

Based on answers to 60 questions across a nation’s electoral process, civil liberties, government functions, political participation and political culture, countries are assigned a range of scores in the Democracy Index.

Based on these scores, a nation automatically falls into one of the following four types of governance. Here’s which category fits the bill, depending on the range of scores:

Visualizing The State Of Democracy, By Country – Investing Matters

One thing that stands out is that many hybrid regimes and flawed democracies are also considered high potential emerging markets, but are held back by their political instability.

Notable Improvements

In recent times, public demonstrations have been a major cause behind increases in Democracy Index scores and changes in governance classifications.

Algeria moved from authoritarian to hybrid regime in 2019, the only country in the Arab region to do so in the index. This came after sustained protests against the previous president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika—who had served for 20 years.

Chile experienced similar turmoil, for the better. After a spike in the scale of middle class unrest over inequality and unfair policies in late 2019, the political participation moved it up from a flawed to full democracy.

Sliding Countries

The U.S. has one of the oldest democracies in the world. However, it was downgraded from a full to a flawed democracy as of the 2016 index, a status that had been “teetering” since before then, according to the report that year.

Venezuela dropped into an authoritarian regime in 2017, and it doesn’t seem to be improving anytime soon. The state was found to use the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to crack down on any dissent against the government.

Global Change in Democracy Levels

All in all, the average global democracy score worldwide emerged at 5.48 in 2019, although it’s clear that certain countries pull this value towards the opposite extremes.

North Korea, an authoritarian regime with a 1.08 score, has remained consistently one of the lowest ranked countries in the index. Meanwhile, its alphabetical successor Norway steadily keeps up its high score streak, with 9.87 being the best example of a full democracy in 2019.

Here’s how many countries made up each system of governance over the years, and the global Democracy Index score for that year.

Visualizing The State Of Democracy, By Country | NewsLinks.Net |  Conservative News

Authoritarian regimes peaked in 2010 with 57 countries, whereas the full democracy category peaked in 2008 with 28 countries.

Since 2006, the average global score has slid from 5.52 to 5.48, and the total of countries categorized under full democracy decreased from 26 to 22.

Does this signal an increasingly divided world? And will the global pandemic—which is already delaying elections—have a further pronounced effect on backsliding these democracy scores?

 

Cartoon – Coronavirus Mask Fashions

5-27 cartoon | Cartoons | heraldandnews.com

The right to vote is not in the Constitution

https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2026%202020%20-%201713516549&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2026%202020%20-%201713516549+Version+A+CID_ca860340297de2ef2c2c85020b74576b&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The%20right%20to%20vote%20is%20not%20in%20the%20Constitution

Why The Right To Vote Is Not Enshrined In The Constitution by Sean ...

If you’re looking for the right to vote, you won’t find it in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights recognizes the core rights of citizens in a democracy, including freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. It then recognizes several insurance policies against an abusive government that would attempt to limit these liberties: weapons; the privacy of houses and personal informationprotections against false criminal prosecution or repressive civil trials; and limits on excessive punishments by the government.

But the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget – they intentionally left it out. To put it most simply, the founders didn’t trust ordinary citizens to endorse the rights of others.

They were creating a radical experiment in self-government paired with the protection of individual rights that are often resented by the majority. As a result, they did not lay out an inherent right to vote because they feared rule by the masses would mean the destruction of – not better protection for – all the other rights the Constitution and Bill of Rights uphold. Instead, they highlighted other core rights over the vote, creating a tension that remains today.

James Madison of Virginia. White House Historical Association/Wikimedia Commons

Relying on the elite to protect minority rights

Many of the rights the founders enumerated protect small groups from the power of the majority – for instance, those who would say or publish unpopular statements, or practice unpopular religions, or hold more property than others. James Madison, a principal architect of the U.S. Constitution and the drafter of the Bill of Rights, was an intellectual and landowner who saw the two as strongly linked.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.

In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”

The founders believed that freedoms and rights would require the protection of an educated elite group of citizens, against an intolerant majority. They understood that protected rights and mass voting could be contradictory.

Scholarship in political science backs up many of the founders’ assessments. One of the field’s clear findings is that elites support the protection of minority rights far more than ordinary citizens do. Research has also shown that ordinary Americans are remarkably ignorant of public policies and politicians, lacking even basic political knowledge.

Is there a right to vote?

What Americans think of as the right to vote doesn’t reside in the Constitution, but results from broad shifts in American public beliefs during the early 1800s. The new states that entered the union after the original 13 – beginning with Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – did not limit voting to property owners. Many of the new state constitutions also explicitly recognized voting rights.

As the nation grew, the idea of universal white male suffrage – championed by the commoner-President Andrew Jackson – became an article of popular faith, if not a constitutional right.

After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race: If some white people could vote, so could similarly qualified nonwhite people. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. Similarly, the 19th Amendment, now 100 years old, banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote.

A painting of Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson of Tennessee. Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl/Wikimedia Commons

Debates about voting rights

Today, the country remains engaged in a long-running debate about what counts as voter suppression versus what are legitimate limits or regulations on voting – like requiring voters to provide identification, barring felons from voting or removing infrequent voters from the rolls.

These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the longstanding fear of its results.

The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of opposing parties or people of other religions are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world.

Many Americans support their own rights to free speech but want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree.

Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.