Mediaboss Marketing

The arrival this term of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald J. Trump's third appointee, has transformed a Supreme Court with a slight conservative majority into one that tilted right by a 6-to-3 margin. Justice Barrett has also left Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with a sharply diminished ability to guide the courts direction in cases on health care, voting, religion and gay rights.

According to a recent survey from researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas, the public is divided nearly evenly on those key cases.

Covid Restrictions and Religion

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the court ruled that New York could not prohibit in-person attendance at worship services because it violated the Constitutions protection of religious liberty.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Many states have prohibited large in-person gatherings due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some people think that states cannot prohibit in-person religious gatherings because of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Other people think that states can prohibit inperson religious gatherings. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders

In Jones v. Mississippi, the court ruled that juvenile offenders need not be deemed incorrigible, or beyond hope of rehabilitation, before a judge sentences them to die in prison.

Where the public stands

Question wording: There are states that reserve the ability to sentence juvenile criminal defendants to life sentences without the possibility of any parole. Some people think that such juvenile defendants must be found to be incorrigible or impossible of being reformed before being sentenced to life without parole. Other people think that juveniles can be sentenced to life sentences without parole without states having to make such a determination. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Affordable Care Act

In California v. Texas, the court will decide whether a key provision of President Barack Obamas health care law is constitutional and, if it is not, whether the entire law must fall.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Recent legislation has set the tax penalty for not buying health insurance to $0. Some people believe that, because the tax penalty is $0, this means that the penalty is actually not a tax and it exceeds the federal government's power to tax and is unconstitutional. Other people believe that it does not exceed the federal government's power totax and is constitutional. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Some people think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional then the entirety of the ACA must also be unconstitutional. Other people disagree and think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that should not affect the rest of the law. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Religion and Gay Rights

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the court will decide whether Philadelphia may bar a Catholic agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents.

Where the public stands

Question wording: There are some religiously affiliated foster agencies that refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples. Some people think that governments can prohibit such agencies from participating in the foster care systems they operate unless the agencies allow children to be placed with same-sex couples. Other people think that doing so would violate the agencies' First Amendment rights to religious freedom. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: In Arizona, if a voter arrives at a polling place and is not listed on the voter roll for that precinct, the voter may still cast a provisional ballot. After election day, Arizona election officials review all provisional ballots to determine the voter's identity and address. If officials determine that the voter voted outside of their precinct, the ballot is discarded in its entirety, even if the voter was eligible to vote in most of the races on the ballot. Some people believe that discarding entire ballots in this manner is unlawful. Other people believe that it is lawful. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Question wording: Arizona offers in-person voting at a precinct or vote center either on election day or during an early-vote period. Many voters particularly racial minorities who vote early rely on another person to collect and drop off voted ballots. However, the Arizona legislature made it illegal to collect and deliver another person's ballot. Some people think that voters should be able to rely on another person or third party to collect and drop off ballots. Other people think that states can forbid this. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: To detect possible fraud, the attorney general of California requires private nonprofit organizations to report the names and addresses of their major donors to the state, which keeps this information confidential. Some people think that this violates nonprofit organizations' First Amendment rights to free association because it might deter people from financially supporting them. Other people do not think that this violates nonprofit organizations' First Amendment rights to free association. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Students First Amendment Rights

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the court will decide whether schools may punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Some people think that public school officials can punish students for things they say or write off campus, including on social media, without violating students' First Amendment rights to free speech. Other people think that such punishments violate students' First Amendment rights to free speech. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) strictly limits colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. Some people think the NCAA's strict limits on paid compensation for college athletes in this manner is an unlawful form of coordination against athletes. Others disagree and think that the NCAA should be able to strictly limit colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Union Access to Workplaces

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the court will decide whether a California regulation that allows union representatives to meet with farmworkers at their worksites amounts to government taking of private property.

Where the public stands

Question wording: California law requires that employers allow union representatives to enter a company's private property to meet with employees and solicit support for labor organizing. Some people believe that this is akin to the government taking companies' private property without compensation. Other people argue that the law is acceptable, and is not the government taking companies' private property without compensation. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

See the original post:
What the Public Thinks About Major Supreme Court Cases This Term - The New York Times

During the Nixon administrations Watergate unraveling, Henry Kissingers mordant jest was, The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer. But not long, todays congressional Democrats say. Their For the People Act (FTP) is 800-plus pages of provisions convenient for them and their party, some constitutionally dubious, others patently unconstitutional.

All laws regulating campaigns are enacted by people with conflicts of interest interests in advantaging themselves and disadvantaging challengers. FTP would dictate sweeping changes to all 50 states election laws, contravening the Constitutions stipulation that the times, places and manner of congressional elections are to be determined by state legislatures. Granted, the Constitution says Congress may alter such rules, but dictating, for example, how congressional districts are drawn doesnt pertain to the manner of elections. FTP reflects the perennial progressive desire to reduce the states to appendages of the federal government.

FTP sweeps beyond elections by expanding regulation of electioneering communication to include any communication that mentions a federal official, even if only to urge support for a policy, not influence an election. Unsatisfied with their advantages in the mainstream media, Democrats aim to impede alternative forms of advocacy, especially by requiring disclosure of even small-dollar donors to organizations involved only in issue advocacy, not elections. This is sinister, given the ferocious vindictiveness of todays virtual mobs that hound people associated with controversial causes. Soon, the Supreme Court might issue a ruling strengthening its defense of the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. (In 2020, Joe Bidens allies spent six times the amount of contributions from anonymous donors what Democrats tendentiously call dark money that Donald Trumps campaign received.)

The parties should insist that presidential candidates make public 10 years of their tax returns. But by making this a legal requirement, FTP would add a new qualification for the presidential office. In 1995, the Supreme Court, striking down a state law imposing term limits on Arkansas national legislators, held that the Constitution sets the maximum, not a minimum, of qualifications. Neither Congress nor state legislatures can augment them.

FTP would compel states to count mail ballots received 10 days after the election, on the infantilizing assumption that voters cannot be expected to meet an Election Day deadline. Also, FTP would give voters 10 additional days to correct mistakes on mailed ballots, further prolonging possible uncertainty about elections outcomes. Nationally, 73% of 2020 voters cast their ballots before Election Day. Almost 44% of Florida ballots were cast by mail, yet the state tabulation was completed on election night, which should be a national norm.

Although 43 states and the District of Columbia allow early voting for between four and 45 days, Democrats propose to give federal government employees, a significant component of their partys base, paid Election Days off at an estimated cost of $800 million every two years. Although New Hampshire has no mail-in voting and requires voter IDs and in-person voter registration, it has been among the top five states in voter turnout in the five previous presidential elections. Actually, a modicum of inconvenience is a civic benefit if, by drawing voters together in public places on a solemn day central to the national liturgy, election arrangements emphasize that more than just private considerations are at stake.

For generations, there has been judicial enforcement of constitutional and statutory protections of voting rights. And in 2020, the states rose to the challenge of conducting elections compatible with pandemic-related public health protocols. And as Democrats rightly insist, the voting, which shattered turnout records, was without significant malfeasance. So, why 800-plus pages of revisions to electoral procedures and political practices? See above the first sentence of the second paragraph.

FTP reflects an appetite for constitutional vandalism that was displayed seven years ago when 54 members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted to amend the First Amendment to empower Congress to regulate the quantity, content and timing of campaign speech. They thereby implicitly acknowledged that the amendment (Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech) is, by its text, and Supreme Court rulings, incompatible with their desire to strictly control campaign spending, all of which directly or indirectly funds political advocacy.

Unable to alter the Constitution, Democrats now propose, with FTP, to ignore it. In the unlikely event that the For the People Act is passed, the Supreme Court will have multiple occasions for reacquainting its authors with what they ignored.

Read this article:
Ignoring the Constitution, Democrats want to dictate sweeping election changes in all 50 states - Bowling Green Daily News

Alex Thurston considered the future of northeastern Nigeria after the death of Boko Harams leader.

Jen Patja Howell shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast featuring discussion of the newest developments in Trump investigationswith Lawfare co-founder Jack Goldsmith, Executive Editor Scott Anderson, Senior Editor Quinta Juresic and Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes:

John Bellinger remembered Sen. John Warner for his political independence, expertise and integrity.

Jordan Schneider shared an episode of ChinaTalk in which he and Ilan Gur discussed ways to improve Americas research and development and solve entrepreneurial bottlenecks:

Jim Dempsey proposed strengthening regulatory guidelines following the Transportation Security Administrations (TSAs) new emergency directive in the wake of the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline in May.

Alan Rozenshtein argued that the governments best defense of a digital surveillance system in the interest of public health would rely on the special needs exemption to the Fourth Amendment.

Michel Paradis provided background and analysis for the newest legislative effort to combat the prevalence of sexual assault in the military.

Jen Patja Howell also shared an episode of Rational Security covering the ransomware attack on meat processor JBS and a new search for evidence of the origins of the coronavirus. Madiha Afzal of the Brookings Institution joined to talk about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan:

Howell also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast in which Lawfare Executive Editor Scott Anderson and Natan Sachs, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of its Center for Middle East Policy, talked about the newest developments in Israels political landscape:

She also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast's "Arbiters of Truth" series on our online information ecosystem. Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Juresic and Evelyn Douek spoke with Nikhil Pahwa about the latest clashes between online platforms and the Indian government:

Stewart Baker posted an episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast in which he interviews the authors of a widely publicized Ransomware Task Force report, asking them if good cybersecurity policy has to be boring:

Sam Cohen and Alex Vivona covered the latest news out of the South China Sea, including Sino-Philippine tensions over the Whitsun Reef.

Daniel Richman and Sarah Seo traced the history of federal and state oversight of policing as context for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which is pending Senate approval.

Rohini Kurup shared an annual Department of Defense report on civilian casualties in connection to U.S. military operations.

Bryce Klehm announced the Lawfare Live episode which featured Paradis taking questions on his new Lawfare article, Congress Demands Accountability for Service Members:

powered by Crowdcast

Klehm and Rozenshtein considered presidential immunity and First Amendment protections with regard to Rep. Bennie Thompsons lawsuit against Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani and far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers for their actions on Jan. 6.

Christiana Wayne shared the Supreme Courts ruling in Van Buren v. United States, a case with major implications for the future of the Computer Frauds and Abuses Act.

Evelyn Douek argued that Facebooks response to the Facebook Oversight Boards policy recommendations in regards to the suspension of Donald Trump is underwhelming.

Quinta Juresic analyzed recent court battles over the Mueller report and the tension between the administrations desire to break with the Trump years and the Justice Departments other institutional interests.

Eve Gaumond reviewed the European Commissions new Artificial Intelligence Act.

And Howell also shared an episode of the Lawfare Podcast covering the latest in U.S.-China relations. Lawfare AssociateAssistant Editor Bryce Klehm sat down with Ryan Hass, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, for a wide-ranging discussion on the United Statess China policy. Hass is the author of the new book, Stronger: Adapting Americas China Strategy in an Age of Competitive Interdependence:

And that was the week that was.

Visit link:
The Week that Was: All of Lawfare in One Post - Lawfare

One of the New York Times reporters whose phone records were seized by the Trump Justice Department spoke out on CNNs Reliable Sources on Sunday. New reporting has revealed that top executives at the Times were under a gag order to shield it from public view.

Adam Goldman told Brian Stelter it was certainly disappointing but not surprising, recalling how his phone records were secretly obtained by the Obama DOJ in 2013 when he was at the Associated Press.

The U.S. attorneys office in D.C. has a history of trampling on the First Amendment, so thats why I wasnt surprised, Goldman said. They treat the media, they treat newspapers like drug gangs.

Like drug gangs? a stunned Stelter asked.

Yes. Like drug gangs, Goldman stated.

He said there should be actual consequences and enforcement action for when these prosecutors take these outrageous steps.

President Joe Biden was recently questioned by CNNs Kaitlan Collins on the DOJ seizing phone records of reporters, and he said he would not let that happen.

Collins noted Sunday how long it took the White House to send out a statement affirming there is a new policy in place.

Just because they change their policy doesnt mean it is going to be the policy going forward, and I think there are a lot o unanswered questions about what this policy is going to look like, she added.

Mediaite founder and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams said the lack of transparency is really indefensible, but argued that such leak investigations may be justified in some circumstances. But I agree with Adam, he added, that codifying a set of standards and the standard ought to be really high for snooping on journalists.

In the past few weeks, there have also been reports that the Trump DOJ seized the phone records of Washington Post and CNN reporters, hence Collins question to Biden.

You can watch above, via CNN.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

More here:
'Trampling on the First Amendment': NY Times Reporter Speaks Out on DOJ Seizing His Phone Records - Mediaite

Religious freedom advocates are awaiting a major ruling from the Supreme Court this month. It hinges on LGBTQ advocates trying to force a faith-based foster agency to violate its religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court will decide the future of Philadelphia's Catholic Social Services agency which is asking to follow the church's teaching and not partner with same-sex or unmarried couples. It's a high-stakes religious liberty fight.Dr. Andrew Walker, a professor of ethics with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, "What we are contending for in this case is that Catholic Social services have an equal right to participate in the public squareand the way they are serving in the public square is to serve the most needy among uschildren without homes."

Regent University Law School Professor Brad Jacob explains, "The Supreme Court told us when they said that the Constitution requires same-sex marriage that of course, the law will protect those that have a different view in their religious or moral conscience, but in many cases, that's not happening."

LGBTQ advocates like the Human Rights Campaign say the case is about discrimination, and a decision against the city of Philadelphia would open a "Pandora's Box" for future discrimination.

But Prof. Walker, who is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, disagrees.

"Discrimination implies locking people out, a class of people out from an entire industryand that's not what's going on," he says. "What's going on in Fulton is you have one adoption agency that's wanting to operate according to its beliefs."

***As Big Tech censorship and the woke cancel culture continueto grow, please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Catholic Social Services never actually turned away any gay couples, and there are dozens of Philadelphia foster agencies that work with them, so Prof. Jacob says they can't ultimately lose.

"They can adopt either waythey don't need Catholic Social Services. This is an effort on their part to basically stamp out anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview," he says.

Court watchers are closely watching the case, with its hot-button issues, in the hands of a new conservative majority.

"We have a Supreme Court that's probably for the first time as pro-religious liberty in its design as it has been in perhaps the history of the Supreme Court," Walker says.The big question with Fulton is how broadly will the justices rule? They could revisit a 1990 case that decimated free exercise of religion and provide a substantial win for people of faith. Or they could announce a narrow decision that would do little to advance either side.

See the original post:
Religious Liberty and the First Amendment on Trial Now at US Supreme Court - CBN News