Category: reason

Yesterday, the Trump Administration commenced its third effort to wind down DACA. DACA Rescission 1.0 began in 2017. Attorney General Sessions wrote a letter to Acting DHS Secretary Duke. Sessions concluded that DACA was unlawful. And Duke, bound by that determination, issued a memorandum to rescind DACA on the sole ground that it was unlawful. She did not rely on any policy rationales. The district courts quickly enjoined the 2017 Duke Memorandum. Judge Bates (DDC) gave the administration another shot to rescind DACA. In 2018, DHS Secretary Nielsen issued a new memorandum. Call this document DACA Rescission 2.0. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the 2017 Duke Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious. The majority declined to consider the 2018 Nielsen memorandum. (Justice Kavanaugh would have considered it). The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the lower-court rulings, thus lifting the stays. As a result, the 2017 Duke Memorandum was now fully enjoined by several courts. The original 2012 DHS Secretary Napolitano Memorandum remained in full force.

On July 28, 2020, Acting DHS Secretary Wolf official withdrew the 2017 Duke Memorandum and the 2018 Nielsen Memorandum. By doing so, he has now mooted all the challenges to the 2017 Duke Memorandum and the 2018 Nielsen Memorandum. The district courts that entered the injunctions against those two documents no longer have a live case or controversy. Instead, we are left with the original 2012 Napolitano Memorandum. That document created DACA. And there are no court orders requiring DHS to implement the 2012 Memorandum in any fashion. Recall, all the challenges concerned the 2017 Duke Memorandum and the 2018 Nielsen Memorandum. Therefore, there is no injunction requiring DHS to grant new DACA authorizations.

For the foreseeable future (probably till November), Secretary Wolf has announced that DHS will “reject all pending and initial requests for DACA.” Doing so does not violate any court order. Again, there is no court order requiring DHS to grant DACA requests pursuant to the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum. The court orders only enjoined the 2017 Duke and 2018 Nielsen Memorandum. Here, the scope of the judgment becomes very important. A future court could order DHS to follow the terms of the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum. But that order has not yet been issued. As of today, DHS is in full compliance with all relevant court orders. (Press reports that the Trump administration has ignored the courts are simply wrong.)

But wait, there’s more. Attorney General Barr sent Secretary Wolf a letter on June 30–twelve days after Regents was decided. Barr withdrew the 2017 Sessions letter. He also withdrew the 2014 Obama Administration’s opinion that expressly authorized DAPA, and in a footnote, suggested DACA was lawful. (As of this evening, the opinion is still listed on OLC’s site.) This withdrawal is huge. OLC does not often yank opinions. I’m glad Barr finally took this step. DOJ was arguing out of both sides of its mouth in court about DACA’s legality, and was constrained by this opinion. Barr took these actions “to wipe the slate clean to make clear beyond doubt that you [Wolf] are free to exercise your own independent judgment in considering the full range of legal and policy issues implicated by a potential rescission or modification of DACA, as contemplated by the Supreme Court.”

In short, the Trump Administration has completely mooted the pending challenges to the DACA rescission. This challenge will need to start on a blank slate. For sure, the plaintiffs will argue that this new front is merely pretextual. But we will need new amended complaints, and a fresh round of litigation.

Now, what happens in November? If President Trump wins re-election, then Secretary Wolf will likely make his interim policy permanent. People who have DACA can continue to renew it, but new applications will not be granted. And that policy will be litigated up to the Supreme Court. I think Trump wins for reasons I’ll discuss below.

But what if Biden wins. Then his DHS Secretary will try to rescind the Wolf memorandum. But to do so, the Secretary would have to consider an infinitely-wide range of options under the Chief’s opinion. The failure to dot every “i” and cross every “t” could result in an arbitrary and capricious finding several years down the road. Who knows?

I think this policy is a manifestation of the John Yoo strategy. I was skeptical of this general strategy in Politifact. But I didn’t realize how it would be implemented. I simply assumed that a district court would enjoin whatever Trump does. I don’t think a district court can order the Trump Administration to exercise its prosecutorial discretion with respect to granting new DACA authorizations. The Supreme Court explained this was a substantive policy, subject to prosecutorial discretion. And there is no legal entitlement to DACA.

You see, rather than rescinding DACA, this new approach merely leaves the current memorandum in place, but declines to exercise discretion for the time being. For sure, a lower court somewhere will find this decision arbitrary and capricious. But I think the Chief Justice votes to stay those rulings. Why? Jon Adler explained well, Roberts likes to maintain the status quo.

Now what is the status quo? You may think the status quo is granting DACA applications. After all, DACA applications have been granted for nearly eight years. Well, not exactly. The status quo is that those grants were issued pursuant to discretion; not based on a court order. And now DHS is declining to exercise that discretion. The status quo, from the perspective of the 2012 memorandum, is maintained. The Wolf memorandum states this point expressly:

Consistent with the Court’s express remand for the agency’s reconsideration and the Napolitano Memorandum’s clear statement that it conferred no substantive rights, DHS did not expand beyond the status quo of the past several years for a few weeks while it was determining next steps. I now conclude that all pending and future requests should be treated in the same manner, rather than be subject to differential treatment depending on the fortuity of when DHS received the request within a short period of uncertainty. Nothing in the Napolitano Memo purports to preclude me from exercising my enforcement discretion to make these changes on an interim basis while I consider whether to make more substantial changes on a permanent basis. Even under the Napolitano Memo, no aliens had a legal entitlement to receive DACA—much less a legal entitlement to a particular renewal period. Nor can aliens with pending requests assert any meaningfully greater reliance interests in their initial or continued enjoyment of the policy and the attendant benefits than aliens who submit such requests after the issuance of this memorandum.

This paragraph can be copy-and-pasted in a stay application addressed to John G. Roberts. And I suspect it will be granted. The Trump Administration accurately understood, and desribed the status quo.

And once the Supreme Court stays the lower-court rulings, allowing this memorandum to remain in place, a Biden Administration would have to litigate for nearly two years to get out from under it. And if the Biden administration tries to grant new DACA authorizations, it will be acting in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, for failing to properly rescind the Wolf Memo. Cue an injunction from the Fifth Circuit. For years, Trump was stuck with Obama’s policies. Now, Biden would be stuck with Trump’s policies. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

DACA Rescission 1.0 and 2.0 were bungled, badly. Version 3.0 may actually stick for a few years until the Supreme Court decides the case. And even then, the Chief may send Biden back to square one. I have to admit, this approach is very clever, and takes the Chief on his own terms.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gmuOqV
via IFTTT

This week, American astronauts returned to earth. Their trip to the space station was the first manned launch from the U.S. in 10 years.

By NASA? No. Of course, not.

This space flight happened because government was not in charge.

An Obama administration committee had concluded that launching such a vehicle would take 12 years and cost $36 billion.

But this rocket was finished in half that time—for less than $1 billion (1/36th the predicted cost).

That’s because it was built by Elon Musk’s private company, Space X. He does things faster and cheaper because he spends his own money.

“This is the potential of free enterprise!” explains aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin in my newest video.

Of course, years ago, NASA did manage to send astronauts to the moon.

That succeeded, says Zubrin, “because it was purpose-driven. (America) wanted to astonish the world what free people could do.”

But in the 50 years since then, as transportation improved and computers got smaller and cheaper, NASA made little progress.

Fortunately, President Obama gave private companies permission to compete in space, saying, “We can’t keep doing the same old things as before.”

Competition then cut the cost of space travel to a fraction of what it was.

Why couldn’t NASA have done that?

Because after the moon landing, it became a typical government agency—overbudget and behind schedule. Zubrin says NASA’s purpose seemed to be to “supply money to various suppliers.”

Suppliers were happy to go along.

Zubrin once worked at Lockheed Martin, where he once discovered a way for a rocket to carry twice as much weight. “We went to management, the engineers, and said, ‘Look, we could double the payload capability for 10 percent extra cost.’ They said, ‘Look, if the Air Force wants us to improve the Titan, they’ll pay us to do it!'”

NASA was paying contractor’s development costs and then adding 10 percent profit. The more things cost, the bigger the contractor’s profit. So contractors had little incentive to innovate.

Even NASA now admits this is a problem. During its 2020 budget request, Administrator Jim Bridenstine confessed, “We have not been good at maintaining schedule and…at maintaining costs.”

Nor is NASA good at innovating. Their technology was so out of date, says Zubrin, that “astronauts brought their laptops with them into space—because shuttle computers were obsolete.”

I asked, “When (NASA) saw that the astronauts brought their own computers, why didn’t they upgrade?”

“Because they had an entire philosophy that various components had to be space rated,” he explains. “Space rating was very bureaucratic and costly.”

NASA was OK with high costs as long as spaceships were assembled in many congressmen’s districts.

“NASA is a very large job program,” says Aerospace lawyer James Dunstan. “By spreading its centers across the country, NASA gets more support from more different congressmen.”

Congressmen even laugh about it. Rep. Randy Weber (R–Texas) joked, “We’ll welcome (NASA) back to Texas to spend lots of money any time.”

Private companies do more with less money. One of Musk’s cost-saving innovations is reusable rocket boosters.

For years, NASA dropped its boosters into the ocean.

“Why would they throw it away?” I ask Dunstan.

“Because that’s the way it’s always been done!” he replies.

Twenty years ago, at Lockheed Martin, Zubrin had proposed reusable boosters. His bosses told him: “Cute idea. But if we sell one of these, we’re out of business.”

Zubrin explains, “They wanted to keep the cost of space launch high.”

Thankfully, now that self-interested entrepreneurs compete, space travel will get cheaper. Musk can’t waste a dollar. Space X must compete with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and others.

The private sector always comes up with ways to do things that politicians cannot imagine.

Government didn’t invent affordable cars, airplanes, iPhones, etc. It took competing entrepreneurs, pursuing profit, to nurture them into the good things we have now.

Get rid of government monopolies.

For-profit competition brings us the best things in life.

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3g4cBy1
via IFTTT

Last Saturday in Louisville, Kentucky, about 300 armed members of the NFAC (Not Fucking Around Coalition), a self-described “black militia” based in Atlanta, had what the Louisville Courier-Journal called “a tense standoff” with about 50 armed Three Percenters, which the paper described as a “far-right…militia.” While the incident, which ended without violence, could be seen as yet another sign that the country is descending into 1968-style chaos, it was also a striking illustration of the Second Amendment’s enduring practical and symbolic importance that scrambled conventional stereotypes about the right to armed self-defense.

Since Kentucky allows open (or concealed) carrying of firearms without a permit, the two groups, both of which disavow aggression, were acting lawfully. And while their motives may look different, both are drawing on a long American tradition of wide gun ownership as a safeguard against tyranny.

NFAC members came to Louisville in support of protests provoked by the shooting of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed 26-year-old African-American woman who was killed by white police officers during a fruitless drug raid on March 13. The circumstances of Taylor’s death gave the guns carried by those militia members added significance.

Plainclothes police officers broke into Taylor’s apartment in the middle of the night based on meager evidence that a detective used to obtain a no-knock search warrant. Mistaking the armed invaders for robbers, Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, grabbed a gun and fired a single shot that struck one officer in the leg.

The cops responded with a hail of bullets, at least eight of which struck Taylor and several of which entered a neighboring apartment. Prosecutors initially charged Walker with attempted murder of a police officer but dropped that charge in May.

As Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.) observed last month, “the invasion of a person’s home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses,” and “every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes.” While McClintock was emphasizing the dangers posed by no-knock warrants, his comments also raised the question of how Americans, no matter their skin color, can defend themselves against police officers who behave like criminals.

NFAC has one answer. By parading with military-style rifles of the sort that Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wants to ban, the militia’s members show they are prepared to exercise the Second Amendment rights that gun control supporters typically portray as a fetish of white conservatives.

The assertion of those rights resonates historically, since modern gun control laws have their roots in the efforts of Southern states to disarm freedmen, depriving them of a constitutional right that Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, warned black people would enjoy if they were recognized as citizens. Under Jim Crow and during the civil rights movement, the right to armed self-defense was vitally important to African Americans resisting government-imposed white supremacy.

The Three Percenters, by contrast, were responding to NFAC’s presence in Louisville, aiming to “aid police” (as the Courier-Journal put it) in maintaining order. Yet the group, which rejects the “militia” label and disavows racism, also describes itself as defending civil liberties and resisting the illegitimate exercise of government power.

You need not endorse the tactics or ideologies of these organizations to recognize that both are relying on a legal legacy that makes mainstream Democrats like Biden uncomfortable. As the Supreme Court recognized in its landmark 2008 decision overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, the Second Amendment was based partly on the premise that “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”

The fact that two opposing groups are dedicated to defending the right of armed self-defense should not be surprising. The Second Amendment, like the First, is of value to people with divergent backgrounds and political views. Gun controllers should stop pretending otherwise.

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30d1JIR
via IFTTT

Another day, another set of leaks to Joan Biskupic of CNN. Yesterday I wrote about Part I in Biskupic’s series. That report was designed to make Chief Justice Roberts look powerful. Today, Biskupic published Part II in her series. This report was designed to make Justice Gorsuch look decisive, and in control. Specifically, the report highlights his steadfast position on Bostock. Biskupic counters speculation that the majority opinion flipped, and that Gorsuch and/or Roberts changed their mind. No, we learn, Gorsuch was with Bostock and Stephens from the beginning. Let’s consider each element of the report.

First, Biskupic explains that the vote in Bostock was set at conference.  Roberts assigned the majority to Gorsuch at the outset. The assignment did not shift after conference.

[At the conference] Some justices raised concerns related to religious interests and shared bathrooms, the sources said. But even with their differences and some hedging, the die was cast in that private session for the ultimate 6-3 decision that emerged in June. That early vote, supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, and the wrangling that eventually led to a broad decision in the groundbreaking case are among the new details in CNN’s exclusive four-part series on the Supreme Court’s historic 2019-2020 term. . .  .

It was fellow conservative Roberts who assigned him the opinion.

Second, Biskupic explains that the precise details of the majority were not set in stone. Initially, there was a majority to find that Title VII prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But the Court was divided on whether Title VII also prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

But, according to the new details learned by CNN, when it came to the case involving a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who had challenged her firing at a Michigan funeral home, the justices were torn as they discussed the issue.

Some justices thought sexual orientation and gender identity cases would most definitely be treated the same under the law. But others wondered about differences with the claims and even whether the Stephens case might be returned to a lower court for further hearings, essentially punting on the question of transgender rights.

Biskupic then writes an absolutely fascinating line–pay attention to the emphasized words:

But once Roberts assigned the cases to Gorsuch and he, as expected, zeroed in on the text of Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of … sex,” the majority readily signed on to the opinion declaring that both sexual orientation and gender identity would be covered.

“As expected.” I think Biskupic means that Roberts assigned both cases to Gorsuch, and Roberts “expected” Gorsuch” to read Title VII to prohibit both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. (Later, Biskupic contradicts that assertion.) “Expected”! How on earth would Roberts know what Gorsuch was expected to do. This line really troubles me. Roberts assigned the majority opinion on transgender discrimination, without knowing for sure how Gorsuch would rule? If there was some doubt, and Roberts already knew the right answer, why wouldn’t Roberts assign the case to himself. I think this phrase “as expected” is projecting a level of omniscience to the Chief Justice that is unwarranted. For reasons I will discuss later, I think this assertion is not actually what Roberts expected would happen.

Third, Biskupic later suggests that Roberts was on the fence about gender identity. During oral arguments, Roberts seemed concerned about the bathroom argument.

During oral arguments, Roberts had questioned how an employer would set policies for shared bathrooms for “a transgender man transitioning to a woman.” Roberts separately referred to exemptions from state anti-bias laws for religious employers, and in their private discussions, CNN has learned, justices mulled religious liberty concerns.

But his vote shifted:

Another intriguing turn in the early dealings was the vote of Roberts with the majority…. Another intriguing turn in the early dealings was the vote of Roberts with the majority.

Biskupic explains that Roberts was subsequently persuaded that the same reading of Title VII that led to a prohibition on LGB discrimination also led to a prohibition of T discrimination:

As the justices in the majority began working out how to construe the reach of Title VII’s plain-language protections against sex discrimination, they had to address how it applied to gay as well as transgender workers, specifically Stephens, who had been fired from her job in Michigan. When the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled for Stephens, it said discrimination based on transgender identity is inherently sex discrimination under Title VII.

If this account is right, then it would make sense that Roberts assigned the opinion to split the difference. But then how could Roberts have “expected” to adopt a reading of Title VII with respect to gender identity that Roberts himself did not initially have. Something is not adding up here. For the “as expected” line to work, Roberts would have had to make up his mind before conference about the best reading of Title VII. Again, I think Biskupic is voicing what someone else thought was in Roberts’s mind. I’m skeptical.

Fourth, Biskupic addresses allegations that Kagan guided Gorsuch to the textualist framework he adopted.

And as Gorsuch devised his legal rationale, liberal Justice Elena Kagan appealed in public and private to his interest in sticking close to the text of laws. A 2010 appointee of President Barack Obama, Kagan has demonstrated a savvy ability to negotiate across ideological wings of the bench.

Biskupic adds that some of these appeals came during oral argument:

During oral arguments in October, Kagan directed her appeal to Gorsuch. She asserted that a man who had been fired because he loved other men, rather than women, is protected under the Civil Rights Act. “If he were a woman, he wouldn’t have been fired,” Kagan said. “This is the usual kind of way in which we interpret statutes now. We look to laws. We don’t look to predictions. We don’t look to desires. We don’t look to wishes. We look to laws.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act specifically bans discrimination “because of” sex, race, religion or national origin. Kagan contended that discrimination against a gay man because he loved other men, not women, necessarily, was “because of sex.”

During oral arguments in Stephens’s case, Justice Gorsuch seemed much more conflicted. He speculated about what a court should do “when a case is really close, really close.” He added, “At the end of the day, should he or she take into consideration the massive social upheaval that would be entailed in such a decision, and the possibility thatCongress didn’t think about it.” He asked if it is a “question of judicial modesty,” and that resolving this issue might be “more appropriate [for] a legislative rather than a judicial function?” Based on this colloquy, I speculated that the Court might split the difference: rule for the sexual orientation plaintiffs, but rule against the gender identity plaintiff.

Biskupic explains that Gorsuch soon moved away from these concerns:

Gorsuch’s approach typically leads him to narrower constructions of individual civil rights and liberties. But as he considered Title VII, his approach was leading to an opposite, more expansive result. While Gorsuch expressed concern at oral arguments about “massive social upheaval” if the justices ruled in favor of broad LGBTQ worker protections, he has previously asserted that a true textualist should not concentrate on whether an outcome would be good or bad.

Pay attention to that phrase,”true textualist.” In contrast to what? A faux textualist? And the focus on “previously asserted” is definitely replaying past debates. Here, I think Biskupic is voicing Kagan’s internal pleas to Gorsuch. This charge is an attack on the oversized ego of an overly prideful man. Calling Gorsuch a fake textualist is like calling Marty McFly chicken. He can’t back down.

Imagine the conversation:

Elena: Come on Neil, you’ve wrote in your bestselling book that a “true textualist should not concentrate on whether an outcome would be good or bad.”

Neil: Yeah, but this is a huge shift in how the law would work.

Elena: What would Scalia do? Are you a fake textualist?

Neil: Nobody calls me a fake textualist!

Elena: Prove it.

Neil: All right, Elena.

If only someone had told Neil that Nino was following precedent in Oncale, and not being a “true textualist.” I’ll give you a better Scalia line: “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.” Gorsuch fell hard here.

Later, I think Biskupic was voicing Kagan’s attempt to minimize her own role: Gorsuch didn’t need Kagan’s help!

Gorsuch exudes confidence regarding his textualist method and would easily have found arguments along those lines in the filings supporting the gay and transgender employees, without any guidance from Kagan.

Yet she was in touch with Gorsuch during deliberations, sources told CNN. And of all the four justices on the left, Kagan seems most able to persuade Roberts. Despite holding different ideologies and politics, their legal experience and instincts are similar, and they appear to enjoy a mutual respect.

The “exudes confidence” line is a bit of a backhanded compliment. I do think that Gorsuch is far too haughty and certain in his approach to law. But then again, Biskupic writes Gorsuch “would easily” have reached the conclusion he did. This line resembles the “expected to” line above. I think the same person who told Biskupic the “expected to” line also said “would easily.” It presumes omniscience–that this issue is so obvious. Here, I think team Kagan was leaking.

But make no mistake. Gorsuch was in charge!

As the recently completed session demonstrated, Roberts is the conservative most apt to break with his brethren and join the four-justice liberal wing. But in the gay and transgender disputes, it was Gorsuch, writing for the majority, who played the central role as author of the opinion.

This last bit sounds like a Gorsuch-ally talking. Biskupic’s voice goes back and forth. If you pay close attention, you can hear it.

Fourth, Biskupic tells us that Gorsuch’s draft was finished in February. Kagan joined right away. Shocker! The other three progressives soon fell in line. They were willing to do a paper bag in Obergefell. Bostock was an easy lift. At the same time, the Chief joined did the Chief.

Gorsuch finished a first draft for colleagues to read in early February, CNN has learned. Kagan told Gorsuch and the others she was signing on straightaway. Soon after, the other liberals—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor—joined Gorsuch’s approach and conclusions in the three cases combined under the title of Bostock v. Clayton County. Roberts was in at the same time. That rapid sequence has not been previously reported. The quick agreement was a reflection of collaboration underway and an indication that the majority that had locked in soon after oral arguments was holding.

Biskupic clarifies that the liberals had some “pause” about Gorsuch’s nods towards RFRA.

Questions of religious liberty were similarly handled by looking ahead, but with a firmer admonition. “We are … deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society,” Gorsuch wrote, pointing to the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The latter law prohibiting the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, Gorsuch asserted, could supersede Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in certain cases. That may have given liberal justices pause. But they were not going to press for change. They had won a 6-3 ruling that even a year earlier had seemed impossible.

Whatever. YOLO. Live for today, fight for January when there will be 13 Justices.

Fifth, Biskupic adds that Justice Alito’s vituperative dissents were not successful at moving Justice Gorsuch.

On the other side, a series of scathing draft dissents by conservative Justice Samuel Alito that attacked Gorsuch’s logic failed to dissuade any of the six justices in the majority, who did not waver through the final months of internal deliberations…..

During the drafting process, individual justices may break off to write separate concurring statements, or—in rare instances—a justice might switch sides altogether, persuaded by another person’s writing. Here, nobody was swayed despite forceful arguments from the dissenters, according to CNN’s reporting.

Alito was infuriated by the turn of events and immediately after seeing Gorsuch’s draft opinion, according to sources familiar with the matter, alerted his colleagues that he would be writing a dissent.

Alito finished his dissent in April from home. Then Alito and Gorsuch began to respond to each other:

Alito, meanwhile, was unyielding. He believed Gorsuch’s stance contradicted his own oft-expressed view that judges should avoid policy decisions. Alito finished his first draft after the justices had retreated to their homes because of the Covid-19 pandemic and sent around copies of his dissenting opinion in April, CNN has learned.

The two sides were thus joined as Gorsuch and Alito began to face off through continuous drafting. Within days in April, Gorsuch responded to Alito’s scorching contentions and reinforced his textualist reading that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination covers LGBTQ workers.

Biskupic flags Alito’s anger that Gorsuch thought he was being “humble.”

Alito was especially angered by Gorsuch’s view that he was taking a modest, humble approach to the law, as his dissenting opinion made clear. (Alito’s final opinion, released to the public, said, “If today’s decision is humble, it is sobering to imagine what the Court might do if it decided to be bold.”)

Sixth, Biskupic writes that Kavanaugh was unwilling to join Alito’s strident dissent. (That was my speculation):

Thomas signed on to Alito’s dissenting opinion. Kavanaugh, however, was uneasy, according to the sources. In the end, he separated himself from Alito’s caustic tone and wrote his own dissenting statement.

I found Kavanaugh’s dissent to be far more persuasive than Alito’s.

Seventh, we learn that Justice Thomas tried to informally coax his conservative colleague.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second appointee, also believed Gorsuch was flat wrong about the scope of Title VII coverage. Congress could change the law if it thought additional protections were warranted, they contended.
Thomas, the senior member of that conservative team, had tried subtly to persuade Gorsuch that he was not being true to conservative textualism, but to no avail.

Look at the emphasized line: “not being true to conservative textualism.” I think this line has to be read in conjunction with the Kagan colloquy about being a “true textualist.” And note the distinction between “textualism” and “conservative textualism.”  Clarence Thomas would never describe his approach as “conservative textualism.” Here, a progressive is slandering the type of textualism used by the dissent. This conversation is very one-sided. Put the pieces together. It isn’t hard. Whoever gave the line about “true textualism” above gave the line about “true to conservative textualism” here.

Eighth, Biskupic confirms my intuition: the Wall Street Journal and others were acting on a leak.

Meanwhile, conservatives Gorsuch and Roberts were hit by outside pressure….

But in this high-stakes case, word that Gorsuch and Roberts had voted with the four justices on the left began leaking out in November, a rare breach of confidentiality during the drafting process at the secrecy-obsessed institution. Some spreading the word plainly hoped to jab the conservatives, perhaps even pressure them to change. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on November 21 disapproving of the possible developments, headlined, “The Supreme Court’s Textualism Test: Kagan tries to lure Gorsuch and Roberts off the Scalia method.”

At the time I wrote my post in November, I was heavily criticized by people on the right. They told me that I should not be criticize people in my own camp based on mere speculation. I was right. And I have no problem criticizing those I agree with. I’m not chicken.

Biskupic also provides some insight into how unreliable leaks are. In short, people on the outside have incomplete information, that may be out of date. Also, those leaking information may not provide a full account–either because they do not know more, or cannot disclose more. In other words, those attempting to nudge the Justices may be fighting a battle that was already lost. That seems to have been the case with Bostock. By the time the editorials were written in November, the die had already been cast on sexual orientation; it was perhaps in flux on gender identity.

The most substantive part of the court’s decision-making process comes as justices crafting the opinions for the majority and the dissent work out their legal rationales in drafts. The bottom-line judgment in any case is important, but it is the legal reasoning that establishes the rules for future related disputes. As justices develop their rationales, they send around drafts for the other eight justices to see.

Outsiders are often in the dark about internal alliances, motivations, and the twists and turns that lead to a nationwide ruling. The justices say their final, written opinion should speak for itself….

Few people beyond the court’s walls really knew what was transpiring, yet those early whispers regarding votes and internal debate held some truth.

Biskupic clarifies that after the November leak, there were no more leaks:

While the justices sparred behind the scenes, advocates on both sides of LGBTQ issues were growing apprehensive about what was happening with the cases. After the conservative news reports in late 2019, little was leaking.

Finally, Biskupic adds some insights into Ramos v. Louisiana. During the October sitting, eight cases were argued, including Bostock and Ramos. Malvo, which involved juvenile life without parole, was also argued in October. But that case dismissed from the docket. That left seven cases. On April 20, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Ramos. That opinion was very fractured. Because Gorsuch authored Ramos, I thought he had already written for October, and I predicted that the Chief would have Bostock. But it turned out that Gorsuch wrote both Ramos and Bostock. What happened? There was some speculation that the majority flipped in Ramos. Biskupic confirms that scuttlebutt.

Meanwhile, a late switch in an unrelated case that also involved Gorsuch confounded lawyers and journalists, who were watching for signs of what might be happening in the LGBTQ disputes. …

So court-watchers were thrown off the trail when Gorsuch wrote the opinion in another October case, Ramos v. Louisiana, regarding whether state criminal convictions require a unanimous jury vote, CNN has learned. Gorsuch became the author of the court’s opinion in that case only after justices had worked out their legal rationales months later.

Biskupic doesn’t explain who flipped in Ramos. Again, this leak is designed to address concerns that Gorsuch flipped. He was rock solid from the get-go! This paragraph is written in the voice of Team Neil:

The Ramos development did not change the outcome or timing of the LGBTQ decision, but Gorsuch’s leading role in the Ramos case was enough to fuel more questions for those searching for clues to which justice was writing the momentous LGBTQ decision.
The six-justice majority held to its view that Title VII covered gay and transgender workers without exception. None of the liberal justices nor Roberts was writing a separate opinion, as often happens in contentious cases. Here, the majority would speak with one voice: Gorsuch’s.

***

Part II reflects a similar narrative in Part I: the initial assignment was set at conference, and did not change. For some reason, the Justices must be especially sensitive about changing their votes. I don’t know why. Justices, like all people, are fallible. Justice Jackson aptly observed, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” And Justice Frankfurter reminds us, “Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” But I think the criticism of Chief Justice Roberts stuck. He changed his vote in the ACA case and in the Census Case! He was indecisive! He lacked backbone! He was affected by outside forces! No, a Justice cannot suffer slings and arrows of outrageous tweets. Therefore, the narrative has become one of steadfast resolve–everything was decided at conference, and only the wrinkles were smoothed out.

My prediction for Part III? John Roberts will look like an institutionalist in June Medical for standing by precedent, and setting aside the Louisiana abortion law. But, Roberts will be criticized for refusing to confront the historical evidence in Kagan’s Seila Law dissent. Both of these efforts of rampant speculation would be consistent with Kagan’s modus operandi. And Part IV? The struggles of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in Mazars. They worked hard to vote against Trump on paper, but in reality were closer to the dissenters. (I have a essay on that issue that will be published in National Review on Wednesday morning.)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hQxldf
via IFTTT

The $1 trillion coronavirus relief package released by Senate Republicans yesterday includes billions of dollars for new weapons and defense projects that appear to have little to do with fighting the pandemic.

Part of the Senate Republicans’ relief package—collectively known as the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability, and Schools (HEALS) Act—is a $306 billion appropriations bill authored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R–Ala.). That legislation includes close to $30 billion in defense spending, with a good chunk of that money allocated to purchasing new aircraft, ships, and missiles.

“I believe we need to act with a sense of urgency.  The American people are fighters, but the accumulated strain of this pandemic is a serious burden on folks,” said Shelby, who chairs the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, in a press release. “With the additional resources this legislation provides, I believe we can give them greater confidence that we are getting our arms around this virus.”

Speaking of arms, Shelby’s bill includes $283 million for the Army through the end of 2022 “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally”, on the condition that money be spent on acquiring AH–64 Apache attack helicopters made by Boeing.

The legislation also gives the Army another $375 million for upgrading its compliment of Stryker armored personnel carriers, which are made by General Dynamics. The Army reportedly awarded the company a $2.48 billion contract to build new, more mine-resistant Stryker vehicles in June. The text of the HEALS Act says that this funding will come in addition to any money that’s already been allocated.

The Air Force, meanwhile, will get $686 million to purchase more F-35As, a fighter plane made by Lockheed Martin. Its development has been plagued by cost overruns and delays. The bill will also put $720 million into funding buying more C-130J military transport aircraft, in addition to $650 million to pay for replacement wings for the Air Force’s A-10 aircraft.

The Navy will get its beak wet too, receiving $1 billion to purchase P–8A Poseidon aircraft, plus $1.4 billion for new medical ships, $260 million for a new Expeditionary Fast Transport vessel, $41 million for new Naval Strike Missiles and launchers (made by Raytheon), as a well as close to $50 million for submarine-detecting “sonobuoys.”

The Washington Post reports that many of these programs had their funding repurposed to help pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall. Republicans’ coronavirus legislation replaces that funding, and then some.

The Trump administration only slashed the budget for the Navy’s procure P–8A Poseidon aircraft by $180 million, but is now seeing its funding increased by $1 billion, reports the Post.

The Defense Department is hardly the only recipient of generous line items in the Senate GOP’s relief bill. The Trump administration reportedly requested that the legislation include $1.75 billion for a new FBI headquarters building (although the Wall Street Journal reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R—Ky.) has come against that particular item.)

Whether all this defense pork will end up being passed by the Senate remains to be seen.

Given that the Senate just last week approved a $740 billion defense spending bill, and the federal government ran an $864 billion budget deficit last month, one could argue now is not the time to spend more money on the military.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hCI9eO
via IFTTT