New suit challenges whether the Supreme Court wields a “Writ of Erasure”

The City of Austin, Texas appropriated funds to assist women who are seeking abortions. Article 1192 of the Texas Penal Code, however, makes it a crime to “furnish[] the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended.” Don Zimmerman, a Texas taxpayer filed suit, and argued that Austin is violating this state law. (Texas has very broad taxpayer standing rules).

Zimmerman’s petition faces a formidable obstacle: Roe v. Wade (1973). This landmark abortion decision considered the constitutionality of “Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196” of the Texas Penal Code. By a 7-2 vote, the Court declared unconstitutional Article 1196, which only permitted abortions “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Moreover, Part XIII of Roe concluded that all of the statutes in the section, including Article 1192, must be “struck down.”

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.

How can Zimmerman rely on Article 1192, if the Supreme Court struck the statute down in Roe? He contends that the Court could not, and therefore did not, strike it down. His complaint explains:

Neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court “struck down” or formally revoked article 1191, article 1192, or any other Texas statute that criminalizes abortion. The federal courts do not wield a writ of erasure over the statutes that they declare unconstitutional, and these statutes continue to exist as laws until they are repealed by the legislature that enacted them. A Supreme Court ruling that declares a statute unconstitutional means only that the statute may not be enforced in a manner that contradicts the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. See Pidgeon v. Turner, 538 S.W.3d 73, 88 n.21 (Tex. 2017) (“[N]either the Supreme Court in Obergefell nor the Fifth Circuit in De Leon ‘struck down’ any Texas law. When a court declares a law unconstitutional, the law remains in place unless and until the body that enacted it repeals it, even though the government may no longer constitutionally enforce it. Thus, the Texas and Houston DOMAs remain in place as they were before Obergefell and De Leon, which is why Pidgeon is able to bring this claim.”);

Zimmerman cites the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Pidgeon v. Turner. (I blogged about it here and here.) This case recognized that Obergefell v. Hodges and De Leon v. Perry (the follow-up decision from the 5th Circuit) did not “strike down” Texas’s Defense of Marriage Act. De Leon only held that Texas officials could no longer deny marriage licenses to same-sex marriages. Other elements of the law would remain in effect until a court enjoined them. As a practical matter, officials who enforced the statute in a manner inconsistent with Obergefell would likely be sued, and would be on the hook for attorney’s fees. (Howard Wasserman and I discussed this type of litigation in The Process After Marriage Equality.)

Today, Texas could not enforce Article 1192, to the extent that it conflicts with Roe and Casey. But Texas can enforce this law to the extent it does not conflict with Roe and Casey. Zimmerman’s suit seeks exactly that relief:

22. The courts must therefore enforce article 1192 and section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code unless their enforcement against the defendants in this particular case would violate the Supreme Court’s abortion edicts by imposing an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

23. An injunction that bars the mayor and the city from providing taxpayer money to abortion-assistance organizations will not impose an “undue burden” on any woman who wants to abort her pregnancy. It has long been established that women seeking to abort their pregnancies have no constitutional right to taxpayer assistance, and that the withholding of taxpayer subsidies does not constitute an “undue burden.” See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

Zimmerman is represented by Jonathan Mitchell. The former Texas Solicitor General authored The Writ of Erasure Fallacy, and argued Pidgeon. (He was also my professor at GMU.) Mitchell maintains that courts cannot actually strike down statutes. They can only enjoin the enforcement of the statute in particular cases between specific parties.

Indeed, the statutes the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Roe are still in the books–literally. Justice Blackmun did not manage to erase the statutes, which still reside in the South Texas College of Law Library. In theory, if Roe and Casey were overruled, the old Texas statutes would go immediately into force. There would be no need for the legislature to take any action. Indeed, recently Massachusetts repealed its criminal prohibition on abortion, in anticipation of Roe being overruled. This decision reaffirms the fact that courts cannot actually “strike down” laws.

The concept of the “writ of erasure” is jarring to most attorneys, and especially law professors. From the earliest days of law school, we are taught that courts strike down laws, as part of a general homage to judicial supremacy. One can support the concept judicial review (the power to declare an unconstitutional statute unenforceable), yet reject the notion that courts can simply strike down, or erase statutes. Invariably, criticisms of the “writ of erasure” turn to the massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education. I encourage you to read my article, The Irrepressible Myth of Cooper v. Aaron, which identifies many of the myths surrounding judicial supremacy in the wake of Brown.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PcGphn
via IFTTT

New suit challenges whether the Supreme Court wields a “Writ of Erasure”

The City of Austin, Texas appropriated funds to assist women who are seeking abortions. Article 1192 of the Texas Penal Code, however, makes it a crime to “furnish[] the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended.” Don Zimmerman, a Texas taxpayer filed suit, and argued that Austin is violating this state law. (Texas has very broad taxpayer standing rules).

Zimmerman’s petition faces a formidable obstacle: Roe v. Wade (1973). This landmark abortion decision considered the constitutionality of “Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196” of the Texas Penal Code. By a 7-2 vote, the Court declared unconstitutional Article 1196, which only permitted abortions “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Moreover, Part XIII of Roe concluded that all of the statutes in the section, including Article 1192, must be “struck down.”

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.

How can Zimmerman rely on Article 1192, if the Supreme Court struck the statute down in Roe? He contends that the Court could not, and therefore did not, strike it down. His complaint explains:

Neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court “struck down” or formally revoked article 1191, article 1192, or any other Texas statute that criminalizes abortion. The federal courts do not wield a writ of erasure over the statutes that they declare unconstitutional, and these statutes continue to exist as laws until they are repealed by the legislature that enacted them. A Supreme Court ruling that declares a statute unconstitutional means only that the statute may not be enforced in a manner that contradicts the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. See Pidgeon v. Turner, 538 S.W.3d 73, 88 n.21 (Tex. 2017) (“[N]either the Supreme Court in Obergefell nor the Fifth Circuit in De Leon ‘struck down’ any Texas law. When a court declares a law unconstitutional, the law remains in place unless and until the body that enacted it repeals it, even though the government may no longer constitutionally enforce it. Thus, the Texas and Houston DOMAs remain in place as they were before Obergefell and De Leon, which is why Pidgeon is able to bring this claim.”);

Zimmerman cites the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Pidgeon v. Turner. (I blogged about it here and here.) This case recognized that Obergefell v. Hodges and De Leon v. Perry (the follow-up decision from the 5th Circuit) did not “strike down” Texas’s Defense of Marriage Act. De Leon only held that Texas officials could no longer deny marriage licenses to same-sex marriages. Other elements of the law would remain in effect until a court enjoined them. As a practical matter, officials who enforced the statute in a manner inconsistent with Obergefell would likely be sued, and would be on the hook for attorney’s fees. (Howard Wasserman and I discussed this type of litigation in The Process After Marriage Equality.)

Today, Texas could not enforce Article 1192, to the extent that it conflicts with Roe and Casey. But Texas can enforce this law to the extent it does not conflict with Roe and Casey. Zimmerman’s suit seeks exactly that relief:

22. The courts must therefore enforce article 1192 and section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code unless their enforcement against the defendants in this particular case would violate the Supreme Court’s abortion edicts by imposing an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

23. An injunction that bars the mayor and the city from providing taxpayer money to abortion-assistance organizations will not impose an “undue burden” on any woman who wants to abort her pregnancy. It has long been established that women seeking to abort their pregnancies have no constitutional right to taxpayer assistance, and that the withholding of taxpayer subsidies does not constitute an “undue burden.” See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

Zimmerman is represented by Jonathan Mitchell. The former Texas Solicitor General authored The Writ of Erasure Fallacy, and argued Pidgeon. (He was also my professor at GMU.) Mitchell maintains that courts cannot actually strike down statutes. They can only enjoin the enforcement of the statute in particular cases between specific parties.

Indeed, the statutes the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Roe are still in the books–literally. Justice Blackmun did not manage to erase the statutes, which still reside in the South Texas College of Law Library. In theory, if Roe and Casey were overruled, the old Texas statutes would go immediately into force. There would be no need for the legislature to take any action. Indeed, recently Massachusetts repealed its criminal prohibition on abortion, in anticipation of Roe being overruled. This decision reaffirms the fact that courts cannot actually “strike down” laws.

The concept of the “writ of erasure” is jarring to most attorneys, and especially law professors. From the earliest days of law school, we are taught that courts strike down laws, as part of a general homage to judicial supremacy. One can support the concept judicial review (the power to declare an unconstitutional statute unenforceable), yet reject the notion that courts can simply strike down, or erase statutes. Invariably, criticisms of the “writ of erasure” turn to the massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education. I encourage you to read my article, The Irrepressible Myth of Cooper v. Aaron, which identifies many of the myths surrounding judicial supremacy in the wake of Brown.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PcGphn
via IFTTT

“Absolutely Horrendous”: All 39 Dead Found By UK Police In Back Of Truck Were Chinese Nationals

“Absolutely Horrendous”: All 39 Dead Found By UK Police In Back Of Truck Were Chinese Nationals

More than 24 hours have passed since Essex police were called to investigate a container truck with 39 dead bodies inside, including one victim believed to be a teenager. And while police have been tight-lipped, some new information trickled out on Thursday.

British media reported that all of the dead found in the truck were Chinese nationals, according to the BBC. The truck in which they were traveling was refrigerated. Temperatures in these types of trucks can get as low as -25 degrees Celcius, prompting some to speculate that the cooling system may have been turned on accidentally.

Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said conditions for anyone inside the truck were “absolutely horrendous.”

Police discovered the bodies at 1:40 am local time on Wednesday at an industrial park in Grays.

Initial suspicions have been confirmed: The Chinese nationals were likely victims of human trafficking.

Shaun Sawyer, the UK’s National Police Chiefs Council lead for modern slavery and human trafficking, said that while UK police had prevented thousands of trafficking-related deaths, “tragically, for 39 people that didn’t work yesterday.”

Reports that the lorry was from Bulgaria have been proven incorrect: Turns out, the truck is believed to have entered the UK from Belgium.

A map provided by the BBC shows that all of the information provided by police on Wednesday about how the cargo arrived into the UK was incorrect. Meanwhile, local churches held candlelit vigils for the victims.

The trailer arrived in Purfleet on the River Thames from Zeebrugge in Belgium. A truck came to pick it up, and they left the port at Purfleet shortly after 01:05. The truck unit came from Northern Ireland.

The Bulgarian ministry of foreign affairs said that it was “highly unlikely” that the deceased were Bulgarians, and that the truck was registered in Bulgaria under the name of an Irish-owned company.

The Conservative MP Jackie Doyle-Price for the area where the bodies were found called for an international response to the deaths.

“We have partnerships in place but those efforts need to be rebooted, this is an international criminal world where many gangs are making lots of money and until states act collectively to tackle that it is going to continue,” she said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it was an “unimaginable tragedy and truly heartbreaking”.

Unfortunately, the UK isn’t a stranger to these types of incidents: In 2000, 58 Chinese nationals were found dead in a lorry at Dover after suffocating to death. Elsewhere in Europe, back in 2015, the bodies of 71 people were found in an abandoned truck on an Austrian motorway. Police believed they were victims of a Bulgarian-Hungarian human trafficking ring.

So far, the only lead is a 25-year-old man from Northern Ireland who drove the truck. He was arrested and is the main suspect into a murder investigation that has been launched over the incident. He has been identified as Mo Robinson from County Armagh.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/24/2019 – 07:09

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3420QSu Tyler Durden

Germany Slides Into Recessionary Abyss As Employment Falls For First Time In Six Years

Germany Slides Into Recessionary Abyss As Employment Falls For First Time In Six Years

The latest Markit servey data released on Thursday confirmed that Germany’s manufacturing recession continues to broaden. The worst fears are now being realized as loose ECB monetary policy is failing to contain the economic slowdown as it successfully transmits weakness from manufacturing into the services and jobs market.

IHS Markit’s Flash Germany Manufacturing PMI remained little changed at 41.9 in October, a slight increase from September’s ten-year low of 41.7, however red alerts flashed below the surface as employment in Germany’s factory industry fell the most in almost 10 years.

What is just as concerning is that the weakness in manufacturing has clearly infected Germany’s relatively immune – until now – service sector, as Germany’s Service PMI fell to 51.2 from 51.4 in Sept, down sharply from 54.7 a year ago, and the lowest reading since Sept. 2016. Notably, New Business orders dropped to 47.6 vs 48.6 in Sept, the lowest reading since June 2013.

The Composite Index, registered 48.6 in October, little-changed from September’s near seven-year low of 48.5 and below the 50 unchanged level for the second month in a row. However, most ominously, the survey showed employment falling for the first time in six years.

The rapid deceleration of manufacturing in Europe’s largest industrial hub has severely weighed on employment, now falling for the first time in six years according to Markit:

“October saw employment across the German private sector fall, albeit only slightly, for the first time in six years. Job losses were largely centered on manufacturing, where staffing numbers fell to the greatest extent for nearly ten years amid the widespread paring of temporary and contract workers. That said, a slowdown in service sector job creation to a three-and-a-half-year low was also recorded.

The drop in overall employment in October was in line with signs of easing capacity pressures and a deterioration in business confidence towards the future activity. Firms reduced backlogs of work for the twelfth month in a row and at the quickest rate for nearly seven years,” IHS wrote.

Commenting on Germany’s manufacturing recession spreading into employment is Phil Smith, Principal Economist at IHS Markit, who said:

“Hopes of a return to growth in Germany in the final quarter have been somewhat dashed by the October flash PMI numbers, which show business activity in the Eurozone’s largest economy contracting further and underlying demand continues to soften.

“Manufacturing remains the main weak link, though here there are some signs of encouragement with rates of decline in production and new orders easing and business confidence improving to a four-month high.

“Perhaps most concerning are the signs of increasing strain on the domestic economy, with the growth of service sector activity slowing to the weakest since September 2016 and employment now in decline for the first time in six years.”

The souring outlook in Germany is a clear indication the Eurozone might not see a recovery this year. The world as a whole, is stuck in a synchronized global downturn, where monetary policy is becoming less effective than ever before to generate a 2016 style rebound. The calls for fiscal stimulus by ECB authorities, global banks, and governments tell us that elites who run the world know that central banking died in 2019. This should terrify us all that central banks’ supposed monetary cannons, or let’s say monetary toolkits, are likely depleted. Who is ready for helicopter money and MMT?


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/24/2019 – 06:59

Tags
Labor
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BQIMyF Tyler Durden

Kagan and Gorsuch Clash Over Judicial Deference to the Administrative State

A major conflict is now underway on the U.S. Supreme Court between Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch over the issue of judicial deference to the administrative state.

Their division centers in part on whether an important Supreme Court precedent, Auer v. Robbins (1997), should be overruled. In Auer, the Court held that when an “ambiguous” regulation promulgated by a federal agency is challenged in court, the judge hearing the case should defer to the agency’s preferred interpretation of its own regulation. That interpretation, the Court held in Auer, is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations being interpreted.”

In June, the Court decided a case that asked the justices to end Auer once and for all. Writing for a narrow majority in Kisor v. Wilkie, Justice Elena Kagan saved the precedent from total destruction. “Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations,” Kagan wrote. “When it applies, Auer deference gives an agency significant leeway to say what its own rules mean. In so doing, the doctrine enables the agency to fill out the regulatory scheme Congress has placed under its supervision.”

Critics of Auer say the doctrine empowers bureaucrats at the expense of judges. Kagan acknowledged those critics but insisted that the doctrine is not an abdication. “First and foremost, a court should not afford Auer deference unless the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. If uncertainty does not exist, there is no plausible reason for deference.” According to Kagan, Auer “is a deference doctrine not quite so tame as some might hope, but not nearly so menacing as they might fear.”

Gorsuch disagreed. “It should have been easy for the Court to say goodbye to Auer,” he wrote in Kisor. Not only does Auer require judges “to accept an executive agency’s interpretation of its own regulations even when that interpretation doesn’t represent the best and fairest reading,” but the precedent also “creates a ‘systematic judicial bias in favor of the federal government, the most powerful of parties, and against everyone else.'”

Federal judges routinely “reach conclusions about the meaning of statutes, rules of procedure, contracts, and the Constitution,” Gorsuch pointed out. “Yet when it comes to interpreting federal regulations, Auer displaces this process and requires judges instead to treat the agency’s interpretation as controlling even when it is ‘not…the best one.'”

When the next case testing the bounds of the administrative state reaches the Supreme Court, Kagan and Gorsuch will be the ones drawing the battle lines.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33VvRHx
via IFTTT

Adios, Mario! Here’s What To Expect From Draghi’s Final ECB Meeting

Adios, Mario! Here’s What To Expect From Draghi’s Final ECB Meeting

The day has finally arrived.

After eight years of leadership, Mario Draghi is stepping down from the helm of the European Central Bank. His final press conference as ECB president, which will be held Thursday afternoon in Frankfurt, is expected to be something of a lovefest for the man whom many economists have credited with saving the euro (for better or worse).

Courtesy of Bloomberg

What’s more, seven years after his infamous promise to do “whatever it takes” (within the central bank’s mandate) to save the joint currency, Draghi will leave the central bank in the hands of Christine Lagarde, a former French finance minister and leader of the IMF who was appointed to lead the central bank despite having little in the way of pertinent experience, whose term begins next Friday. Back in September, Draghi did her the favor of setting the central bank on a new policy course by restarting QE (over the objections of one-third of the governing council’s members) but this time leaving it open-ended. He also lowered the already negative deposit rate to – 0.5%, rejiggered the central bank’s system for publishing forward guidance and much, much more.

While Lagarde has been pretty well provisioned, Draghi’s will leave his post under a cloud of uncertainty: Despite the central bank’s best efforts to revive economic growth in the eurozone, the bloc’s economy is instead teetering on the brink of another recession. And Draghi’s last meeting will likely be peppered with serious questions about the outlook for growth and the possibility of fiscal stimulus – will Germany step up to save the bloc from recession? It’s going to be an interesting meeting, to say the least.

Thanks to Draghi’s decision to follow the Fed with an about-face back toward stimulus, economists don’t expect rate hikes in the eurozone until 2022, two years into Lagarde’s term. The answer to the question of whether the central bank has done all it can do to save the underlying economy, while seemingly obvious to thousands of market participants who have watched economic inequality soar during the international QE experiment, still hasn’t dawned on many economists.

During his final press conference, Bloomberg’s economists David Powell and Maeva Cousin expect Draghi to deliver an even more forceful plea to national governments to step in with fiscal stimulus.

“Draghi will likely reiterate – if not intensify – calls for fiscal policy to play a larger role. He can afford to shout louder and perhaps be more specific about who needs to act now that he’s leaving office. Further details on monetary policy are unlikely to emerge.”

But that likely won’t be all for Draghi. Here’s a roundup of what to expect during his final press conference, courtesy of Bloomberg.

Inflation Miss

Despite unprecedented monetary stimulus, Draghi has fared worse than his two predecessors on inflation, falling well short of the goal of below, but close to, 2%. The rate was 0.8% in September, the lowest in almost three years.

Officials have pledged to pursue record-low interest rates and large-scale asset purchases until price growth is firmly in line with the target, which they don’t expect until after 2021. Investors are trying to judge whether more rate cuts will be needed, and how long quantitative easing can run without the ECB hitting self-imposed limits on how much debt it can buy.

Worrying Outlook

ECB chief economist Philip Lane said last week that the currency bloc is facing a more extended slowdown than previously anticipated amid global trade tensions. Consumer confidence is at the weakest this year, and a survey of purchasing managers showed Thursday that the economy remained close to stagnation at the start of the fourth quarter.

While euro-area officials expect a downgrade to growth forecasts in December, that may not be enough to provoke more action though. Last month’s divisive decision has left little appetite to add to more stimulus any time soon.

Stimulus Controversy

The dispute over September’s decision was extraordinary. A third of the Governing Council opposed restarting QE and some of them vented their frustration publicly, prompting the president to warn that such dissent can undermine the ECB’s credibility.

For the first time, skepticism toward ever-looser monetary policy reached beyond the region’s core. Italy’s Ignazio Visco – usually a strong supporter – signaled he would be reluctant to back another rate cut further below zero. His maverick colleague Robert Holzmann of Austria wants a return to positive borrowing costs.

Fiscal Boost

With monetary policy stretched, Draghi has cranked up his call for governments to boost spending, telling an audience in Milan this month that countries such as the U.S. where fiscal support played a bigger role after the financial crisis saw a faster return to price stability. He’ll almost certainly hit that subject again. Whether he’ll be listened to is another question.

Germany is the country best placed to act because of its economic heft and its budget surplus. Yet Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann is skeptical, and the government has been reluctant – though there are signs it’s warming to the idea.

Data next month should confirm that the nation slipped into a recession. Even if that sparks a fiscal response though, it’s not clear how much the rest of the euro zone would benefit.

And maybe, for old time’s sake, we’ll get one more glitter bomb:


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/24/2019 – 06:00

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Wk3NLz Tyler Durden

Kagan and Gorsuch Clash Over Judicial Deference to the Administrative State

A major conflict is now underway on the U.S. Supreme Court between Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch over the issue of judicial deference to the administrative state.

Their division centers in part on whether an important Supreme Court precedent, Auer v. Robbins (1997), should be overruled. In Auer, the Court held that when an “ambiguous” regulation promulgated by a federal agency is challenged in court, the judge hearing the case should defer to the agency’s preferred interpretation of its own regulation. That interpretation, the Court held in Auer, is “controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations being interpreted.”

In June, the Court decided a case that asked the justices to end Auer once and for all. Writing for a narrow majority in Kisor v. Wilkie, Justice Elena Kagan saved the precedent from total destruction. “Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations,” Kagan wrote. “When it applies, Auer deference gives an agency significant leeway to say what its own rules mean. In so doing, the doctrine enables the agency to fill out the regulatory scheme Congress has placed under its supervision.”

Critics of Auer say the doctrine empowers bureaucrats at the expense of judges. Kagan acknowledged those critics but insisted that the doctrine is not an abdication. “First and foremost, a court should not afford Auer deference unless the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. If uncertainty does not exist, there is no plausible reason for deference.” According to Kagan, Auer “is a deference doctrine not quite so tame as some might hope, but not nearly so menacing as they might fear.”

Gorsuch disagreed. “It should have been easy for the Court to say goodbye to Auer,” he wrote in Kisor. Not only does Auer require judges “to accept an executive agency’s interpretation of its own regulations even when that interpretation doesn’t represent the best and fairest reading,” but the precedent also “creates a ‘systematic judicial bias in favor of the federal government, the most powerful of parties, and against everyone else.'”

Federal judges routinely “reach conclusions about the meaning of statutes, rules of procedure, contracts, and the Constitution,” Gorsuch pointed out. “Yet when it comes to interpreting federal regulations, Auer displaces this process and requires judges instead to treat the agency’s interpretation as controlling even when it is ‘not…the best one.'”

When the next case testing the bounds of the administrative state reaches the Supreme Court, Kagan and Gorsuch will be the ones drawing the battle lines.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/33VvRHx
via IFTTT

Johnstone: Only Cowards And Sadists Support The Persecution Of Assange

Johnstone: Only Cowards And Sadists Support The Persecution Of Assange

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Former British ambassador Craig Murray has published a very disturbing account of Julian Assange’s court appearance yesterday which I recommend reading in full. There have been many reports published about Assange’s case management hearing, but the combination of Murray’s prior experience with torture victims, his familiarity with British courts, his friendship with Assange, and his lack of reverence for western power structures allowed for a much more penetrating insight into what happened than anyone else has been able to provide so far.

Here is a small excerpt:

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.

Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture — even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture — and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

Murray reports that there were no fewer than five representatives of the US government in the Westminster Magistrates Court that day, and that there were seated behind the British prosecutors and essentially giving them orders. The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, reportedly behaved coldly and snarkily towards the defense, smirking and refusing their requests without explanation, while behaving warmly and receptively toward the prosecution. Assange’s extradition hearing will commence without delay on February of next year, despite the case violating the 2003 US/UK extradition treaty, and despite new evidence emerging of CIA-tied espionage on Assange and his lawyers while he was at the Ecuadorian embassy. It will commence in a tiny Belmarsh courtroom with almost no room for the public to provide scrutiny, without Assange’s defense having adequate time to prepare.

Assange’s lawyer Mark Summers told the court that the case was “a political attempt” by the United States “to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information.” And of course he’s right. Nobody sincerely believes that the 175-year sentence that Assange is looking at if he’s successfully extradited to the US by the Trump administration is a reasonable punishment for publishing activities which the Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute based on the exact same evidence, citing concern for the damage the precedent would do to press freedoms. These charges have nothing to do with justice, and they aren’t meant to be merely punitive. They’re made to serve as a deterrent. A deterrent to journalists anywhere in the world who might otherwise see fit to publish inconvenient facts about the US government.

This is obvious. It is obvious that the US government is destroying Assange to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information. It is therefore also obvious that any journalist who fails to use whatever platform they have to speak out against Assange’s persecution has no intention of ever publishing anything that the US government doesn’t want published. Their silence on or support for what is being done to this man can and should be taken as an admission that they are nothing other than state propagandists. State propagandists, sycophants, and cowards.

Cowardice is driving public support for Assange’s persecution. Cowardice and sadism. Even if every single bogus smear against him were true, from the lies about feces on embassy walls to the still evidence-free allegation of Trump/Russia collusion, even if every single one of those ridiculous fantasies were true, his punishment to date would be more than enough. I mean, exactly how much torture is appropriate because your preferred candidate wasn’t the one who was elected? How weird is it that such entitled sadism goes unquestioned? To continue to call for more is to reveal your sick fetish, whether you’re one of the powerful people he pissed off or just another mindless repeater in the comments section. Enough. You’ve had your pound of flesh.

We are watching a great tragedy unfold in a fractal-like way, from the zoomed-out meta tragedy of the worldwide death blow to press freedom, drilled down to the personal tragedy of this death blow to a man called Julian Assange. His once encyclopaedic brain can now barely remember his own birthday. This guts me. There are no other minds on earth that understood the power dynamics of invisible imperialism and the Orwellian dangers humanity now faces as we hurtle towards and AI-dominated information landscape as well as his did. That mind has been purposely destroyed. We must never forget that. We must never forgive that.

It’s been a tough day. My heart has been hurting and my sighs have been long. The only brightness I can see through the bleakness is the quandary that appears to be emerging for these nationless plutocrats who are pulling the strings. The more they get their way, the more obvious their actions must necessarily be, because the thing they are attempting to do is so totally abnormal. Yesterday’s court proceedings were blatantly farcical, from the curious rulings, to the strange sight of US advisers interfering in a UK case about an Australian citizen, down to even the dismissive smirk on the judge’s face. None of this is normal, and when things aren’t normal there is a risk that people will notice, and things are only going to get stranger as they attempt to pull this off.

The only thing keeping people from really seeing what’s going on here is a thin layer of narrative management, and the only thing keeping them from acting on their seeing is feeling like they are alone in their seeing. Keep the pressure up, keep watching, and keep talking about what you’re seeing to anyone who will listen. It may very well save Julian’s life.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/24/2019 – 05:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2qBMl9f Tyler Durden

A Year After Khashoggi Murder, ‘All Is Forgiven’ As Wall Street Flocks To MbS’ “Davos In The Desert”

A Year After Khashoggi Murder, ‘All Is Forgiven’ As Wall Street Flocks To MbS’ “Davos In The Desert”

When last year Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) hosted his second annual Future Investment Initiative, he was under international condemnation and scrutiny, and his invitation for major investment in modernizing the kingdom was immediately branded with pariah-status by global elites, given the event dubbed “Davos in the Desert“ awkwardly came a mere three weeks after the Oct. 2, 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the consulate in Istanbul. 

A year later we now know more about the Saudi state-sanctioned murder, with comprehensive investigative reports by the UN and CIA pointing the finger directly at MbS for ordering the grizzly hit and dismemberment, and though last year’s “Davos in the Desert” was boycotted by a number of high profile companies and CEOs, this year’s MbS-hosted investment forum in Riyadh appears business as usual once again, a mere one short year later. 

“Never mind the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi — there’s money to be made,” Axios aptly observes. 

“That’s the clear message sent by the list of grandees scheduled to attend the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia later this month.” 

File image from last year’s Future Investment Initiative hosted in Riyadh. 

CEOs from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and global industrial giants, as well as heads of state will flock apparently without qualms to the event set to begin Oct. 29, including India’s Narendra Modi and the man dubbed the ‘Brazilian Donald Trump,’ Jair Bolsonaro, and White House adviser and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, along with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — all who skipped last year’s event due to the Khashoggi killing. 

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, World Bank president David Malpass, and former White House communications chief Anthony Scaramucci are also slated to attend, among other big names. 

Axios further lists top financiers attending to include Japanese billionaire Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son, CEO of Citigroup Michael Corbat, as well as Tidjane Thiam, CEO of Credit Suisse, and Noel Quinn, CEO of HSBC. And further on the list are a who’s who of fund managers such as Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, Robert Smith of Vista, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, Larry Fink of BlackRock, Daniel Loeb of Third Point, and Barry Sternlicht of Starwood.

File image from last year’s Future Investment Initiative hosted in Riyadh. 

This after Wall Street largely boycotted last year’s event. Among the hottest topics is expected to be the question of Saudi Aramco’s delayed IPO, stalled following the Sept. 14 drone and missile attack on its biggest oil processing facility, after wide-spread skepticism over its touted $2 trillion valuation.

Bloomberg reports:

Senior executives from many of the 25 banks working on Aramco’s mammoth deal — which could see advisers sharing a fee pool of as much as $450 million — are set to attend next week’s meeting.

Axios obtained and published a “Draft Narrative Program” of the program, which is marked “Not Final — Subject to Change,” which revealed many of the aforementioned names and a draft guest list.

See the whole program here


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/24/2019 – 04:15

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2W8h1L4 Tyler Durden